Council tonight apparently approved the Waterside development by a vote of 13 - 1.

Still trying to determine whether it was Sloane or Watts who voted against it. My money is on Sloane.

By approved you mean they opted not to appeal the UARB decision, which had to be made on a point of law? I guess the Heritage Trust could also appeal, although they'd likely be throwing money away?

I wonder when this development will proceed?

Technically saying it was approved is wrong because it was never approved in the first place by HRM. ;)

Hopefully soon. Downtown needs a good office development underway and well unfortunately it doesn't look like IP is going ahead anytime soon so this is the only other true office development. :)

Halifax council gets behind Waterside Centre project

By JUDY MYRDEN Staff Reporter
Tue. Apr 7 - 10:15 PM
Councillors moved Tuesday night to put the $16-million Waterside Centre office tower debacle behind them.

By a vote of 13-1, council approved Halifax developer Ben McCrea’s controversial proposal for a nine-storey office and retail building in downtown Halifax.
Council also voted not to appeal the March 26 decision of the provincial Utility and Review Board to overturn the previous council’s rejection of the proposal in October. Council voted 9-9 at that time, with a tie vote signifying a defeat, but the makeup of council has changed since then due to the October municipal election.

“I was appreciative of the board’s decision, and Mr. McCrea was vindicated,” said Coun. Reg Rankin (Timberlea-Prospect), who has supported the Waterside Centre proposal from the beginning.

“I suppose I’d like to think because it was a split vote to begin with, that perhaps it might be considered mean-spirited not to allow Mr. McCrea to get on with business.”

Mr. Rankin said it was only logical for council to yield to the decision of the review board, which ruled on an appeal launched by Mr. McCrea’s Armour Group.

The board found last month that council had failed to reasonably carry out the intent of the city’s Municipal Planning Strategy.

If council had decided to appeal the board’s decision, the outcome would have been uncertain and council could have ended up paying the legal bills for both sides if it lost, he said.

Coun. Steve Streatch (Eastern Shore-Musquodoboit Valley) was the one who made the motion that council approve the development agreement and allow the Armour Group to redevelop the four municipally registered heritage buildings that will form the bottom part of the Waterside Centre on a site bounded by Hollis, Duke and Upper Water streets.

The buildings’ facades and some roof details will be retained and a new structure built on top.

I think the article is missing something ... oh wait its the anti-development rant from Sloane and the HT. Seriously though its nice to see the suburban/rural councillors for this one. :)

Yeah... I was wondering the same thing.

Halifax Regional Council will not Appeal NSUARB Decision

(Tuesday, April 7, 2009) - Halifax Regional Council voted today against filing an appeal of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board’s (NSUARB) recent decision to overturn Council’s decision not to approve the proposed Waterside Centre development.

“After review, Council has accepted the Board’s decision and has decided not to appeal,” said Mayor Kelly.

As a result, by Order of the Board, later this evening Council will also approve the development agreement application submitted by the Armour Group. This agreement would be executed once the appeal period expires on April 24, 2009.

Waterside developer has one more hurdle to clear
PAUL MCLEOD
METRO HALIFAX
April 09, 2009 12:15 a.m.

Developer Ben McCrea has a final message to the Heritage Trust — do you want a building or a parking lot?

There’s only one possible hurdle left for McCrea’s waterside development. Council originally voted to block it, but the vote was overturned by the Utility and Review Board.

This week, council announced it would not appeal that decision.

But the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, an intervener in the hearings, could still launch an appeal.

McCrea said if he isn’t able to build the new development in the current O’Carroll’s site, then the building will have to be demolished.

“Anything that removes from my company and me the ominous prospect of having to demolish heritage buildings I’m pleased with,” he said.

“Everyone should now recognize, even (Heritage Trust president Phil Pacey), that there are only in fact two alternatives … if you refuse this development then the only consequence can be demolition.”

McCrea said Pacey disseminated misinformation to council — “whether purposeful or from a lack of knowledge” — that contributed to the original vote to block the development.

The Heritage Trust has not yet decided whether it will appeal the decision.

Now see its this kind of attitude that I hate and why I got so set against this development throughout the process. Its because of this attitude that so many people in this city believe developers to be evil people. Issuing ultimatums is not the way to go about any kind of business let alone development.

Bennie oh boy has been using that tatic all along. As far as I'm concerned any developer that would tear down those buildings just for spite should be banished from development.

If anyone applies for a demolition permit for a registered heritage building then the approval for demolition should come from a vote from council not a demolition permit clerk.

Heritage group pondering Waterside appeal
April 09, 2009 - 5:36 am
By: Rick Howe







City council has abandoned its opposition to the Waterside Centre, but the way isn't quite cleared for the development to proceed.

Regional councillors voted 13 to 1 on Tuesday night to approve plans for the nine-storey office tower on Lower Water Street - and decided not to appeal the UARB decision that overturned its earlier rejection of the proposal.

Developer Ben McCrae says he's delighted with council's about-face, but he can't begin construction just yet. He's waiting now for the Heritage Trust to decide whether it will appeal the UARB ruling.

Heritage Trust President Phil Pacey says his organization hasn't made a decision on the appeal, but he's still very concerned about the project.

"It just sends a terrible message to the world if this three-block group of heritage buildings that we call Historic Properties, if we can't keep those intact, that is a terrible failure," he said.

Pacey says there is a potential alternative to the Waterside Centre, which would preserve the facades of four heritage buildings to form the lower portion of the tower.

"For the province to acquire these buildings and renovate them for the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design," he said. "We don't need to tear down heritage buildings in order to have office space in downtown."

The Heritage Trust has about two weeks left to decide on an appeal. If it does not appeal the decision, McCrae says there's still a few months of design work to complete before the tower is shovel-ready and construction will take about 15 months

...?
First, I don't think I've ever heard the name Historic Properties apply to the buildings in question, or the buildings one block to the west. I have only ever heard Historic Properties in reference to the buildings on the waterfront.
Second, they haven't been intact for years. Is he forgetting that the building which houses the mall was completely renovated? Hell I'm pretty sure the block to the west of Waterside Centre isn't even in its original form.

Has NSCAD indicated interest in returning to that space? Has the province indicated interest in taking over and renovating those properties? Why does Phil Pacey think he knows what everybody else wants to or is willing to do?

The west side of Granville street mall was tore down and rebuilt.

I for one would be frustrated just like the developer is with the constant delays and obstruction the Heritage trust is causing.

Everyone should read Pacey's comments in yestersdays allnovascotia.com

Yes, I know - I'm referring to the block between Granville and Hollis.

Got ya

That term is going to pop up everywhere now. :haha:

FOund this today as well


HRM killing the goose
Sacrificing heritage won’t help the downtown
By OWEN CARRIGAN
Thu. Apr 9 - 5:53 AM
Is development at the expense of heritage a good business decision? Do the architecture and scale of a city influence the quality of life? The Utility and Review Board’s approval of the construction of a highrise office building in the middle of Historic Properties once again sacrifices heritage for business. The decision is heralded by the business community and many members of the public as being a good one and another step towards the creation of a modern city. However, at what cost?

Halifax is one of the few major cities that can boast of a vibrant downtown core and an Old World charm. We have many classic style buildings, Victorian streetscapes, parks and gardens. In recent years, a sprouting of sidewalk cafes has added to the ambience and enhanced the area’s livability. People like to walk, shop and live in or near the downtown. This is good for business.

Equally positive, from an economic viewpoint, is the tourist trade. Halifax is among the most popular destinations for visitors in the country. Last summer, 125 cruise ships visited the port, carrying thousands of passengers. Thousands more came by plane, tour bus and car. Halifax has also become a major venue for conferences, meetings and exhibitions. Accommodation room-nights sold in metro were up by four per cent over the previous year.

Visitors do not come to Halifax to admire tall buildings, to walk in shadows and wind tunnels, or to shop for condos. The character of the city is the main attraction. This is acknowledged by the province’s tourism plan, which uses the slogan "Old World charm," and by visitors who praise the Halifax experience.

There is a fiction that all development enhances the city and is good for business. While there have been some attractive projects, there also have been some disasters and near-disasters. Some years ago, there were plans to construct a circumferential roadway along the waterfront. Heritage advocates succeeded in stopping the project and Historic properties, a major tourist attraction, was built in its place. Scotia Square is an ugly, stressed concrete edifice out of sync with the downtown core. The two milk cartons known as Purdy’s Wharf block the view of the harbour.

Highrise construction along Spring Garden Road has created wind tunnels and casts shadows on the Public Gardens, interfering with public enjoyment. The so-called "Twisted Sisters" will cast shadows, contribute to a wind-tunnel effect and will be a foreign object on the street.

The highrise condo on Summer Street known as Summer Gardens required the abolition of an entire Victorian streetscape. Included was the Heart House, one of the best preserved and most attractive homes in the area. If protected, it could have been made into a museum and major tourist attraction. Older homes in many cities have been authentically furnished and opened to the public. They are popular destinations for visitors, create jobs, and increase traffic for local businesses.

Heritage is good for business and quality of life. There are alternate sites for highrise buildings without destroying the city’s character. The huge parcel of land occupied by the Cogswell Street Interchange could be converted as a site for commercial buildings. There are also older downtown buildings that could be renovated for offices.

Those who support highrise construction in the downtown should give more thought to the result. The shadows will block the sun and, one by one, sidewalk cafes will disappear. The wind tunnels will make it unpleasant for pedestrian traffic. Soon the cruise ships and bus tours will cease calling because we will have eliminated our Old World charm. We will look like any other city, a scaled-down version of Toronto. We will have killed the goose that lays the golden egg.

Owen Carrigan is vice-president of HRM Homeowners Association.

I read this today and just shook my head. So many poorly thought out points:

Right off the bat he falls into a hole. The choice was between Waterside and a parking lot. Status quo was never an option once NSCAD moved out.

He has obviously not been downtown much. I would hardly call it vibrant, except along the waterfront for a couple of months in the summer.

None of which has anything to do with the old buildings.

I would need to see proof that visitors come here to see our unremarkable old buildings.

Dredging up decisions made 45 years ago does not help the cause.

Neither does insulting two of the more interesting buildings in the downtown. If they were 100 years old he would be slapping "heritage property" plaques all over them.

Absolute total nonsense.

For god's sake man, we have nothing BUT museums. I hardly think we need any more. As for the rest of that Victorian streetscape, it was falling down and a decrepit firetrap. What is there looks identical.

This is just bloody ridiculous: The End Of The World As We Know It. And, as usual, they have to throw in the Toronto reference.

One has to wonder if the association is aligned with these views. I hardly think that stopping downtown development would be good for residential tax rates.

This simply epitomizes the attitudes that hold Halifax back. What is wrong with these people?

excellent remarks keith

I true wonder if the assoc. shares the same views.

100% Agree

Is it just me or are these a huge contradiction of each other? So Purdy's blocks the view of the water, but a building built across the street wouldn't? I'm sure it's been said before, but it would be interesting to see the tally of postcards that have Purdy's as the focal point compared to the O'Carrol's block.

Bingo. I know I've said that a few times. I would also like to see what statistics he used to determine that nobody travels to Halifax to look at the tall buildings. I know for a fact a lot of people do. Just because he doesn't see the use of them, he assumes nobody does. If people didn't find these buildings nice to look at, as you said, there wouldn't be post cards featuring downtown buildings.

It's funny too, as I've never heard before anybody argue that Purdy's blocks views of the harbour. I mean yes they do, that's a fact - but I've never heard it brought up against these specific buildings before.

This article might be the first time I've heard anything negative about those buildings. They definitely do block a part of the harbour depending on where one is standing, but the same can be said for Historic Properties. If I am standing on Lower Water Street, they block my view of the harbour too. Obviously that is a rediculus comment, but I think the comment of Purdy's blocking the view should be put in the same category, it all depends on ones point of view.

Cambridge Suites hotel also blocks a significant amout of harbour view form the Citadel. This is a building that HT uses an example of great development. Purdy's I & II are likely the best modern highrise office buildings in HRM.

Followed closely by 1801 Hollis and Queen Square


Okay, maybe not QS for everyone :)

I think the funniest / saddest thing about this pathetic "article" is when he refers to a 9 story building as a highrise.

Well... it was... In the 19th century... which is where most of his ideas seem to come from.

Found this one today. Wonder if there is any relation to Beverly miller.

Profit trumps all?


Two recent Herald commentaries suggested HRM citizens are obligated to allow developers to avoid development guidelines if they claim to have paid too much for a property, given its zoning. It follows that a need for profit is the trump card for demolition decisions.

Think how valuable the land will be under the Bank of Nova Scotia on Hollis, the Old Burying Ground on Barrington, and St. Paul’s Church on the Grand Parade if we just demolish these and replace them with tall buildings.

Who other than the proponent claimed there was no alternative but his for the Upper Water Street heritage properties? The recent decision of the Utility and Review Board is a great invitation to the demolition industry to claim to have paid too much for properties and to use this as a crutch to flaunt land-use bylaws.

The burden is now on HRM (i.e., you and I) to prove the existence of profitable alternatives to demolition for overpriced properties.


Robert Miller, Halifax

Demolition industry? Now that isn't at all a loaded phrase. I suppose the "burden" is on Mr. Miller to open his pocketbook and purchase some of his favorite "overpriced properties" and prove to "HRM (i.e., you and I)... profitable alternatives".

Perhaps if Robert, Heritage Trust, et al had done that all along, rather than fight court battles attempting to block other property owners from developing their land in a timely, useful, aesthetic and, yes, profitable manner, we would have more heritage AND modern vibrancy, and fewer empty lots, derelict and dis-repaired buildings and public and political hostilities.

Well to be fair, a great many professional standards define anything above 23 m as a high-rise.

Robert Miller's claim that the developer got to build this because they argued they paid too much is simply wrong. That is not what the URB considered in their decision.

I get so tired of these ignorant and dishonest letters - many from the public at large are utterly clueless and many from those involved in lobbying efforts are basically part of a smear campaign.

What planet are these people living on? This is all the more ammunition for the new development group that will be coming online shortly.

Mr Carrigan should give the whole subject more thought and realize that it is cheap ugly construction that is destroying this town and not buildings like Purdy's, Founders Square and 1801 Hollis.

Oh will they give up on the fucking Toronto references already...like its a bad thing...If Toronto were to disappear today it would have still had more tourist attractions and street life then we'll ever have.

I'd like to see one cruise ship operator state that their ships stop here specifically so that travelers can see historic buildings.

Wiki stuff...
 

So, for fun, I was looking at the Downtown Halifax page on Wikipedia. The section on 'Historic areas and buildings' was particularly large (compared to other sections on the page), and seemed 'a little biased', shall we say. Following the links from there led me to pages on the Waterside Centre, and the former Sweet Basil building.

All seemed, to me, at least, a little biased an clearly favouring one side of the debate (and ergo the facts). I was tempted to add/edit, but thought I may be off base, and that there were probably people here more knowledgeable than myself on the matter here.

So... thoughts?

I have some family members who work at O'Carrolls.

I was talking to them tonight and according to them O'Carrolls is shutting down this New Year's.

The restaurant is currently moving across the street to the ford court and while I don't think it will be under the same name it will be run by the same people and should be opened this June.

:)

re: The wiki entry... I'm not so sure about the conspiracy theory... but there are factual errors. The article says that the developer managed to get the heritage designation removed from the Sweet Basil building... but it was never protected in the first place.

I thought about flagging that for dispute too, but it is factually true. It was designated historic, but as a result of a clerical error. The article kind of hints at that in the previous paragraph. Something to the effect that Armour did have the heritage designation removed in court by arguing it was an error.

Perhaps a better course of action would be to add a section to the article talking about growth, perhaps HRM by Design, and some of the proposed and approved developments.

I added a little tidbit on the end of the waterside center page.

The Board overturned Halifax council's decision on March 26, 2009 and Halifax council voted on April 7 not to not to appeal the Board's decision.[13] This was in favor of the building being demolished and turned into a vacant lot used to park a few cars at.

news out in Allnovascotia.com that Heritage trust will not be appealing the decision of the UARB and that Waterside Centre is a green light and will be granted a development agreement.

Sweet, just the news we needed.

Nice. :)

And with the news in my family who work in the buildings construction should begin in Early 2010.

Oh thank GAWD. Maybe it was reaction to the HBD hearing that had an effect.

This development might not be anything of particular interest 10 years from now, but given the economic situation and the possibility that getting tenants quickly might spur further office development downtown, the time and place makes getting it built ASAP a particular priority.

It's not so much what the building itself would do, but what it might encourage based on the success it could be poised to have given the low vacancy rates that might bring competition of newer, better buildings.

Like international place!

Heritage group won't appeal Halifax Waterside development ruling
Last Updated: Monday, April 27, 2009 | 5:05 PM AT Comments3Recommend4CBC News
The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia has decided not appeal a decision allowing a nine-storey development to proceed near the Halifax waterfront.

Phil Pacey, president of the Heritage Trust, said his group reluctantly decided there wasn't enough time to save several old buildings in the Upper Water Street area.

Armour Group Ltd. would be able to get a permit to demolish the Imperial Oil building at the end of May, and several other buildings at the end of October, Pacey said.

"We did not feel that there would be a purpose served by appealing the utility and review board decision," he told CBC News Monday.

Armour Group plans to erect a nine-storey office building behind the facades of four historic properties.

Halifax regional council rejected the $16-million Waterside Centre last year, arguing the development didn't comply with the municipality's planning rules.

Armour Group appealed that decision to the utility and review board.

Last month, the board overturned council's decision, saying the Waterside Centre proposal furthers the economic development of downtown Halifax and ensures reuse of the buildings.

Both the municipality and the Heritage Trust, which was an intervener in the case, had 30 days to decide whether to appeal.

Pacey said he still believes the review board's decision is flawed, and that the development proposal breaks faith with the people in the 1970s who stopped the bulldozers to save the Historic Properties nearby.

The municipality said earlier this month it won't appeal the review board's decision

No work until early 2010? Too bad.

thats the first i;ve heard that date. I would assume there would be preleasing requirements to fulfill now.

Also i guess the title can change now from proposed to approved.

Like international place!

Sure thing. And with that going up there'd be impeteus for the tower to go up on those former church lands on the far side of Cogswell, for the new tower atop the discovery center, plus Amera and so forth. Which in turn drives up cost of living in the southern part of the North End and encourages a slow but sure push up Gottigen (which is sort of already happening).

Halifax has some particular general advantages with it's lower wages and access to several universities that are more affordable than others inland. Younger folks from central Canada might arrive, find an entry-level position in Halifax and stay on. It's unlikely that whatever development comes it's way will be tied to any specific industry (like Alberta and it's oil) and it will be well diversified.

I'd like to hope by the time my younger sisters have kids the necessity of moving from Nova Scotia to find jobs will be a thing of the past. Maybe TO or Vancouver will still be where you want to go to earn the MUCHO lira, but that if you're fine making a given competative wage there's no need for anyone to go anywhere.

Indeed the universities and the diversified economy makes Halifax a much more recession proof centre than most in Canada. We don't tend to boom, but we definitely don't bust either. That said, you're somewhat off the mark about our universities being affordable. Check out the 2008 and 2009 figures from Statscan here. Undergraduate tuition in Nova Scotia is actually the highest in the country. Students may love it here, but they graduate with high debt loads from the country's most expensive universities into a marketplace that pays them less. The cost of living is less here, but it's only less if you're buying real estate, which if you're graduating into a relatively low-paying job with a huge debt load isn't really in the cards. Everything else costs the same or more. All of this means we're not living up to the potential we have. We really should half our tuition or at least get down to the middle of the pack again... Not that it would do me any good, I'm done school and now have to chip away at the approximately $70,000 I owe.

I don't understand how people owe that much for an undergrad degree, as a student currently attending university in NS, I have paid off most of my first year and I never had any scholarships to bring it down. I currently owe 1grand on my loan which I can easily pay over the summer. Getting a job and not spending your money on many things besides school while your in it is the way to go. Working 2 days a week during school and full time in the summer, you can normally pay off most of your student loan for that year.

Also I really hope Halifax becomes a viable place for me to work after I am finished. The way it is now, just isn't so. Being a Global Business Managment Major Halifax just doesn't offer the jobs that I would need. More offices and companies coming to Halifax would be a welcome thing for most university students and residents of Nova Scotia. The government giving tax breaks to companies who could sign a contract that they would have an operation here for 5-10 years and not pack up and go when a spot of trouble hits would really help the business in Halifax.

I know the degrees in Halifax are unnecessarily expensive -- in fact I'm not certain what justifies those rates.

It's still managable, though. I ended up with a student loan of somewhere around 40,000 from 2003 and I paid it off last year. That might sound like a long time at 5 years, but after I got to a certain level I took my time with it: it was down to 5,000 while I did some other things with my money.