Pre-leasing has begun for 6112 Quinpool. There will be four retail pads with the anchor pad having 9'800sq ft accessed off of Quinpool. Existing businesses have until the end of the year to relocate. Completion is aimed for Winter 2017.

Have there been any new, more detailed renderings? The previous one was seriously lacking in detail (and I'm hoping, probably in vain, for that awful rounded corner portion to be turned into a right angle).

I don't think it has changed. The website that cannot be named shows a rendering today that still includes that feature.

http://cwatlantic.com/wp-content/upl...d-1024x512.jpg
http://cwatlantic.com/wp-content/upl...y-1024x524.jpg
http://cwatlantic.com/wp-content/upl...w-1024x523.jpg
http://cwatlantic.com/wp-content/upl...w-1024x514.jpg
http://cwatlantic.com/wp-content/upl...w-1024x563.jpg
Source for All Images: Cushman Wakefield Atlantic
Property Brochure

That'd be decent (if not exactly landmark-worthy) if not for that awful rounded bit.

I saw drawings for this project recently and it does still have the rounded bit. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Pardon my ignorance, but what makes the rounded part so bad? I'm still new to this building critiquing thing.

So we are protesting the rounded corner like the rounded corner on the YMCA building that everybody wanted preserved?

Just a personal opinion, not meant to stir up animosity. I just think it looks clunky and not very graceful, and somewhat dated, like the kind of cheapie infill we saw in Canadian cities throughout the 90s. The plans submitted to council indicate the curved corner portion will be a glass-and-aluminum curtain wall, which just screams "cheap."

It's better than what's there now of course, by a longshot—I just don't like the design much, and I think it's going to be kind of a gateway on the eastern edge of Quinpool.

Deleted.

I appreciate the reply. If the rest of the building is going to be brick, all the glass does look a tad out of place. I don't necessarily think that it should be a right angle right at the corner, it seems like that would be very abrupt visually, considering that is the corner facing the intersection.

I don't think it is the nicest building we've approved either. It isn't the Vic. It isn't Maple. I think Council could pass some design manual style direction like there is in downtown but really as a society you need to have residents and business peers demanding higher quality than we've become accustomed to, as it is more a matter of taste than something that is legislated.

I like the curve, but I don't like how awkward the glass in the curve is. If they replaced every other glass pane with brick I think it would look a lot better.

This building does a really good job of being sensitive to the residential side of things on Pepperell. I am a little curious though as to who they expect to take the commercial space on that street; it's not very visible.

I think that would improve the look by keeping with the theme of the rest of the building. The glass in the curve and the rest of the building appear to have been designed by different architects who never communicated during the design phase.

What the heck is the point of passing development criteria manuals when city council doesn't have the b***s to make anybody stick to them?? I suppose some consultants could line their pockets AGAIN to come up with something that city council would screw up on their first chance....

The design criteria don't apply here. Only within downtown.

That's not to say that staff couldn't use the development agreement process to impose similar or new criteria for buildings like this outside of downtown, but, like Waye says, the critique has to come from citizens... instead of the comments at public information sessions and meetings being related only to height and traffic counts, people need to care enough about what their neighbourhoods will look like and, I'd argue, how they support healthy complete neighbourhoods.

I could understand it, if the rounded section formed part of a number of specially designed suites (premium, maybe?) with floor to ceiling windows for broader views. Not sure if that is the plan. I can see the attraction in a room with a rounded side, with windows across it.

It is too bad that the glass/aluminum, curtain walled, rounded section clashes with the red brick section but my first reaction was that it looks good. The initiation report indicates that they are using real brick and masonry so to be fair to the developer they are not using cheap materials. Here is the previously posted report - http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...0110ca1115.pdf .

I think this is just a matter of one's personal taste as you pointed out. "Clunky" (i.e. short and rather massive) and clad in red brick is a style that has been around for at least a couple hundred years so saying it is from the 90's isn't a fair statement. I would say it is from a hundred years ago (except for the glass/aluminum section) and therefore is a conservative style as opposed to a contemporary style that will be dated within 10-20 years.

FWIW, I like the space at street level that looks oriented for retail. :)

I agree. And it's on three sides, with very little dead space. The overall massing looks good, too. What I'm not a fan of is concrete cladding that imitates stone, but fails. I hope they don't make a poor choice.