SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=223)
-   -   [Halifax] RBC Waterside Centre | 37 m | 9 fl | Completed (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=144928)

sdm Dec 7, 2008 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 3959009)
Now, wait a minute. I am no expert on this, but don't you have to bring them up to code if you do any significant renovation at all, even within the existing building envelope? So if the business case is not there to bring them up to code, what you are saying is that they need to remain EXACTLY as they are, in EXACTLY their current use, forever. So if O'Carroll's went out of business tomorrow, or Subway moved out, you would have to find another restaurant or fast food outlet to replace them that would be happy with their current condition; otherwise they would have to remain empty since it would be economically unsound to renovate them to any other use.

You cannot freeze downtown (or any area) in time forever unless you are in fact willing to devote public funds to create a museum district. Stop bashing the developer for trying to do the right thing.

Great points Keith, and taking it one further. Even your senario that O'carrolls and subway left and someone wanted the space the way it sits (highly rare mind you) it wouldn't matter. You have to file for an occupancy permit at which time an inspection will be conducted on the premises to see if they are up to code.

Empire Dec 7, 2008 8:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 3959009)
Now, wait a minute. I am no expert on this, but don't you have to bring them up to code if you do any significant renovation at all, even within the existing building envelope? So if the business case is not there to bring them up to code, what you are saying is that they need to remain EXACTLY as they are, in EXACTLY their current use, forever. So if O'Carroll's went out of business tomorrow, or Subway moved out, you would have to find another restaurant or fast food outlet to replace them that would be happy with their current condition; otherwise they would have to remain empty since it would be economically unsound to renovate them to any other use.

You cannot freeze downtown (or any area) in time forever unless you are in fact willing to devote public funds to create a museum district. Stop bashing the developer for trying to do the right thing.

So you are saying demolish all buildings that require expensive upgrades. That would include the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Art Gallery, Province House, the Lieutenants Gov residence, the provincial gov building on Barrington, the Wesin Hotel, the town clock, historic properties and the old post office on Bedford Row.

The developer isn't doing the right thing by demolishing these buildings.

someone123 Dec 7, 2008 9:09 PM

Some people think we can get the developers to pay extra to support specific kinds of buildings for the public good. That is a naive approach that is doomed to fail - developers will just favour new buildings and empty lots that are more efficient, equally taxed, and come with no negative strings attached. This is exactly what we have been seeing downtown.

I have no problem with the city spending some money on heritage buildings. If the city implemented tax rebates and funding for facade improvements the downtown would end up looking much better. It would ultimately cost very little because it would result in more business in the downtown core. This is what many, many other cities have been doing for decades.

Unfortunately, as far as I know HRM council has yet to follow through with this even for Barrington Street. Most of the blame here rests with council. They are either clueless when it comes to the downtown, simply don't care, or, even worse, think they can sabotage the downtown to favour their own districts.

It's really frustrating to me because Halifax could be so far ahead right now, but almost totally wasted the last cycle of economic prosperity when it came to improving the downtown.

Takeo Dec 7, 2008 9:11 PM

The statement about the Shaw building being the only one worth saving was about aesthetics, not structural integrity... so the stress fracture debate is irrelevant to the original discussion. The point is (or was) that the Shaw building is the only really nice building on the site. The Imperial Oil building is ok. The others are pretty plain. It wouldn't bother me to see them come down. Personally. That said, this discussions is irrelevant as well since the only options Ben seems to be entertaining are saving all 4 or demolishing all 4.

Takeo Dec 7, 2008 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3959074)
If the city implemented some tax rebates and funding for facade improvements the downtown would end up looking much better.

They could start with Freaks Lunchbox. What they've done with that facade should be a criminal offense. Of course, there are lots of other examples of defaced historic facades. In fact... almost all of Barrington Street has been defaced to some degree. But Freak's is the most obvious example.

Empire Dec 7, 2008 9:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3959074)
Unfortunately, as far as I know HRM council has yet to follow through with this even for Barrington Street. Most of the blame here rests with council. They are either clueless when it comes to the downtown, simply don't care, or, even worse, think they can sabotage the downtown to favour their own districts.

It's really frustrating to me because Halifax could be so far ahead right now, but almost totally wasted the last cycle of economic prosperity when it came to improving the downtown.

It is amazing that council slept through 8 years of very high growth potential. In that time almost nothing has been done downtown. This city is run run like a town of 10,000 people with limited growth potential.

Keith P. Dec 7, 2008 9:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3959042)
So you are saying demolish all buildings that require expensive upgrades.

Of course not. However:

Quote:

That would include the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Art Gallery, Province House, the Lieutenants Gov residence, the provincial gov building on Barrington, the Wesin Hotel, the town clock, historic properties and the old post office on Bedford Row.
Bank of Nova Scotia remains as a bank. Only upgrades needed are for function, not code.

Art Gallery was totally gutted and brought up to code about 15 years ago.

Province House's use will never change. However it requires significant upgrades. Most office use has been moved out. It is mostly a ceremonial space now.

The L-Gs residence is in the midst of a massive upgrade right now and is a good example of what we are discussing. It is costing many millions more than originally estimated and is way behind schedule because of the difficulties encountered with such an old structure.

I know of no provincial govt bldg on Barrington. If you are talking about the Provincial Building on Hollis, that was totally redone in the 1990s at huge cost.

The Westin needs significant upgrades. I am unsure how much longer it can remain competitive as a decent hotel.

The Town Clock is a ridiculous example.

Historic Properties was subject to exactly what Waterside was all about. Are you daft? There is very little in there that is old.

The old post office was totally gutted in the 1990s.

Note that the only ones other than publicly-owned bldgs subject to this sort of expensive treatment is Historic Properties, as done by Ben McCrae. There usually isn't an economic case to do this without changing the size/use of the building.

someone123 Dec 7, 2008 9:55 PM

The fact is that many of the preserved historic buildings downtown have been subject to the same kinds of modifications that would happen with the Waterside Centre.

Some buildings have very high quality interiors and are of exceptional historical and cultural significance. They should be preserved inside and out. None of the buildings being talked about for this proposal qualify.

Ultimately I see this proposal as yet another change that people are making a fuss over for no real reason. If it is ever completed it will be forgotten about because 90% of what is good about this site will remain. The 10% is a good trade for seeing investment and activity on a block instead of underuse and slow decline. If we were to repeat developments like this in other parts of the downtown core, fully restore the best buildings, demolish the worst ones, and fill in empty lots, the difference would be like night and day. The downtown would be very successful and Halifax would be one of the best cities around because of its long list of advantages.

I don't expect this to happen because leadership in the city is so poor. I was just reading a Bloomfield article and it's more of the same - spend 10 years running a community centre in the red, wasting millions, and then refuse to spend public money on the redevelopment. It doesn't get much worse than that.

dartmouthian Dec 7, 2008 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3959074)
Some people think we can get the developers to pay extra to support specific kinds of buildings for the public good. That is a naive approach that is doomed to fail - developers will just favour new buildings and empty lots that are more efficient, equally taxed, and come with no negative strings attached. This is exactly what we have been seeing downtown.

I have no problem with the city spending some money on heritage buildings. If the city implemented tax rebates and funding for facade improvements the downtown would end up looking much better. It would ultimately cost very little because it would result in more business in the downtown core. This is what many, many other cities have been doing for decades.

Unfortunately, as far as I know HRM council has yet to follow through with this even for Barrington Street. Most of the blame here rests with council. They are either clueless when it comes to the downtown, simply don't care, or, even worse, think they can sabotage the downtown to favour their own districts.

It's really frustrating to me because Halifax could be so far ahead right now, but almost totally wasted the last cycle of economic prosperity when it came to improving the downtown.

I couldn't agree with you more. it's so depressing to watch as one heritage building after another are torn down while the government only makes the problem worse:yuck:

hfx_chris Dec 7, 2008 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 3959141)
Of course not. However:

Aww, I was just going to do exactly what you did, but since you've already did that I won't bother. My point was going to be that a lot of those Empire mentioned are publicly owned buildings, and most of them are of much more significant historical worth than a group of old shops. Province House, Government House, town clock, the AGNS, Dominion Public Building (old post office) and Bank of NS are worth significantly more to the public than these buildings. Plus, as keith pointed out, using Historic Properties to make your point is pointless, as the interiors are almost completely new.
If it's privately owned, at the end of the day it's entirely up to the owner. If they can justify the dollars required to get the building to where it needs to be, then that's a decision they need to make.

Empire Dec 7, 2008 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 3959141)
Of course not. However:



Bank of Nova Scotia remains as a bank. Only upgrades needed are for function, not code.

Art Gallery was totally gutted and brought up to code about 15 years ago.

Province House's use will never change. However it requires significant upgrades. Most office use has been moved out. It is mostly a ceremonial space now.

The L-Gs residence is in the midst of a massive upgrade right now and is a good example of what we are discussing. It is costing many millions more than originally estimated and is way behind schedule because of the difficulties encountered with such an old structure.

I know of no provincial govt bldg on Barrington. If you are talking about the Provincial Building on Hollis, that was totally redone in the 1990s at huge cost.

The Westin needs significant upgrades. I am unsure how much longer it can remain competitive as a decent hotel.

The Town Clock is a ridiculous example.

Historic Properties was subject to exactly what Waterside was all about. Are you daft? There is very little in there that is old.

The old post office was totally gutted in the 1990s.

Note that the only ones other than publicly-owned bldgs subject to this sort of expensive treatment is Historic Properties, as done by Ben McCrae. There usually isn't an economic case to do this without changing the size/use of the building.

You clearly misunderstand the issue. The point is that it takes more money than your average Joe developer can spit out to maintain heritage buildings downtown. The buildings I mentioned demonstrate that public funds are necessary for the survival of our heritage buildings. While the Waterside buildings are not at the same level as a handful of buildings that the government can support they are still important. This level of registered heritage building has been and will continue to be an easy target for developers. They are in prime locations and the developer whines about losing money so they can demolish them. If this is the case then don't buy the property in the first place. The second part of the Waterside issue is that it knocks a massive hole in what could be a Historic Properties District. Incorporating heritage buildings can work in some cases....Founders Square is a prime example of an excellent development. Founders Square did not disrupt a potential Historic District. The Waterside building is "at best" of very average design with "at best" very average materials. Under your approved plan all of the middle of the road heritage buildings will be blasted away and the gov sponsored buildings will be the only trace that Halifax was once a great and formidable city!!!

Barrington south Dec 7, 2008 11:36 PM

someone123 said:"if the city implemented tax rebates or funding for facade improvements the downtown would look much better" the city does in fact offer exactly that: funding for facade improvements. I know this because at the Henry House (which I co own) we have had extensive facade work done (we won the Capital district urban design awards "Honorable mention for building design: restoration category" 2005) and we received substantial cash rebates from HRM Heritage Dept for it. I'm not at liberty to say how much we received, but they offer up to 50% back. So the dilapidated state of many buildings in the core also has a lot to due with owners themselves....they should take a little pride in ownership and splash out a few bucks, if everyone did the downtown would be much more attractive

Barrington south Dec 7, 2008 11:52 PM

the exact dept is...HRM Community Development: Heritage property Program. the city could do a lot more though, your right someone123

Empire Dec 8, 2008 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrington south (Post 3959314)
someone123 said:"if the city implemented tax rebates or funding for facade improvements the downtown would look much better" the city does in fact offer exactly that: funding for facade improvements. I know this because at the Henry House (which I co own) we have had extensive facade work done

The Henry House is a fantastic example of how Halifax can blend old and new. The Georgian style and granite construction is a prime example of what we need to perserve. The issue is that some of the other buildings mentioned are in locations that could support big developments and have the zoning that will allow a much larger building than could be built at the Henery House location. Bacically it comes down to location and for a lot of buildings on Barrington it is a cat and mouse game of wait it out until the building falls down. ie: the "Roy Building"

Keith P. Dec 8, 2008 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3959373)
The issue is that some of the other buildings mentioned are in locations that could support big developments and have the zoning that will allow a much larger building than could be built at the Henery House location. Bacically it comes down to location and for a lot of buildings on Barrington it is a cat and mouse game of wait it out until the building falls down. ie: the "Roy Building"

No, the issue is whether we want the downtown to be a museum district or a vibrant, growing business district. If you want the latter then a lot of old buildings will go away by necessity. The Roy Building is a good example. It is a remarkably unremarkable piece of architecture and I see no reason to go to the brink to preserve such a building. Examples like the Henry House are nice but in reality only a very few old buildings can find an economical use without doing things like Waterside proposed.

You appear to want a museum district so there is little to be gained from further discussion.

Empire Dec 8, 2008 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P. (Post 3959394)

You appear to want a museum district so there is little to be gained from further discussion.

I would like to see what we have left for heritage buildings preserved and in select cases incorporated into new developments. I would also like to see sites like International Place break the rules and build a 35 storey striking modern building. What seems so odd about this whole discussion is that there doesn't seem to be an issue with destroying built heritage but try any build beyond 20 storeys and you will be run out of town. If you don't wish to discuss the economic well being of downtown Halifax then that is your call!

hfx_chris Dec 8, 2008 1:15 AM

Who here has been objecting to building over 20 stories?

sdm Dec 8, 2008 1:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3959416)
I would like to see what we have left for heritage buildings preserved and in select cases incorporated into new developments. I would also like to see sites like International Place break the rules and build a 35 storey striking modern building. What seems so odd about this whole discussion is that there doesn't seem to be an issue with destroying built heritage but try any build beyond 20 storeys and you will be run out of town. If you don't wish to discuss the economic well being of downtown Halifax then that is your call!

Select developments? who decides what are select? You?

Furthermore, unless you've been living under a rock for the past decade, anything over 2 stories is being contested downtown, regardless if it involves heritage buildings.

Barrington south Dec 8, 2008 1:40 AM

Empire, even though this is a development site, I'm sure most, if not all agree that marque historical buildings should be saved. But pieces of C*** like the sweet basil building should demolished and every available inch of land around marque historical building should be developed to the max. With a strong, vibrant, thriving downtown, which requires lots of people living and working in the core....high density... we can save the marque buildings-they will be economically viable. But in order to due that the C*** has got to go.

Empire Dec 8, 2008 2:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrington south (Post 3959563)
will be economically viable. But in order to due that the C*** has got to go.

The C*** buildings you describe are buildings like the Herald building, the Midtown, the Trade Mart building, the Law Courts on the waterfront, the Bioscience building, the new Marriott Residence Inn and all of the car dealerships on the peninsula. All of them could be demolished and no one would care. Registered heritage buildings are a no go zone.

Barrington south Dec 8, 2008 8:11 PM

sweet basil wasn't registered and you still shed a tear over it....same with the house's that had to make way for the Trillium....like I said, get rid of the c***

worldlyhaligonian Dec 8, 2008 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3959602)
The C*** buildings you describe are buildings like the Herald building, the Midtown, the Trade Mart building, the Law Courts on the waterfront, the Bioscience building, the new Marriott Residence Inn and all of the car dealerships on the peninsula. All of them could be demolished and no one would care. Registered heritage buildings are a no go zone.

Probably the first time I agree with you... although one or two high end car dealerships (Porsche) should remain. The land south of Young boardered by Windsor has got to be the worst land use in peninsular Halifax.

sdm Dec 18, 2008 1:37 PM

Interesting stuff

http://www.nsuarb.ca/images/stories/...008/armour.pdf

http://www.nsuarb.ca/images/stories/...l%20armour.pdf

sdm Dec 24, 2008 2:01 AM

just visited www.hpwatersidecentre.ca website and see there are tons of documents which have been filed with the UARB.

So far there is some interesting reading, and even finally pictures of the interiors of the buildings. Looking at the economic proforma's is truly interesting.

worth a look i guess.

someone123 Dec 24, 2008 3:12 AM

Like I said, it's hard for me to imagine this not being approved by the URB.

Personally, the more I consider this proposal the more I want it to move forward. The buildings on the site currently are nice but of moderate quality and are smaller than everything around them (including other heritage buildings), making them exactly the kind of thing you'd want to add more floors on top of.

I predict that this will be approved and that, if it is built, it won't change the feel of the area much and in fact the appearance of the heritage buildings themselves will be better off for it.

Takeo Dec 24, 2008 7:17 PM

Looking at the floor plans and elevations... a few things...

1. How are they resolving the various window placements? It looks like some of the windows will be bisected by the new floor plates. I hope they don't have to resort to fake windows / mirrored glass.

2. 16 underground parking spots? Why bother? Without the parking entrance, they could do a lot more with the lobby... make it bigger and more interesting... fill it with light... preserve the Morse Tea stone wall instead of covering it... create a much more appealing entrance from the street... etc.

3. Those 2 story in-fill facades are so dull and opaque. Bring the modern steel and glass aspect down to the sidewalk. This project is very plain and predictable. I don't think it would necessarily cost more to be a little more thoughtful about the design.

4. Please don't plant shrubs on top of Imperial Oil.

worldlyhaligonian Dec 25, 2008 3:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3992108)
Looking at the floor plans and elevations... a few things...

1. How are they resolving the various window placements? It looks like some of the windows will be bisected by the new floor plates. I hope they don't have to resort to fake windows / mirrored glass.

2. 16 underground parking spots? Why bother? Without the parking entrance, they could do a lot more with the lobby... make it bigger and more interesting... fill it with light... preserve the Morse Tea stone wall instead of covering it... create a much more appealing entrance from the street... etc.

3. Those 2 story in-fill facades are so dull and opaque. Bring the modern steel and glass aspect down to the sidewalk. This project is very plain and predictable. I don't think it would necessarily cost more to be a little more thoughtful about the design.

4. Please don't plant shrubs on top of Imperial Oil.

You hit upon most of the major issues I see, especially with the roofline and the exposed dormers. This site should merely be restored, while IP will provide the required office space in the area. I think we all agree, the design of Waterside could have been better.

Once again, I am against this project... but I feel obligated to say that the heritage folks would not likely share an opinion with me in other development issues. I find this point to be most distressing, as they are inflexible and only concerned with an unwavering agenda that takes little contingency into account. In most cases (throughout history) this type of thinking leads to the stagnation that heritage groups have caused in Halifax. It almost hurts me to be against Waterside, but I am being the bigger person for not merely supporting all developments because I believe in development.

Keith P. Dec 25, 2008 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 3991071)
Like I said, it's hard for me to imagine this not being approved by the URB.

Personally, the more I consider this proposal the more I want it to move forward. The buildings on the site currently are nice but of moderate quality and are smaller than everything around them (including other heritage buildings), making them exactly the kind of thing you'd want to add more floors on top of.

I predict that this will be approved and that, if it is built, it won't change the feel of the area much and in fact the appearance of the heritage buildings themselves will be better off for it.

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, the Heritage Trust is trying to obstruct this once again:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...rb-appeal.html

Quote:

Heritage group intervenes in Halifax developer's appeal to UARB
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 | 1:10 PM AT Comments6Recommend2
CBC News

The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia has filed the paper work it needs to present evidence for an appeal before the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

The Armour Group has appealed a decision by Halifax Regional Council that rejected its proposal to build an office tower amid a collection of heritage properties in downtown Halifax.

Developer Ben McCrea said the proposal called for the facade of one building to remain untouched but the rest of the buildings would be demolished to make way for the tower.

The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, which lobbied against the development, has applied for intervener status for the hearing scheduled to begin on Jan. 19. The deadline for formal interveners to submit written evidence to the board was Tuesday.

Heritage Trust president Philip Pacey said the proposal to have been a nine-storey glass tower dwarfing the heritage building was in clear contravention to the municipal planning strategy.

Pacey said regional councillors rendered the correct interpretation of the municipal planning strategy when it turned down the proposal.

"It says that any addition to the heritage building must be subordinate to the heritage building and that any work done on the heritage building is not allowed to remove significant features of the building," Pacey told CBC News on Wednesday.

"The Armour Group proposal would remove the roofs, the rear and side walls of the building ,and all of those are significant features," Pacey said.

In October, Halifax Regional Council voted 9-9 on a staff recommendation to approve the project. A tie vote resulted in the motion being rejected.

The Nova Scotia government has also indicated it would seek intervener status in the appeal to the UARB.

In October, Premier Rodney MacDonald said the development would bring significant employment for trades and encourage businesses to move to Halifax.

hfx_chris Dec 25, 2008 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3990966)
just visited www.hpwatersidecentre.ca website and see there are tons of documents which have been filed with the UARB.

So far there is some interesting reading, and even finally pictures of the interiors of the buildings. Looking at the economic proforma's is truly interesting.

worth a look i guess.

Very interesting indeed. I plan to read over those structural reports when I get the time...instead of, you know, staring at the exterior facade and determining the building is sound enough to last another hundred years ;)

Empire Dec 26, 2008 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hfx_chris (Post 3993143)
Very interesting indeed. I plan to read over those structural reports when I get the time...instead of, you know, staring at the exterior facade and determining the building is sound enough to last another hundred years ;)

It certainly would be shocking to find out that a heritage building needs work. It would be just as shocking to think that a purchaser would not know the condition of buildings before buying and perhaps avoid a lot of headache. :shrug:

I guess everyone knows how easy it is to work the system and that a registered heritage building means nothing.

worldlyhaligonian Dec 26, 2008 6:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3993867)
It certainly would be shocking to find out that a heritage building needs work. It would be just as shocking to think that a purchaser would not know the condition of buildings before buying and perhaps avoid a lot of headache. :shrug:

I guess everyone knows how easy it is to work the system and that a registered heritage building means nothing.

What is the alternative then?

Empire Dec 26, 2008 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian (Post 3993987)
What is the alternative then?

What made historic properties work?

hfx_chris Dec 26, 2008 11:58 PM

They gutted them and rebuilt the interiors, then added an office component.

Huh...

Empire Dec 27, 2008 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hfx_chris (Post 3994305)
They gutted them and rebuilt the interiors, then added an office component.

Huh...

Exactly, and they did it by maintaining the character, no demolition and without sticking an ugly cheap office building on top.!

sdm Dec 27, 2008 1:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3993867)
It certainly would be shocking to find out that a heritage building needs work. It would be just as shocking to think that a purchaser would not know the condition of buildings before buying and perhaps avoid a lot of headache. :shrug:

I guess everyone knows how easy it is to work the system and that a registered heritage building means nothing.

Ah gee empire finally echo's his comments, which seem to be nothing new to add.

sdm Dec 27, 2008 1:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3994314)
Exactly, and they did it by maintaining the character, no demolition and without sticking an ugly cheap office building on top.!

You obviously have no concept of how economics work when it comes to developing properties for market.

The size of historic properties is significantly more, therefore providing a signifcantly more area to spread costs over.

Secondly, they added floors (yes non original) to the buildings on the waterfront to give it economic stability.

Takeo Dec 27, 2008 3:40 AM

I think Historic Properties is kept afloat solely by the outrageous cruise ship pricing in the food court. LOL.

sdm Dec 27, 2008 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3994526)
I think Historic Properties is kept afloat solely by the outrageous cruise ship pricing in the food court. LOL.

That might have been true, but its closed now for good from what i've heard

sdm Dec 27, 2008 11:42 AM

saw this in the paper this morning. Cut it off so it would fit

High interest rating
From educators to CEOs, this group caught our attention this year
By Our Staff
Sat. Dec 27 - 6:44 AM




EDITOR’S NOTE: This week, we will be looking back at the good, the bad and the ugly in Crazy ’08, and see what’s on the table for 2009. Today, we profile the people who made this tumultuous year even more interesting. On Monday, we'll look at things left undone.

THEY’RE NOT all rich. They’re not necessarily powerful, in the traditional sense. Their names won’t be familiar to everyone, but they definitely made 2008 interesting.

From development veteran Ben McCrea’s no-nonsense stance on his Waterside property to Jim Wooder’s push for a new container business in Sydney, here are the stories of seven Nova Scotians who pushed forward with their dreams in 2008 and are making a difference in the province.


Ben McCrea
Founder, Armour Group

For three decades Ben McCrea has tried to keep his "nose below the trench line" as he built some of the most prominent buildings in Halifax.

The founder of Armour Group has always believed that projects such as Historic Properties, Founders Square and his new environmentally sensitive office building in the City of Lakes Business Park in Dartmouth can say more about the quality of the work his company does than anything he might say in an interview or news release.

But in 2008 he was forced into a high-profile fight with both city politicians and a heritage lobby group when his plan to renovate buildings along the Granville Mall became a focal point for debate on new what kind of development is appropriate for downtown Halifax.

Armour Group owns the four heritage buildings along the mall and wants to keep their facades while unifying them under a new six-storey office tower. Mr. McCrea argues it represents the only financially feasible basis on which the history represented by the buildings can be preserved. Critics counter that to maintain the true heritage quality of the buildings, their interiors need to be saved.

There was considerable debate and threats of lawsuits, but in October city hall gave the plan a thumbs-down. Not to be deterred, Mr. McCrea appealed the decision to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. Then, as if to underscore the seriousness of the effort, he applied for demolition permits for the four buildings and pulled down an old wooden building on the property that was not to be part of the redevelopment.

There is a one-year waiting period before the heritage status can be removed and the other buildings taken down, but Mr. McCrea hopes it won’t come to that. He believes the board will rule in January that he has followed all the rules and should be allowed to proceed with the project as originally proposed.

But for Mr. McCrea, 2008 was about much more than the Waterside project. He was nominated by the Halifax Chamber of Commerce as Business Person of the Year; he was inducted into the engineering hall of fame at the University of New Brunswick and his pet project with Ducks Unlimited, the Greenwing Legacy Interpretive Centre at Shubenacadie Wildlife Park, was officially commissioned.

His plans for another new office building in Dartmouth and work on the $200-million Queen’s Landing office building, hotel complex and revamped Maritime Museum of the Atlantic are proceeding slowly, in part because construction costs have increased by 30 per cent since 2005 and in part because there is little financing for major projects in the current economic climate

Adamant that Halifax has to do more to promote itself as the business centre of Atlantic Canada, Mr. McCrea says his push for the Waterside Centre shows his commitment to the cause, even if it forces him into a spotlight he would rather avoid

Empire Dec 27, 2008 1:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3994402)
You obviously have no concept of how economics work when it comes to developing properties for market.

The size of historic properties is significantly more, therefore providing a signifcantly more area to spread costs over.

Secondly, they added floors (yes non original) to the buildings on the waterfront to give it economic stability.

Suggesting that spreading costs over a large tract of prime real estate lowers the cost doesn't add up. The smaller the footprint and higher the denisity the lower the costs. Waterside doesn't have the density but it has location so Armour's best option is to sell the buildings individually and take a loss.

Jonovision Dec 27, 2008 3:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3994835)
That might have been true, but its closed now for good from what i've heard

For good? Why would this close for good? It closes for the winter normally I think, but not permanently.

sdm Dec 27, 2008 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3994859)
Suggesting that spreading costs over a large tract of prime real estate lowers the cost doesn't add up. The smaller the footprint and higher the denisity the lower the costs. Waterside doesn't have the density but it has location so Armour's best option is to sell the buildings individually and take a loss.

Huh? do you realize what you just said? Let me quote you....
"the smaller the footprint and higher the density the lower the costs. Waterside doesn't have the density..."

You crack me up empire with your statements that are completely wrong..

And sell the building individually and take a loss? that is a pretty silly comment to make.

sdm Dec 27, 2008 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision (Post 3994930)
For good? Why would this close for good? It closes for the winter normally I think, but not permanently.

Well it never had to close for the winters for a number of years, but for the past few years it had to because of the lack of traffic. This year it closed early. I heard from a number of people its close indefinitly.

Keith P. Dec 27, 2008 5:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3994934)
Well it never had to close for the winters for a number of years, but for the past few years it had to because of the lack of traffic. This year it closed early. I heard from a number of people its close indefinitly.

I was there a couple of weeks ago and there was only one place open, next to the coffee place. The rest looked like they had just left but had intentions of coming back -- menu boards and signs were still in place.

It certainly booms during the summer. The prices, though, reflect the touristy nature of the place and the food was hit or miss. That is an unfortunate trait of many seasonal places around here; they seem to not care about the quality of what they present to visitors.

I honestly don't know how the rest of Historic Properties stays in business. The little mall area is basically empty. I suppose the office space above and the bars/restaurants that are there pay the bills for the whole thing.

Empire Dec 27, 2008 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3994932)
Huh? do you realize what you just said? Let me quote you....
"the smaller the footprint and higher the density the lower the costs. Waterside doesn't have the density..."

You crack me up empire with your statements that are completely wrong..

And sell the building individually and take a loss? that is a pretty silly comment to make.

- the density is so small at Waterside 60-80 sq ft. that the building will be cheaper looking than the renderings.
- sell the buildings at a loss "that's right" and find a site to construct a quality building....happens every day!

sdm Dec 27, 2008 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3995027)
- the density is so small at Waterside 60-80 sq ft. that the building will be cheaper looking than the renderings.
- sell the buildings at a loss "that's right" and find a site to construct a quality building....happens every day!


The density is as maximum it can get on that site, that is including the heritage buildings (ie setback required). Further that and site is under the view planes so can't go higher. So therefore again, waterside maxi's out the density. One could get higher density if the required setback was gone.

So its sell the buildings for a loss? Who is going to buy them who won't decide to tear them down?

Empire Dec 27, 2008 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3995042)
The density is as maximum it can get on that site, that is including the heritage buildings (ie setback required). Further that and site is under the view planes so can't go higher. So therefore again, waterside maxi's out the density. One could get higher density if the required setback was gone.

So its sell the buildings for a loss? Who is going to buy them who won't decide to tear them down?


That's the problem, Waterside is maxed out for density but is still not enough for a quality building. The Alexander, Trillium, Martello, Twisted Sisters and International place are the size needed for a good quality building on an expensive site. Add heritage buildings to the mix and you have a formula for a six storey cheap building with destroyed heritage buildings.

The bylaw has to change so that demolition permits will not be issued on registered heritage buildings. Then the market will determine what the value of the buildings will be. Perhaps the buildings could be sold at a profit? A savvy investor wouldn't paint themselves into a corner with very few options would they?

hfx_chris Dec 27, 2008 9:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3994314)
Exactly, and they did it by maintaining the character, no demolition and without sticking an ugly cheap office building on top.!

Maintaining the character? Some would argue the Waterside proposal maintains the character of the original buildings too. No demolition? Somehow I doubt they completely gutted the interiors without doing any demolition work... And you do realize, don't you, that the entire section facing the waterfront with the food court is not original, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3994835)
That might have been true, but its closed now for good from what i've heard

Huh? I don't see how that's possible, that place was always packed during the summer every time I went by. I used to stop by the fish and chip place once every couple of weeks, they had excellent fish. I didn't find the prices there too outrageous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3995166)
The bylaw has to change so that demolition permits will not be issued on registered heritage buildings. Then the market will determine what the value of the buildings will be. Perhaps the buildings could be sold at a profit? A savvy investor wouldn't paint themselves into a corner with very few options would they?

*cough* NFB building.
Although, you've already said somewhere else that you would rather see an empty burned out shell of a building with boarded up windows and street people living in the boarded up doorway than a functioning building which contributes to the downtown.

sdm Dec 28, 2008 1:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire (Post 3995166)
That's the problem, Waterside is maxed out for density but is still not enough for a quality building. The Alexander, Trillium, Martello, Twisted Sisters and International place are the size needed for a good quality building on an expensive site. Add heritage buildings to the mix and you have a formula for a six storey cheap building with destroyed heritage buildings.

The bylaw has to change so that demolition permits will not be issued on registered heritage buildings. Then the market will determine what the value of the buildings will be. Perhaps the buildings could be sold at a profit? A savvy investor wouldn't paint themselves into a corner with very few options would they?

Your fishing empire.

So your now saying the developer is going to build a cheap building?

Empire Dec 28, 2008 1:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3995481)
Your fishing empire.

So your now saying the developer is going to build a cheap building?

I have always said that. So where is the quality?


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.