Only downside to the appeal is the added amount of time to begin. If it take an additional year (which is likely) then the market could significantly change by then and the large firms looking to come here will have found alternate locations besides Halifax.

Same thing i believe has happened to the twisted sisters development.

Shame the process is this way, just wish there wasn't an appeal option.

If there weren't an appeal, what would the tentative start date be? next spring?

God knows, depends on council decision and the staff report. I believe the developer stated it would take a year to construct. THats all i know.

It really is irrelevant to the conversation and I don't want to get into that debate here.

It certainly is possible for NDPers to be involved in support of development, though I would suspect the percentage of them involved in that profession would be less than in the general population. Nor are all NDP supporters nutbars. And while it is hardly a pattern, it is interesting to note that both Bradfield and Howard Epstein have been major anti-development voices WRT downtown Halifax. I consider both of them nutbars.

Well regardless of political views there seem to be some seriously far fetch ideas floated that evening. One person suggested that if there is such a demand for office space then why don't we convert bishops landing. Another stated "no one on this planet has my approval to proceed with this development"

Entertaining.

The extra one year delay for the URB is longer than the whole approval process should take.

NDP support to some degree is a symptom of how anti-business or just plain clueless a significant percentage of people in Halifax are. They have no appreciation for what is the private property [of others] and no understanding of why that is so important. This is why there are stupid comments like "why don't we convert Bishop's Landing?" at these meetings.

Ultimately it's the political climate/culture/attitude in Halifax that's causing so many problems. 90% of the time people or businesses deal with it simply by leaving. If they don't they tend to get dragged down by the rest. The level of ineptitude and indifference in, for example, the municipal government, is also so horrendous that nobody in particular can do much about it. It's pretty depressing. I'd almost prefer a city that could just be forgotten to one that never quite makes it because of the jealous naysayers.

Sometimes when I sit in on development hearings/debates and hear some of these people speak, I feel like I am living in that movie Idiocracy.

I hope they don't completely gut them. As you say... those old stone walls are great.

I had the same thought about the rooflines. The building which houses Darrell's isn't really interesting at all without it's roofline and dormers.

more details are posted about the development

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01114Details.html

Interesting. Overall I like the design. It is set back a bit from Hollis. I suspect the architects suggested this in response to the form of the heritage buildings and the concerns mentioned above in this thread.

The Hollis St rendering is somewhat poor quality and it's hard to tell exactly how things will look. The three storey ground floor/lobby component does not look great to me. I guess it will have metal cladding similar to what has been put on many other new buildings around the city?

I think it's good that they're closing the gap in the streetscape next to Morse's Teas. I wonder what buildings were there previously?

I like it.

I think the design is absymal. The whole development destroys that group of buildings and in paticular the varied roof lines. At present there is a Quebec City feel to that block. That passageway with the exposed field stone wall is very uniquie. To cover that up with a cheap and ordinary infill is typical of this town. I am disappointed in the Armour Group as they did a very good job with Founders Sq. I hope it never gets built.

Reading the details available it appears the hollis side will be nova scotia sandstone, and clear glazing.

I am loosing faith in this one. It doesn't complement the existing buildings very well, and the design itself leaves much to be desired. I'm really fed up with having to settle for mediocrity.

On a side note. HRM has done good with its website. It's now very easy to get information on proposals.

The passageway should not have a building above it at all. It should be an open glass covered gallery / atrium... with the stone walls intact.

As for the renderings, surely the designers could do something more interesting that just sticking a squat glass box on top? Anyone could have drawn that "rendering". Looks like they spend all of 10 minutes on that "design".

There's always the "glass box" complaint but the fact is that this is a smaller project in a city with fairly low office lease rates. There has been no significant office construction downtown in about 20 years and few development sites are available to the private sector to develop.

from what i saw of the plans during the public information meeting the passageway is open 2 stories, and has the existing stone walls intact.

The complaint is not about the material... and I'm happy to see more office space... the complaint is about the design. I'm sure the renderings do not do it justice since they are little more than a pencil sketch... but from what we DO see... it's astonishingly uninspired.

Good to know. Any architect would be out of his or her mind not to save that. It's almost a given. But I would prefer if there was no building above that portion... just glass. Two stores with a white ceiling above you is no big thrill. Any architect would LOVE to design a glass atrium / gallery. But of course such things are not cheap. Then again... it's such a tiny span... and they could make the building taller to offset the cost of having a truly great "gateway". Anyway... just thinking out loud.

I agree that an atrium would be much better but people will probably already be complaining about height. I don't think this is in a viewplane but it's next to Granville, etc., although that area is already surrounded by tall buildings.

Anyway, my point is that the system is as much responsible for the uninspired buildings as the developers themselves. Saying that they [the developer] should just trade off more height for a better design is unrealistic since the building has to be approved by people who have very little appreciation of good urban design and mainly just seem to want things to be as small as possible.