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 Apr 4, 2008 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3461873)
I thought of the triangle but I don't think it's part of Founders Square. It's within that block, but there's nothing built on top of it. Anyway, take a walk down the Hollis street side of that building and look at all those pretty facades with nothing but insurance company offices behind them and tell me that section of street is not dead.

Glad to hear that HRM by Design is forbidding blank walls and offices at street level.

The old triangle is part of founder square and actually occupies several of the heritage buildings.

The whole lower level of founders is actually designed for retail and was for quite some years. However as things evolved these companies failed. The same can be said for the main level on Hollis. Its nice to have retail at ground level however it needs to be economically feasible

The_Bow Apr 9, 2008 6:07 AM

Is the Heritage Trust mainly run by Philip Pacey or does he have a good number of followers?

someone123 Apr 9, 2008 6:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Bow (Post 3472366)
Is the Heritage Trust mainly run by Philip Pacey or does he have a good number of followers?

Basically there are about half a dozen anti-development squeaky wheels. The same people are interviewed by the media over and over.

I would say that many people in general are not really in favour of new development but they don't spend any effort to fight it or usually even to inform themselves of what is going on. I don't put much stock in the comments like "all buildings should be below the tree canopy!" that appear in the papers, for example.

On balance I think most people want to see the city grow and evolve, or at the very least they want the things that go along with growth even if they don't understand the economic relationships.

Takeo Apr 9, 2008 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3463057)
The old triangle is part of founder square and actually occupies several of the heritage buildings.

The whole lower level of founders is actually designed for retail and was for quite some years. However as things evolved these companies failed. The same can be said for the main level on Hollis. Its nice to have retail at ground level however it needs to be economically feasible

Yah... I was thinking of course of that long stretch of MT&L offices. It's a shame to see those lovely old facades in such a lifeless state. I think it's a great development mind you... I just hope the same fate doesn't await the O'Carolls building. There's a LOT more pedestrian traffic there though... so I'm sure it will be fine.

phrenic Apr 10, 2008 8:57 PM

Quote:

Dear Sir,

I couldn't believe my eyes. I think HRM by design guru, Andy Filmore gave developer Ben Mac Rae the go ahead to increase the height of his proposed alteration of Heritage in the heart of Halifax to nine stores, in the article quoting him in Thursday's Herald, by Bruce Erskine.

Nine stories or even six stories changes a Heritage Building from authentic history into a Disney like theme park.

Two hundred years of our history gone with the snap of a bureaucrat's fingers.

Amazing what you can do if the public is not paying attention.

Peter McCurdy
Halifax
April 04, 2008
This is a letter to the editor published in today's coast.:slob:

someone123 Apr 10, 2008 9:07 PM

That's the kind of nonsense I hate reading in the papers.

terrynorthend Apr 10, 2008 11:31 PM

Such a pointless letter to the editor. Clearly he wouldn't be happy with a 6 story alteration either...

Takeo Apr 11, 2008 12:41 AM

Gotta love the "Disney" hyperbole. Whatever dude. I wish the media wouldn't give these squeaky wheels so much "air time".

Keith P. Apr 11, 2008 2:02 AM

Almost as bad as the article earlier this week in the Herald (by Roger Taylor, I believe) referring to it as a "high-rise". :(

someone123 Apr 11, 2008 4:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo (Post 3476864)
Gotta love the "Disney" hyperbole. Whatever dude. I wish the media wouldn't give these squeaky wheels so much "air time".

He's going to look like an idiot when he wanders into the lobby and asks where Mickey is. :)

The people who write for the local papers unfortunately seem kind of uncreative so they have to rely on this kind of thing to create "issues".

skyscraper_1 Apr 11, 2008 5:13 AM

OR the ever popular..."We don't want Halifax to become a mini Toronto!!!" YES, We certainly do not want to become a dynamic, vibrant, modern, international city and yet Toronto still probably has more "heritage" buildings then Halifax.

someone123 Apr 11, 2008 5:32 AM

I'm guessing that by 1990 or so, Toronto and Halifax had roughly equal proportions of heritage buildings to modern buildings, though the heritage buildings in Halifax tend to be much older and of a much higher quality for the same period until sometime near the end of the 1800s.

The top-notch heritage buildings in Halifax don't really have equals in Canada outside of Montreal and Quebec City. Even then there are often no equivalents in terms quality (e.g. Province House) and the styles of all buildings are unique to the Maritimes (Saint John has many similar buildings of a similar quality from around the mid-1880s to the early 20th century), at least within Canada.

The big caveat for Halifax is that there are very few areas along the lines of "old" Quebec and Montreal. This is largely why I don't subscribe to the idea that the downtown should be fully preserved - only half of it is left to begin with!

sdm Apr 24, 2008 1:55 PM

News out in Allnovascotia stating HRM will not appeal the supreme courts decision handed down earlier this month. Great news i believe for this development.

However, Dawn Sloane is not in favor of HRM not appealing this ruling. She claims the wooden building is the last on lower water street and should remain (to bad its upper water street where this building is). She furthermore states "Sloane said keeping only the facade of heritage buildings in redevelopment concerns her. She said if that's the approach to maintaining heritage buildings it would be like heritage a la disney world"

someone123 Apr 24, 2008 4:58 PM

Last wooden building on that street? As if that's a bad thing? This area is mostly highrise office towers and large stone and brick buildings. The wooden building looks subpar and actually has pretty bad proportions.

I still expect this to be appealed by the Heritage Trust, etc. of course.

terrynorthend Apr 24, 2008 6:13 PM

I also read that council will review the heritage registration rules with mind to amend them such that, "No heritage property can be unregistered because of an oversight in administration.." to prevent this problem in the future. In other words, if they designate a property heritage by accident, it will be "too bad, so sad" And we will have to live with said heritage property for time immemorial.
Cripes!!

sdm Apr 24, 2008 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 3507856)
I also read that council will review the heritage registration rules with mind to amend them such that, "No heritage property can be unregistered because of an oversight in administration.." to prevent this problem in the future. In other words, if they designate a property heritage by accident, it will be "too bad, so sad" And we will have to live with said heritage property for time immemorial.
Cripes!!


Yeah, makes your wonder who is running this city.

Heritage trust is certainly going to oppose this but they are a bit busy these days with trying to stop a number of developments.

Public meeting on this project is May 7th at City Hall. I will be there to ensure i give my thumbs up to this project. I hope others here will be as well as we need new office and new development downtown.

spaustin Apr 24, 2008 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrynorthend (Post 3507856)
I also read that council will review the heritage registration rules with mind to amend them such that, "No heritage property can be unregistered because of an oversight in administration.." to prevent this problem in the future. In other words, if they designate a property heritage by accident, it will be "too bad, so sad" And we will have to live with said heritage property for time immemorial.
Cripes!!

If council did that I can't imagine it holding up in court. In the end I think its just a little bit of noise and pandering. If council were serious in opposing this, they would have appealed.

sdm Apr 25, 2008 12:25 PM

Demolition to go ahead
City won’t dispute tearing down of historic building
By Rachel Mendleson
April 23, 2008 12:54
The city won’t be stepping in to save a centuries-old wood-framed building near Historic Properties that is slated for demolition.
Regional Council voted during an in-camera session yesterday not to appeal a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge’s ruling that the building had mistakenly received heritage designation.
In light of the ruling however, councillors voted to apply for changes to the provincial Heritage Property Act.
The proposed amendments to the act include ensuring “no registration could be overturned because of a matter of form or procedural irregularity.”
But that wasn’t good enough for Downtown Halifax Coun. Dawn Sloane, who voted against the motion.
“Here we have something that is going to gravely affect the Heritage Act and sets a precedent, and I’m not allowed to talk about it,” she said.
–rachel.mendleson@metronews.ca

Canopus Apr 25, 2008 3:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm (Post 3509698)
The proposed amendments to the act include ensuring “no registration could be overturned because of a matter of form or procedural irregularity.”

They are probably doing this because they know they won't absolutely be successful but it makes it appear as if they are defending historic downtown interests.

It's a really stupid amendment though and typically shite from council. I mean good gad something is either historic and worth preserving or it's not. This stupid amendment would take away the ability to act sensibly!

sdm May 7, 2008 3:27 PM

Public information meeting at city hall tonight, think i will go and see whats up.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.