Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid
I think you are right, Mark. I've been examining the renderings and drawings for a few days now and find I like the Drexel proposal a lot. They truly have approximated the massing of the buildings that formerly occupied that site. At the Barrington/George corner the structure appears to closely match the height of the old Cragg building. For many years that building was a landmark storefront, housing the CNR's downtown ticket office. The adjacent streetwall, like the former Birks Building, is consistent in height to the 1912 Crowe Building.
I was surprised at first, like others, to see Drexel proposing a mostly residential development. But it probably makes perfect sense on a couple of levels. Certainly Halifax's residential rental vacancy rate ( at 1 per cent) is much more attractive than the commercial rate at over 15%. But it also makes sense, I expect, from a structural perspective. While I could not find exact floor-to-floor heights for the Dennis building, I'd estimate them at 10-11 feet, more consistent with a residential property and well short of the 12-13 feet that is typical today for a commercial building. Certainly the 2006 CBCL report noted that floor-to-floor heights would be in issue in any attempt to restore the Dennis building to office use.
My biggest reservation with the project as proposed is the parking entrance off George Street. It seems to me that has the potential for a real bottleneck. But the only alternative is probably the area between the Recorder and Dennis buildings. And while that is now a parking lot, I don't think having a parkade entry opposite our legislative building is desirable.
As much as I'd like to see the historic buildings rehabilitated it seems to me Drexel has done an excellent job of preserving the facade of both structures within complementary new construction that will not overwhelm them. |
I agree with your points. I was first disappointed that mainly just the facades are going to be used from these buildings, but realize I don't have any insight as to the condition of these structures, and also note that adding features like underground parking requires an entirely different structure that is not conducive to preserving the original buildings structurally. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it looks like they are doing the best with what they have.
As noted, I am pleased with recreating the massing from those former landmarks on Barrington. In my perfect world they would move closer to recreating their appearance, but I realize with modern construction and cost restraints, this probably wouldn't be possible to pull off properly.