[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[someone123]

I suspect that is a rendering issue. I guess they could go with dark glass for the top but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As I mentioned a while ago, there is a similar canopy for the Seattle convention centre that has tall buildings on either side. I was there on a fairly cloudy November day (practically identical to the kind of November days Halifax gets) and it was fine.

The towers remind me a bit of the Eaton Centre towers in Toronto (250 Yonge St), which look okay, although the newer one of those is from 1992.

Here's a decent aerial from 2006 that shows the site. I think it would actually be very interesting to have buildings like that farther up the hill. They would make the city feel a lot bigger. I would like to see a bit of a re-assessment of what is 'downtown' Halifax -- the city is growing and the 1950 idea of having major commercial buildings below Barrington or whatever is out of date:



Why can't the city grow and evolve so that all those blocks are considered the 'CBD'? Argyle Street is nice, yes, but there's also Spring Garden Road, Gottingen, Agricola, Quinpool... why does the city have to remain static?

[Dmajackson]

^Well Agricola and SGR have grown nicely over the last decade and in my opinion Gottigen is starting its revitalization.

Lol, did anybody watch the responce to Phil Pacey's sppech? I think three different councillors corrected him, accused him of lieing and Fillmore had to restate for the third time the heights wouldn't rise near the Citadel.

Man the more I watch tonight the more I want the new development group in action.

[Aya_Akai]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

Lol, did anybody watch the responce to Phil Pacey's sppech? I think three different councillors corrected him, accused him of lieing and Fillmore had to restate for the third time the heights wouldn't rise near the Citadel.

I missed it. damn!!

They're sitting it and bickering about when they are going to be continuing the hearing.... as usual...

ffs... they need to get their sh*t straight.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by someone123

They could easily put in irrigation for the trees.

I am tired of this obsession with rampart views, things being as high as the Citadel (this is NOT protected, only views from inside the courtyard from my understanding -- obviously you can see all kinds of modern buildings by looking out over the ramparts), etc.

Mr. Pacey is choosing his words carefully. He knows that most people know that there is view protection from the ramparts but don't know exactly what that means.

That protection is measured 5.5ft. above ground from the centre of Parade Square inside the ramparts of the Citadel. A sight line is drawn from that point at 5.5ft and out over the edge of the wall of the Citadel. No building shall penetrate that sightline. When Mr. Pacey says that a building is as high as the ramparts he knows that the majority of people would think that that height is in violation of the sightline policy when in fact it could be as high as the ramparts but well below the sight line.

[Aya_Akai]

Originally Posted by Empire

Mr. Pacey is choosing his words carefully. He knows that most people know that there is view protection from the ramparts but don't know exactly what that means.

That protection is measured 5.5ft. above ground from the centre of Parade Square inside the ramparts of the Citadel. A sight line is drawn from that point at 5.5ft and out over the edge of the wall of the Citadel. No building shall penetrate that sightline. When Mr. Pacey says that a building is as high as the ramparts he knows that the majority of people would think that that height is in violation of the sightline policy when in fact it could be as high as the ramparts but well below the sight line.

There are already 2 buildings visible from inside at a couple of spots anyway... at one point you can see "BDC 2000" clear as day, and from another spot you can see the aliant building too...

I know it's not in the centre of the square... but I just wanted to see for myself.

[eastcoastal]

Yes, a building can be taller than the ramparts and still keep below the limits imposed by the Ramparts Bylaw.

The height of 5'-5" above the surface of the parade square for where the sightlines are taken from is correct I believe. I think that there are a few (5-7?) spots on the parade square that are used.

It's true that you can currently see buildings that violate the Ramparts bylaw, but it is my understanding that they were built before the Bylaw was put into effect.

Empire: I'm sure Mr. Pacey is choosing his words carefully and doing whatever possible to stir up fear and opposition without out and out lying.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by HaliStreaks

There are already 2 buildings visible from inside at a couple of spots anyway... at one point you can see "BDC 2000" clear as day, and from another spot you can see the aliant building too...

I know it's not in the centre of the square... but I just wanted to see for myself.

At least one of those buildings i believe cause the rampart view to be written. Seems Empire is the most up to speed on this.

What i find interesting is the herald lands were for sale for some period and weren't very attractive at the time. The reason being was the maximum height and capacity was limited to 8-9 stories due to views and rampart issues.

[someone123]

Only part of that site falls under the viewplanes and the ramparts bylaw allows much more than 8 or 9 storeys, as mentioned, particularly for the lower block.

The Midtown proposal was not in violation of any hard regulation -- nobody bothers proposing things like that.

As I've said many times before there is a lot of dishonesty in terms of what some heritage advocates say and in terms of how this "heritage vs development" debate is framed in the first place. There's no acknowledgment of the hard regulations that are considered untouchable and already represent a serious compromise. Pacey seems like a guy who will just push and push until the downtown isn't economically viable at all and the Herald doesn't seem up to the task of calling him out on it.

[coolmillion]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's no acknowledgment of the hard regulations that are considered untouchable and already represent a serious compromise.

Careful now... Although there are "hard regulations," a number of the bylaws are ambiguous. They were intentionally left open to interpretation for a few reasons. The main one is that it was difficult to reach concensus in the process of developing the policies. The Midtown Tower was unsuccessful in large part because of a policy that stated something along the lines of development "in the vicinity of Citadel Hill" must be sensitive and complementary. Although it was clear of view planes there were a number of other relevant policies. In any case, I'm glad the Midtown wasn't built because it was a helluvan ugly building.

[Barrington south]

Originally Posted by someone123

I am tired of this obsession with rampart views, things being as high as the Citadel (this is NOT protected, only views from inside the courtyard from my understanding -- obviously you can see all kinds of modern buildings by looking out over the ramparts), etc. There are viewplanes that already severely restrict what can be built downtown. That is the compromise between development and preservation of views from the Citadel, not viewplanes plus whatever Phil Pacey happens to dislike.

HbD needs a cultural loophole, because from time to time there should be exceptional buildings to make the city more interesting. Again, it is about balance.

Finally this is a major project that looks like it could actually be built sometime soon and move the downtown out of 1986. I really hope this doesn't get messed up.

Yes, I completely agree with everything you said someone

[Barrington south]

Originally Posted by Empire

Mr. Pacey is choosing his words carefully. He knows that most people know that there is view protection from the ramparts but don't know exactly what that means.

That protection is measured 5.5ft. above ground from the centre of Parade Square inside the ramparts of the Citadel. A sight line is drawn from that point at 5.5ft and out over the edge of the wall of the Citadel. No building shall penetrate that sightline. When Mr. Pacey says that a building is as high as the ramparts he knows that the majority of people would think that that height is in violation of the sightline policy when in fact it could be as high as the ramparts but well below the sight line.

Empire, your defensive words of understanding towards pacey are reprehensible and furthermore make me sick to my stomach....your frequent and ferocious verbal attacks on Ben Mccrea made me question where your loyalties lie....even if you are against waterside.....you took it too far dude....and now this?!!....Pacey is consciously misleading the public to further his own twisted agenda...and here you are, in a calm and sympathetic tone explaining to to us, his method's of madness......

[eastcoastal]

Uh, I didn't take what Empire was saying as a defense of Phil Pacey, but rather an explanation of how he was deliberately misleading public perception and playing into people's fears that "the government" and "developers" are joining forces in backroom deals to subvert planning laws. Empire quite correctly points out that when Phil Pacey says something is taller than the ramparts it implies that it breaks the Ramparts Bylaws stirring up public opposition, when really the Ramparts Bylaws don't mean that. It leads to inaccurate reporting, and misinformation - even people in this forum read the quote from Phil Pacey to mean that the bylaws were being subverted.

Phil Pacey knows that he is misleading people. He knows it will stir up opposition. He tries to hide behind a non-profit society as a shield, implying that because HT is nothing more than a group of concerned citizens that they should be the voice of authority - and that we are not to trust developers, who are only after one thing; politicians, who are easily swayed; or city staff, who are in the pockets of developers and are actively seeking out chances to destroy Heritage buildings and our downtown.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by Barrington south

...made me question where your loyalties lie....

Loyalties? What is this, us versus them? Give me a break.
And somebody needs to calmly and cooly explain the rationale behind Pacey's ramblings. They may not be right and we may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean we have to all be worked up into a fit over it. What's your problem?

[Barrington south]

Originally Posted by hfx_chris

Loyalties? What is this, us versus them? Give me a break.
And somebody needs to calmly and cooly explain the rationale behind Pacey's ramblings. They may not be right and we may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean we have to all be worked up into a fit over it. What's your problem?

Is it a coincidence that the one time Empire holds back on criticism is when referring too "Mr" Pacey (whom he calls Mr. while choosing too refer too McCray as Ben McCray or even bennie) Empire has never in the past held back from stating his own opinion, like when he said Ben McCray should be banned from developing... yet chooses to in this occasion....this is Skyscraperpage, Chris, so why is it he always seems to be more concerned with heritage?....and of coarse, yes empire can support or not support anything he chooser's and say anything he likes....but that is not going to stop me from voicing my displeasure with some of the things he writes

[Nilan8888]

So, your argument is that he's insufficiently vitriolic?

MAybe Empire is lacking in the tar and feathers department towards Pacey when he's not towards McRea. But in pointing it out now you end up by implication saying arguments of needless anger and resentment are the favorable route to take towards Pacey when they shouldn't be. After all it would only give him more strength by making him or his heritage cause look like the victim, which is precisely the sentiment that's gotten him and the HT as much power as they have.

Instead of attacking Empire when he's reasonable, one should reserve it for when he's not being reasonable. After all it's not being reasonable to Mr Pacey that should be discouraged (even if he hasn't the decency to make reasonable arguments himself) but being unreasonable to Mr McRea.

[DigitalNinja]

I wanna see these buildings go up, there is no reason for them not to, and would add a lot to the city.

THEY BETTER GO UP!!!!

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

I wanna see these buildings go up, there is no reason for them not to, and would add a lot to the city.

THEY BETTER GO UP!!!!

Now that is the attitude we need in this city!

Now just go tell the Paceys to stop stretching the truth and we'll be set

[Waye Mason]

I think its pretty ugly, and very 1990s. It reminds me of a jumped up 1801 Hollis. I think the covered street could look good, or could end up being a dirty, dark, abandoned space.

I would like to see the governments involved spend more money on higher quality cladding (cut stone, titanium or aluminum, something modern but high end) and better overall design.

5/10.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

Now that is the attitude we need in this city!

Now just go tell the Paceys to stop stretching the truth and we'll be set

Yup we need this attitude.

One thing that is interesting though is mr pacey does have the rampart rules down. Again correct me if i am wrong, but didn't that cause the Midtown project to be squashed?

[DigitalNinja]

Yes and no. From my understanding it was canned because they put up to much fuss about it and the council just abandoned it eventually.

What I'd like to see if this replace the old WTCC and have room to extend the arena