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

[worldlyhaligonian]

ITS NOT JUST A CONVENTION CENTRE!!!!


Guys, its a fricking trade centre... sure trade shows go on there, but it is supposed to be a hub for investment attraction so that we can economically progress.

Honestly, everybody who opposes this doesn't know the impact these sorts of developments have on entire cities and regions.

Our current operation is a joke... it needs to be separate from the metro centre and have more offices for trade professionals.

If you want to know how jobs/companies come to exist in a market, look no further than trade centres.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

ITS NOT JUST A CONVENTION CENTRE!!!!


Guys, its a fricking trade centre... sure trade shows go on there, but it is supposed to be a hub for investment attraction so that we can economically progress.

Honestly, everybody who opposes this doesn't know the impact these sorts of developments have on entire cities and regions.

Our current operation is a joke... it needs to be separate from the metro centre and have more offices for trade professionals.

If you want to know how jobs/companies come to exist in a market, look no further than trade centres.

Jobs and companies don;t come to markets because of trade centres.

As a person working in the industry with these companies, i can tell you first hand that their reasoning to locate here is dependant on items like business taxes, employement pool, and quality of life.

Having the site as residential would do far more good for the core then the convention centre.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

Pier 21 might be good, but is there space?

Pier 21 sucks as a location for events other than the fact that they have space. It is isolated from the downtown core bars and restaurants along with all hotels except the Westin, and even that is not in walking distance in the typically bad weather we get. Access is bad with ridiculous traffic tie-ups due to the asinine way the Port Authority manages the parking lot and the fact that there is only one street. Big changes would need to be made to make that a good location for such a facility.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Pier 21 sucks as a location for events other than the fact that they have space. It is isolated from the downtown core bars and restaurants along with all hotels except the Westin, and even that is not in walking distance in the typically bad weather we get. Access is bad with ridiculous traffic tie-ups due to the asinine way the Port Authority manages the parking lot and the fact that there is only one street. Big changes would need to be made to make that a good location for such a facility.

Maybe this is exactly the opportunity needed to push through big changes in the Pier 21 area. Overall this location is far superior for this type of program.

The current design is mediocre at best, and is a terrible fit. As others have said, the best thing that can happen here is a two separate projects, retaining the current street layout, moderate scale 5 - 8 stories, fine grain, no setbacks, etc. Super dense, but without the height, superblock and dead walls that go with the current design.

Not only is there opportunity for big changes around the Pier 21 site, there are lots of opportunities to have a more interesting design, tie-ins to Garrison Brewery, Westin Hotel - the push needed to renovate the area around conrwallis park and the south end of Barrington. As well - with the NSPI building, and improvement of boardwalk connection, this site will not be isolated - if it is at all - for very long.

[fenwick16]

Just to throw in my two cents; I think that this project looks great and I hope that it proceeds as it is. It will look great on the skyline since it is at a fairly high elevation. I don't understand the desire for short buildings. They just end up having a larger bulk and in the end, look worse than a tall building. When the renderings first came out for this project the response was almost completely positive on this forum.

This is just a couple blocks from the current trade centre which has been a successful venue so I don't see why it would be a poor location.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't understand the desire for short buildings. They just end up having a larger bulk and in the end, look worse than a tall building.

This is a bizarre blanket statement. Short does not equal worse just as density does not equal tall. It isn't a desire for short buildings, it is a desire for infill that creates activity at the street level, especially at this part of the city centre. This can be achieved with a tall building/podium style - ubiquitous in Vancouver - but the proposed design offers no such thing. Fat towers on a large, impressively bad podium design. On a site like this, the city is much better off with super-dense low-rise (<8 stories).

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is a bizarre blanket statement. Short does not equal worse just as density does not equal tall. It isn't a desire for short buildings, it is a desire for infill that creates activity at the street level, especially at this part of the city centre. This can be achieved with a tall building/podium style - ubiquitous in Vancouver - but the proposed design offers no such thing. Fat towers on a large, impressively bad podium design. On a site like this, the city is much better off with super-dense low-rise (<8 stories).

Taller slinder buildings are much better than wide short buildings. low rise short builings are like large walls on a streetscape and block more of the sky and sun light.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is a bizarre blanket statement.

This is just personal preference. I have always liked tall buildings. I would love to see a 30 - 40 storey office tower in downtown Halifax. I don't think it would have any negative effect on the Citadel Hill (which I also like). I am pro-development and pro-hertitage, I just prefer it is in the right proportion. I think that the two can go together very well and it provides a much more interesting city than either alone.

On a site like this, the city is much better off with super-dense low-rise (<8 stories).

I don't want to turn this into an argument but I just don't see why.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Taller slinder buildings are much better than wide short buildings. low rise short builings are like large walls on a streetscape and block more of the sky and sun light.

It doesn't quite work this way. We are talking about two different things. I'm not suggesting the site is better off with an 8 story office building with one entrance in the middle of the block. I'm suggesting a building(s) with retail at grade, divided in similar proportions to the original plot sizes of the city centre. Which for Halifax, on average, is about 40 feet - still quite apparent on Barrington, Blowers, parts of Argyle, etc.

Anything higher than 4 stories will have some affect on sunlight, but any tower, no matter how thin on top, will have some sort of podium base of at least 4 stories as well. Height is not so much the problem here, its the relationship it has to the street. Something like 1801 Hollis, may look ok from a distance, but it is crap at grade. This can also be said for many others , like the Royal Bank building etc. that have offer two entrance, an ill-conceived plaza at grade and little else.

With the width of the block in this area, a project is more likely to be successful (for those who actually live in or move through the city in any other way than by car) if it repects the original plot size - as this is what the grid system was designed for. This part of the city needs street level activity - so much has already been removed due to poorly designed buildings with blank walls galore. Nova Centre proposes building over the road because the building is too big and bulky for the blocks as they are now, and the program they are proposing - convention centre floors - require more room!

[planarchy]

For those interested:

ROD CAMERON TO SPEAK AT THE 9TH ANNUAL CARMICHAEL LECTURE PANEL DISCUSSION

2010 02 11

Guest speaker Rod Cameron, President of Criterion Communications Inc., a strategic management and marketing consultancy based in Vancouver with an extensive practice in international convention and exhibition centre management, will discuss how convention centres can be the catalyst for downtown revitalization at the 9th Annual Carmichael Lecture. The lecture will take place on Thursday, February 25, 6:00-8:00 pm, at the World Trade and Convention Centre, Room 200E, 1800 Arygle Street. The event is free and open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.


“With the new convention centre beginning construction as soon as this summer, the topic is timely,” said Paul MacKinnon, Executive Director of the Downtown Halifax Business Commission. “The centre will have a profound impact on downtown, reinforcing the concept of our core as an economic hub for the city and the province.”


Following Cameron’s talk, a panel will discuss how opportunities can be maximized with the city and province. Panelists includes: Paul Kent of the Greater Halifax Partnership, Stephen Lund of Nova Scotia Business Inc. and Cheryl Stewart of FUSION Halifax. The evening will end with questions from the audience.


The Carmichael Lecture was created to honour the DHBC’s former Executive Director, Kate Carmichael, and her passion for urban renewal. Invited lecturers speak on topics designed to inform and educate on key issues that create a thriving Downtown.


The lecture is presented by the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, in partnership with Destination Halifax, Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission, Grafton Connor Group, Greater Halifax Partnership, Halifax Seaport, Halifax International Airport Authority, Hotel Association of Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Business Inc., Spring Garden Area Business Association and Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia.


About Rod Cameron:

Rod Cameron is President of Criterion Communications Inc., a strategic management and marketing consultancy based in Vancouver with an extensive practice in international convention and exhibition centre management, marketing and development as well as association management. He currently serves as Executive Director of Convention Centres of Canada and Director, International Development for the Brussels-based International Association of Convention Centres.


Cameron brings a broad perspective to the development, management and marketing of destinations and convention centres, having developed and managed projects and programs for industry clients including: convention centres, meetings destinations, convention and visitor bureaus, hotel chains and both national and international convention centre associations. He has also established long-standing partnerships at provincial, national and international levels for project and market development. He has experienced the destination and convention development environment from a variety of perspectives including: operations, marketing, new project development, meeting planning and industry development.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by planarchy

It doesn't quite work this way. We are talking about two different things. I'm not suggesting the site is better off with an 8 story office building with one entrance in the middle of the block. I'm suggesting a building(s) with retail at grade, divided in similar proportions to the original plot sizes of the city centre. Which for Halifax, on average, is about 40 feet - still quite apparent on Barrington, Blowers, parts of Argyle, etc.

Anything higher than 4 stories will have some affect on sunlight, but any tower, no matter how thin on top, will have some sort of podium base of at least 4 stories as well. Height is not so much the problem here, its the relationship it has to the street. Something like 1801 Hollis, may look ok from a distance, but it is crap at grade. This can also be said for many others , like the Royal Bank building etc. that have offer two entrance, an ill-conceived plaza at grade and little else.

With the width of the block in this area, a project is more likely to be successful (for those who actually live in or move through the city in any other way than by car) if it repects the original plot size - as this is what the grid system was designed for. This part of the city needs street level activity - so much has already been removed due to poorly designed buildings with blank walls galore. Nova Centre proposes building over the road because the building is too big and bulky for the blocks as they are now, and the program they are proposing - convention centre floors - require more room!

All good points, I agree with you completely.

[Barrington south]

I also agree.......also now there is 3 full size excavators on site

[fenwick16]

Except the part about 1801 Hollis being crap; I think it is very attractive office building (my favorite).

I think the problem isn't that developers aren't planning these developments properly but it is just that office buildings can't support very much retail so that is why it isn't incorporated. It certainly has been tried in the past with Scotia Square and the Maritime Centre but these developments couldn't support the retail component (since office workers tend to go home to the suburbs at night and don't do much shopping during the day). So additional residential buildings are required to support additional retail and keep the city vibrant but why should it be low-rise dense residential instead of high-rise dense residential? Maybe it should be a mix of both.

I don't really see the need of viewplanes bylaws; I think these go back over a hundred years to when the Citadel was required for defense of the city and had to have a clear view of the harbour (from my understanding). If this is the case then the viewplanes bylaws exist simply because nobody had the courage to say that they were no longer required. Personally, whenever I went to the Citadel, it was for a view of the fortress and the city (including the city buildings).

PS: There was a thread on whether most residents are for or against high-rise building that can be found at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149843 . There seems to be quite a bit of dispute regarding which is preferential, personally I like both if well designed (the problem is that this has a different meaning to different people).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't really see the need of viewplanes bylaws; I think these go back over a hundred years to when the Citadel was required for defense of the city and had to have a clear view of the harbour (from my understanding). If this is the case then the viewplanes bylaws exist simply because nobody had the courage to say that they were no longer required.

While one might logically presume that such would be the case in most places, sadly, here in Halifax the viewplanes are a product of the 1970s. They were a creation of the City of Halifax after intense lobbying by the Heritage Trust and the usual suspects involved in such things. Foolishly, council of the day passed them. Thus began the anti-development obstructionism that we have seen ever since.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I think the problem isn't that developers aren't planning these developments properly but it is just that office buildings can't support very much retail so that is why it isn't incorporated. It certainly has been tried in the past with Scotia Square and the Maritime Centre but these developments couldn't support the retail component (since office workers tend to go home to the suburbs at night and don't do much shopping during the day).

This is exactly my point! Scotia Square and the Maritime Centre are a similar type of development to what is proposed for Nova Centre! They are the type of urban renewal projects that have been proven to be massive failures throughout the western world! They do not attract people downtown to shop. Why would anyone come to a mall in the city with fewer shops and no free parking when they can go to MicMac Mall, etc. Except in very large cities, city centre malls are most often failures. Using these examples tell me that you can't visualize what I'm talking about or that I'm not explaining it very well. As far as housing, I think everyone on here will agree that much high-density residential is needed downtown, towers or not.

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't really see the need of viewplanes bylaws; I think these go back over a hundred years to when the Citadel was required for defense of the city and had to have a clear view of the harbour (from my understanding). If this is the case then the viewplanes bylaws exist simply because nobody had the courage to say that they were no longer required. Personally, whenever I went to the Citadel, it was for a view of the fortress and the city (including the city buildings).

The view planes legislation was enacted in the 1970s after a series of bad developments (one being Maritime Centre). The viewplanes certainly have some merit, but are terribly outdated and far too rigid. Here is an image of existing viewplanes:


Finally, I agree that design can be subjective (like everything else in this world), but that there are good and smart urban design principles and techniques that nearly all agree on - and Nova Centre seems to ignore many of them. The city can do a much better job and defining design principles, but a huge problem is the lack of young, innovative design/architecture offices in the city - we have the same people design the same things (just look at all these condos in Bedford or take a drive down Parkland). On top of that, developers here are not pressured to spend money on design, instead looking at it as an afterthought. They seem to think that engineers are architects. Most are certainly not (not in Canada anyway). We don't build here for context, rarely consider topography - developers build to code, engineers design to code. This is a huge part of the problem.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by planarchy

The view planes legislation was enacted in the 1970s after a series of bad developments (one being Maritime Centre).

Maritime Center came along after the viewplanes. That is why it sits at an angle to the street; that lets it avoid the viewplanes -- a fine example of the absurdity of such laws.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Maritime Center came along after the viewplanes. That is why it sits at an angle to the street; that lets it avoid the viewplanes -- a fine example of the absurdity of such laws.

Yes, my mistake. The viewplanes were proposed in 1973, Maritime Centre built in 1977. But the viewplanes legislation was proposed exactly because of developments (proposals) like this - it just didn't work well! Development on this lot/Capital Theatre was first proposed in 1973, Capital theatre torn down in 1974 (I may be a year off, but something like this)

But I agree, It's outdated, too rigid, and too easy to work around. HRMbyDesign's pseudo form-based code approach is more practical, but not executed well.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by sdm

Jobs and companies don;t come to markets because of trade centres.

As a person working in the industry with these companies, i can tell you first hand that their reasoning to locate here is dependant on items like business taxes, employement pool, and quality of life.

Having the site as residential would do far more good for the core then the convention centre.

You basically just defined what investment attraction is and made my point as to why this is important.

I work in the industry too and have worked for the Australians who do an incredible job at investment attraction via promotion of the metrics you indicated. Just look at how many consumer products have been brought international... they don't have any more creative resources than we do... they just know how to bring their products to international markets via support from government.

They don't even need to have trade offices in their convention centre developments for them to be ulitmately successful... they help spur retail spending in the areas in which they exist.

http://www.mcec.com.au/About.html
http://www.scec.com.au
http://www.cairnsconvention.com.au

I have also lived/worked in europe and see how every city there promotes themselves in terms of investment attraction. Its staggering... even the small cities (particularly in eastern europe) have strong investment attraction strategies. Their strategy isn't corny videos showing their region (see every invest in NS video I have ever seen... which is ironic that they would feature the fisheries so prominantly, as it is a sunset industry IMO), its the promotion of strong numbers such as payroll taxes.

Halifax has some of the most competitve tax regimes in Canada, but nobody knows this because its not widely made known. Saskatchewan is doing a way better job than we are.

We are too afraid of investing in our future... the ROI isn't just greater prosperity, its great internationalization which spurs future growth.

Halifax actually has many competitive advantages, we just have weak trade promotion. Our DFAIT office is pretty small compared to the size our city/region and most people working for the feds aren't Nova Scotian. NSBI is about as grassroots as it gets from what I have seen. (I have worked moreso in an international capacity.)

If we don't have proper facilities than we lose out on attracting large scale events in the international/Canadian business environments.

Prove me wrong.

[fenwick16]

I agree with what you are saying, except that the Maritime Centre was actually a product of the viewplanes bylaws and was designed at such an angle so as not to interfere with the viewplanes bylaws. I remember this when it opened and when it was expanded from 12 storeys to the current height. It had a great retail component also, with a food court on the lower floor. This building had a very impressive interior lobby back in the late 70's. (I haven't been in it since). I actually like the appearance of this building.

There are some mistakes in the Halifax area but these aren't simply because of highrises and in some cases a much better development could have been built if higher buildings were allowed (I don't think that I am disagreeing with you here?). One example is Scotia Square; this could have been one 30 - 40 storey highrise office tower and built similar to Founders Square so as to incorporate as many of the older buildings as possible and to keep the street grid. The Cogswell Interchange never should have been built. If only someone could go back in time.

A big part of the problem in the Halifax area is that developers can't charge enough per square foot to build elaborate buildings. In spite of this Halifax has several great developments (in my opinion - 1801 Hollis, Purdy's Wharf, Founders Square and others).

One way to overcome the problems that you have specified is to have more mixed use buildings - hotel/residential/office all in one. However, in my opinion, the new convention centre should be built close to the city attractions that visitors will want to see. Perhaps a residential component should be included though. I am not in the construction industry so I can't really comment on the point about engineers and architects but both have to design buildings based on fire codes and both have to build based on the money available. Also, if everything is designed by architects then you might have a lot of these buildings in downtown Halifax - http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitalparadox/2618110979/ - source Flickr - DigitalParadox . This is an interesting building but it wouldn't be allowed in Halifax (fortunately). There are some great buildings in the Toronto area but there are also a lot of very unsightly buildings. Architects and engineers have to work together to come up with buildings that will be acceptable in the Halifax area based not only on architectural design but economics and regional tastes (maybe this is what you have already stated in other words). All in all, I like the new convention centre design.

PS: I can't type fast enough. Once I typed this post in, I saw that the Maritime Centre was already discussed.

This bothers me ( http://www.savetheview.ca/ ). It states that 91% of the population is against the convention towers and shows people looking off the citadel hill supposedly at the harbour. If it were me up there I would be looking at the downtown buildings. Many of the pictures that I have seen on Flickr that are taken from the Citadel are of the downtown buildings and are described as such.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Also, if everything is designed by architects then you might have a lot of these buildings in downtown Halifax - http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitalparadox/2618110979/ - source Flickr - DigitalParadox . This is an interesting building but it wouldn't be allowed in Halifax (fortunately).

Ha. You mean you don't want to see the OCAD building in Halifax? Bring it on! It would look quite nice perched on the side of Citadel Hill. Or maybe something like Libeskind's ROM addition bursting out of the drumlin ?