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

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by haligonia

The design is good, I mean, I've seen better, but I have also seen much, much worse.

Well statements like this say a lot. Desperate for anything. Rank would have been better off renovating the herald building. If you see it now, with just the concrete skeleton, you can easily imagine a beautiful renovation of the building - think the Tip Top warehouse conversion in Toronto - but with a better ground level. It is the perfect scale to compliment the other side of Argyle street. Loft apartments above - maybe a 'glass box' addition to give a few more floors, and retail replacing garages on the bottom floor. A missed opportunity.

[haligonia]

Then what would you build on the lot to the west of grafton? A faux Herald building? Maybe the Nova Centre isn't world class architecture, but it is a very attractive looking building. Personally, I think that the Herald building Doesnt have enough architetutal integrity to be converted like that - especially on the grafton st side. It's simply too dated and poorly designed. If you are that desperate for world class architecture, I hear there is plenty in Toronto.

[coolmillion]

To assume that people who don't support this project are "heritage haters" is short-sighted at best. I personally agree with planarchy's stance on this: poorly suited to the location (not because of views, but because it would have a much greater impact somewhere along the waterfront) and a poorly conceived design in relation to the immediate context. The arch may look nice in a graphic simulation, but it will likely be a no-man's land.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by haligonia

Then what would you build on the lot to the west of grafton? A faux Herald building? ... If you are that desperate for world class architecture, I hear there is plenty in Toronto.

Why would I want a faux Herald building on the other lot? That is just stupid, and completely ridiculous to even suggest it. This is exactly what I'm talking about - the inability to see alternatives to what is already here - whether it be faux heritage or mediocre new projects; the inability to look beyond Halifax to see what is possible.

And as I said before - this has nothing to do with 'world-class architecture' or 'starchitects' or whatever other empty terms you want to throw around - meaningless and hollow phases used constantly by both this city in their HRMbyDesign material, and developers, despite the fact that they are presenting and building crap.

There is a world beyond Halifax. Take a look. Then you'll see the true potential that exists here and how we seemingly ignore it every chance we get.

Toronto is a fantastic city. A messy, chaotic city, but a great city. If you want to use the term world-class, then yes - Toronto (and Montreal in French speaking countries) are our cities that the rest of the world sees. Not Vancouver, not Calgary, definitely not Halifax. Toronto is a city that is generally considered a success. It is a cosmopolitan, vibrant, interesting city.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Well statements like this say a lot. Desperate for anything. Rank would have been better off renovating the herald building. If you see it now, with just the concrete skeleton, you can easily imagine a beautiful renovation of the building - think the Tip Top warehouse conversion in Toronto - but with a better ground level. It is the perfect scale to compliment the other side of Argyle street. Loft apartments above - maybe a 'glass box' addition to give a few more floors, and retail replacing garages on the bottom floor. A missed opportunity.

I think that your taste in architecture is unique to you. I would much rather have the newly proposed Rank convention centre than this converted warehouse. I live in the Toronto area and the Rank development is easily better than 90% of the architecture in the Toronto area. Even though Toronto is a big city with a lot of interesting architecture, a lot of the new construction is nothing exceptional.

I feel that you are getting annoyed because people won't agree with your point of view, but the fact is that a lot of people really like this proposal.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I think that your taste in architecture is unique to you. I would much rather have the newly proposed Rank convention centre than this converted warehouse. I live in the Toronto area and the Rank development is easily better than 90% of the architecture in the Toronto area. Even though Toronto is a big city with a lot of interesting architecture, a lot of the new construction is nothing exceptional.

I'm not talking about design preference but of building for context. Evaluating this project on good design criteria, it is, as you say about new construction in Toronto, nothing exceptional. Even most that want to see this built admit that it is far from ideal. You are comparing the design of a (partially publicly funded) convention centre with a sea of market condo towers. This doesn't work.

I'm not against a convention centre and certainly not pushing my architectural preferences. I'm just challenging an ill-conceived proposal because I desire higher standards for the city centre. It can be temping to ignore the shortcomings of the project because of the desire to see something built - and believe me, the last thing I want to see is another empty lot (this shouldn't happen either, but this shows the weakness of the city's planning department). But this proposal and process is severely flawed.

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Why would I want a faux Herald building on the other lot? That is just stupid, and completely ridiculous to even suggest it.

My faux Herald building comment was sarcastic.

I do understand your desire for good urban design and architecture, but the fact is Halifax cannot just jump from a downtown with fading retail and heritage to a city centre filled with good design choices in just a couple of years. Some Haligonians do want a vibrant and beautiful downtown, and I am one of them, but it will take time to cure the mistakes of the 60's and 70's. This is a step in the right direction. This development will add vibrancy, and once we have a downtown that is actually vibrant and liveable, the higher quality developments will come.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by haligonia

...the fact is Halifax cannot just jump from a downtown with fading retail and heritage to a city centre filled with good design choices in just a couple of years. Some Haligonians do want a vibrant and beautiful downtown, and I am one of them, but it will take time to cure the mistakes of the 60's and 70's. This is a step in the right direction.

This is where our trouble seeing eye-to-eye originates. I believe change can happen faster. With good leadership and someone with a bit of courage. Whether Halifax will ever get this is the question. A strong Mayor can make a world of difference (maybe I'm too optimistic that this will happen sometime soon ). My concern is that if this is built as proposed, it will BE just another one of those mistakes. Old perspectives on Scotia Square made it look quite attractive as well. But the final product is how it is judged.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Well statements like this say a lot. Desperate for anything. Rank would have been better off renovating the herald building. If you see it now, with just the concrete skeleton, you can easily imagine a beautiful renovation of the building - think the Tip Top warehouse conversion in Toronto - but with a better ground level. It is the perfect scale to compliment the other side of Argyle street. Loft apartments above - maybe a 'glass box' addition to give a few more floors, and retail replacing garages on the bottom floor. A missed opportunity.

Not at all... the Herald building is probably the worst building for the site possible.

The powerplant renovation makes sense... but renovating the Herald building totally contradicts all of the points against this new proposal such as blank walls and superblocks.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is where our trouble seeing eye-to-eye originates. I believe change can happen faster. With good leadership and someone with a bit of courage. Whether Halifax will ever get this is the question. A strong Mayor can make a world of difference (maybe I'm too optimistic that this will happen sometime soon ). My concern is that if this is built as proposed, it will BE just another one of those mistakes. Old perspectives on Scotia Square made it look quite attractive as well. But the final product is how it is judged.

By that logic we would never build anything.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Not at all... the Herald building is probably the worst building for the site possible.

The powerplant renovation makes sense... but renovating the Herald building totally contradicts all of the points against this new proposal such as blank walls and superblocks.

I guess I'm not being clear or you can't visualize what I'm saying. A renovation of the herald would offer no blank walls or appear as a superblock. It would actually offer potentially offer a super-dense block with the appearance of a very fine grain fabric, ±40feet widths.

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is where our trouble seeing eye-to-eye originates. I believe change can happen faster. With good leadership and someone with a bit of courage. Whether Halifax will ever get this is the question. A strong Mayor can make a world of difference (maybe I'm too optimistic that this will happen sometime soon ). My concern is that if this is built as proposed, it will BE just another one of those mistakes. Old perspectives on Scotia Square made it look quite attractive as well. But the final product is how it is judged.

I suppose it is hard to judge a building by just a few renderings, but honerstly I don't see any flaws in the design except for the fact that the easternmost tower may be too big large compared to the buildings on the other side of Argyle.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by planarchy

I guess I'm not being clear or you can't visualize what I'm saying. A renovation of the herald would offer no blank walls or appear as a superblock. It would actually offer potentially offer a super-dense block with the appearance of a very fine grain fabric, ±40feet widths.

How would it offer no blank walls if the current building has blank walls at street level? What about the rest of the ugly lot?

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

How would it offer no blank walls if the current building has blank walls at street level? What about the rest of the ugly lot?

I think the better question is - why would a renovation of the building offer blank walls at street level? Why can't the current ground floor garage entrances be replaced with floor to ceiling glass and retail entrances? Anyway, this doesn't matter so much. I simply throw this out as an idea/alternative of something that suits the size of the block and surrounding fabric. So as far as the rest of the block the answer is - anything can happen! Come on Worldly, you've lived in the Netherlands - you know the potential for dense mid-rise blocks, as well as creative renovations that are anything but faux heritage.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by planarchy

I think the better question is - why would a renovation of the building offer blank walls at street level? Why can't the current ground floor garage entrances be replaced with floor to ceiling glass and retail entrances? Anyway, this doesn't matter so much. I simply throw this out as an idea/alternative of something that suits the size of the block and surrounding fabric. So as far as the rest of the block the answer is - anything can happen! Come on Worldly, you've lived in the Netherlands - you know the potential for dense mid-rise blocks, as well as creative renovations that are anything but faux heritage.

For sure... but Amsterdam has virtually no tall buildings in the core and no skyline to speak of. I love the city... but it is beautiful in different ways.

If we had a legitimate public transportation network I might be in favour of lower density for this lot because we could just have taller buildings elsewhere. Ultimately we need more people downtown. I don't want to squander our downtown on lowrise that won't pack the people in like towers.

I want Halifax to continue to grow upwards... if some of the high rise developments of the past (however unfortunate some of their designs) didn't happen... Halifax would not be the attractive city that it is today (Scotia Square could totally be reclad).

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

For sure... but Amsterdam has virtually no tall buildings in the core and no skyline to speak of. I love the city... but it is beautiful in different ways.

If we had a legitimate public transportation network I might be in favour of lower density for this lot because we could just have taller buildings elsewhere. Ultimately we need more people downtown. I don't want to squander our downtown on lowrise that won't pack the people in like towers.

I want Halifax to continue to grow upwards... if some of the high rise developments of the past (however unfortunate some of their designs) didn't happen... Halifax would not be the attractive city that it is today (Scotia Square could totally be reclad).

Credit: Mobile Virgin on Flickr

[coolmillion]

Yes, the skyline may be attractive, but the areas with the tallest buildings (around Scotia Square, Purdy's Wharf and the bank buildings) are most unfriendly and uninteresting to pedestrians. This isn't a problem inherent to tall buildings, just the styles we've adopted in Halifax. In contrast Argyle with its lowrises, historic properties with pedestrian spaces and Sp. Garden with set backs are fun to walk around and hang out in. What's the use in building an attractive skyline if it's shitty to hang out in? Actually, a lot of our low rise buildings are pedestrian unfriendly as well - Cambridge Suites, PG Hotel, etc. What we need is quality design and architecture that is not about building higher, faster, but better and more interesting buildings - tall and small! This is where the Nova Centre falls short.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

For sure... but Amsterdam has virtually no tall buildings in the core and no skyline to speak of. I love the city... but it is beautiful in different ways.

If we had a legitimate public transportation network I might be in favour of lower density for this lot because we could just have taller buildings elsewhere. Ultimately we need more people downtown. I don't want to squander our downtown on lowrise that won't pack the people in like towers.

I want Halifax to continue to grow upwards... if some of the high rise developments of the past (however unfortunate some of their designs) didn't happen... Halifax would not be the attractive city that it is today (Scotia Square could totally be reclad).

Holy Photoshop!

Some great points. Reskinning our past mistakes is a great alternative, and renovating ground floor if possible is a great solution. I guess I just think that our narrow grid structure in the streets immediately below the citadel to the waterfront is delicate and just isn't able to withstand tall heavy buildings (although I think the texpark UG towers was a great project and a suitable location - this is a shame that this doesn't seem to be happening).

Public transit is a major problem for sure.

I think ideally, you can build the crap (super height) out of strategic areas - the southern docks (sometime in the future! hopefully) and the cogswell interchange area, connected by a super-dense, pedestrian oriented, mid-rise centre retail core (citadel to waterfront). This would also be an ideal situation for a reintroduction of tram lines running north-south, from the southern docklands, through a retail centre, through cogswell towers, and continuing north. Similar possibilities for towers along south park, led by trillium + paramount, and potential with CBC/YMCA, with retail and transit connection down spring garden. I guess the issue is the inability of the city to develop a strong vision for the future, and of directing development using attractive incentives to developers. But this is another discussion altogether!

[alps]

My two cents: I'm ok with the location (although I think Cogswell could work better) and we definitely need the highrises and the density. I find the design/appearance very bland and uninspired and there is not nearly enough happening at street level. I also hate columns along the street like that - the ones at the Marriott Residence Inn and the Prince George are awful: ugly and annoying to navigate.

Basically I would be content if it proceeded with some architectural changes and I would be ecstatic if it was completely redone in a style that didn't look like the building is best suited to a business park in suburban anywhere, USA.

As usual the "save the view" argument is BS, overly simplistic and ultimately harmful to the city.

[worldlyhaligonian]

And, the solution is .... drumroll... make it all glass!!!!! It would be so badsss.

I love how the rounded part of the design interacts with the street level... it probably would be better for light levels if the whole building was glass.


This being said, the faux historic base cladding for the first number of stories in Trump Tower Toronto is pretty attractive.