[Halifax] TD Tower Expansion | 83 m | 23 fl | Completed

[fenwick16]

Based on the following document from the HRM website (originally posted by DmaJackson) - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/documents/110811drc73.pdf - the developer and owner, TDB Halifax Holdings Limited, is planning to increase the height to the maximum allowed by HRM_by_Design which is the ramparts maximum (post-bonus height).

I hope that this proposal will go ahead, I believe that TDB Halifax Holdings Limited is doing a fair job of saving what they can of the Macara Barnstead Building and are also planning to re-create the Kelly Building. In my opinion, this will be a great addition to Halifax and shouldn't be delayed.

Here is the HRM_by_Design height map -


This is what the TD Tower currently looks like from the direction of the harbour (the blank wall):
(source: Bing Maps screen-capture: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rf7bdx9...sty=o&where1=Halifax%2C%20NS&form=LMLTCC )



This is Lydon Lynch Architects' sketch of what it will become (below). I can imagine this becoming a dominant part of the Halifax skyline. Not only will be have windows, it will also be a couple of floors taller (not as tall as 1801 Hollis, based on the building height, but it will appear to be as tall from the harbour because of the higher elevation).
(source: http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/documents/110811drc73.pdf )

[fenwick16]

According to the allnovascotia.com (Amy Pugsley Fraser, September 1st, 2011 edition) the Halifax Heritage Advisory Committee gave unanimous approval of the TD proposal. The next step will be the HRM Design Review Committee likely in mid September (according to the story).

It seems as though this project can be approved through HRM_by_Design since it will be within the height limits (ramparts maximum).

[Dmajackson]

Uhh ... hell has finally frozen over.

The Heritage Advisory Committee unanimously recommended this project for approval

[cormiermax]

Not gonna lie, I gasped when I read that.

[Chadillaccc]

So, it's going to be 93 meters tall?

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

So, it's going to be 93 meters tall?

The elevation from sea-level will be about 93 meters but the building will be about 82 meters from the lowest street elevation on Granville Street.

Halifax has a bylaw stating that no building can be seen rising above the Citadel Hill Fortress ramparts from within the fortress courtyard (a bylaw that I have always personally disliked). Since Halifax downtown is built on a hill, as buildings get closer to the Citadell Hill their actual height must decrease.

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Uhh ... hell has finally frozen over.

The Heritage Advisory Committee unanimously recommended this project for approval

I was wondering why it suddenly got cold. Glad to see this going ahead to next steps.

[halifaxboyns]

I dropped my coffee when I read they gave unanimous approval...wow. I agree with Fenwick to a point. I am on the fence about the rampart height in certain locations as I've always been a fan of the view from citadell hill. I loved going up and watching the ships come in and out as the sunset, but the fact Maritime Centre was in the view never bothered me.

I think there are spots where the rampart maximum makes no sense. The Cogswell lands for example - you've got all the towers from Scotia Square, just let that area go. No one is going to care, honestly. But for where the Twisted Sisters are, I'm not so sure on.

Vancouver's system of viewplanes only protect very narrow views (they have diagrams on their website and some of the protected views look to be less than 10m wide). Our views are much bigger, which is fine.

For me, I would be more on the same side as fenwick if the bylaws or policies had a means to prevent walling off of the protected views (which is the big issue that STV talks about). So perhaps the building could go right to the viewplane edges up to say 7 stories, but then has to begin pushing away from the edges as you go higher...this way from the points where the view is measured it doesn't appear so walled off.

[someone123]

The unanimous approval shows that some heritage advocates are totally out to lunch and should be ignored.

Useful heritage advocacy is practical and good advocates realize the need to capitalize on developments that bring in new investment that can be used for preservation. This is a great development because it contributes to the most important aspects of heritage in the city -- it preserves one building and makes the rest of that end of the block more pedestrian-friendly. Height is secondary and even if the added height is a negative (I do not believe that) it is not an adequate reason for giving up this great opportunity to improve an important block downtown with millions of dollars of investment.

[fenwick16]

According to the allnovascotia.com, the TD expansion has now been approved by the HRM Design Review Committee. The owners are hoping to start construction in late spring or early summer 2012.

There was a statement in the allnovascotia.com story that puzzled me. It stated that the lead architect for Lydon Lynch (the firm doing the design work) hoped to bring the proposal before HRM Council as soon as possible. Is HRM Council approval required to go above the pre-bonus height??? The pre-bonus height limit is 49 meters whereas the post-bonus height limit is ramparts maximum. This proposal appears to fall below the post-bonus, ramparts-maximum height limit.

Based on my understanding of the pre-bonus and post-bonus height, there must be a public benefit in order to qualify for the post-bonus height. In this case, partially preserving the Macara Barnstead Building and recreating the Kelly Building could be considered to be a public benefit. Based on what I have read, if it is deemed that there is no public benefit then the owner or developer must pay a penalty based on the square footage over the pre-bonus height.

I am not sure if what I have stated above is correct. Can someone tell me if I understand the HRM-by_Design guidelines correctly? Is HRM Council approval required to go above the pre-bonus height (or does Council decide if the penalty must be paid if it doesn't qualify as being a public benefit?)

[Dmajackson]

By an unanimous vote the Design Review Committee APPROVED this proposal.

Construction could begin next spring.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

There was a statement in the allnovascotia.com story that puzzled me. It stated that the lead architect for Lydon Lynch (the firm doing the design work) hoped to bring the proposal before HRM Council as soon as possible.

I also thought this was puzzling. I don't really know the full HbD process aside from the design review committee.

Maybe there's a flowchart somewhere...

[fenwick16]

I found this in the Downtown Halifax Land Use Bylaw - http://halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf in the "Public Benefit Agreement" section. Based on this section, it appears as though a development agreement is required to go above the pre-bonus height.

Public Benefit Agreement
(9) Prior to the issuance of a development permit by the Development Officer, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the Municipality which shall:
(a) identify the particular parcel of land to be developed, where the public
benefit is to be provided off-site of the development;
(b) include design drawings, provided by the developer for the required public
benefit and where necessary, include detailed construction drawings, site
plans, specifications, and cost estimates of the proposed work; and
(c) identify the required process and conditions for supervision and
acceptance of the proposed public benefit before the work is accepted by
the Municipality as the public benefit for the development.


However, there are various restrictions on demolishing heritage building which is what Phil Pacey is arguing this TD expansion will do to the Marcara Barnstead Building - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/hac/documents/HeritageTrust.pdf. Luckily it now has the approval of the Heritage Advisory Committee and HRM Design Review Committee which will probably be a consideration of the HRM Council approval for the post bonus height - at least that is my hope since I can't see much of a future of the Macara Barnstead Building without this TD Tower expansion.

[halifaxboyns]

The architect maybe assuming there will be an appeal based upon Pacey's submission. When I looked at the manual, this is the important thing to remember:

Committee Role
(12) The Committee shall review:
(a) site plan approval applications as per subsections (13) and (14) of section
5 of this By-law; and
(b) wind impact assessments as per Schedule S-2 of this By-law.
(13) The Committee shall:
(a) approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for substantive
site plan approval consistent with the requirements of the Design Manual;
(b) seek and consider the advice of the Heritage Advisory Committee on site
plan applications on registered heritage properties or abutting registered
heritage properties, and on applications within heritage conservation
districts;
(c) advise the Development Officer on matters pertaining to bonus zoning in
relation to substantive site plan approvals; and
(d) advise Council on potential amendments to regulation and policy to carry
out the role and responsibilities of the Committee or to further the intent of
this By-law as may be required from time to time.

Where I think the architect is getting the council role is here:
Appeal of Committee Decision
(15) A decision by the Committee to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a substantive site plan approval may be appealed to Council in accordance with the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter.

I've gone through the post bonus sections and I can't seem to find anything else where council would be involved...

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I found this in the Downtown Halifax Land Use Bylaw - http://halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf in the "Public Benefit Agreement" section. Based on this section, it appears as though a development agreement is required to go above the pre-bonus height.

Public Benefit Agreement
(9) Prior to the issuance of a development permit by the Development Officer, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the Municipality which shall:
(a) identify the particular parcel of land to be developed, where the public
benefit is to be provided off-site of the development;
(b) include design drawings, provided by the developer for the required public
benefit and where necessary, include detailed construction drawings, site
plans, specifications, and cost estimates of the proposed work; and
(c) identify the required process and conditions for supervision and
acceptance of the proposed public benefit before the work is accepted by
the Municipality as the public benefit for the development.


However, there are various restrictions on demolishing heritage building which is what Phil Pacey is arguing this TD expansion will do to the Marcara Barnstead Building - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/hac/documents/HeritageTrust.pdf. Luckily it now has the approval of the Heritage Advisory Committee and HRM Design Review Committee which will probably be a consideration of the HRM Council approval for the post bonus height - at least that is my hope since I can't see much of a future of the Macara Barnstead Building without this TD Tower expansion.

I'm not sure if there is any public benefit proposed by the TD development, so I would assume that the requirement to go before council has to do with the substantial alterations to a registered heritage property (which still stands as its own process, separate from HRMbyDesign as I understand it). As you note, this has unanimous recommendation from the Heritage Advisory Committee. That, combined with a positive staff report and an approval by the Design Review Committee, should lead council to approve. There will be public hearing before council, so you'd better believe the Heritage Trust will be there.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The architect maybe assuming there will be an appeal based upon Pacey's submission. When I looked at the manual, this is the important thing to remember:

Committee Role
(12) The Committee shall review:
(a) site plan approval applications as per subsections (13) and (14) of section
5 of this By-law; and
(b) wind impact assessments as per Schedule S-2 of this By-law.
(13) The Committee shall:
(a) approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for substantive
site plan approval consistent with the requirements of the Design Manual;
(b) seek and consider the advice of the Heritage Advisory Committee on site
plan applications on registered heritage properties or abutting registered
heritage properties, and on applications within heritage conservation
districts;
(c) advise the Development Officer on matters pertaining to bonus zoning in
relation to substantive site plan approvals; and
(d) advise Council on potential amendments to regulation and policy to carry
out the role and responsibilities of the Committee or to further the intent of
this By-law as may be required from time to time.

Where I think the architect is getting the council role is here:
Appeal of Committee Decision
(15) A decision by the Committee to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a substantive site plan approval may be appealed to Council in accordance with the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter.

I've gone through the post bonus sections and I can't seem to find anything else where council would be involved...

I don't know if the proponent is anticipating an appeal (which, would go to council as you point out), but the heritage-related processes still require a council approval and associated public hearing. My assumption was that the proponent plans to present to council, in addition to the staff report and the recommendation by the Heritage Advisory Committee.

[Jstaleness]

From news957.com

Council will write another chapter today in the ongoing debate over development versus heritage in the downtown core.

This time it's about a little building at the foot of the TD centre on Granville Street, currently home to the Flower Shop and Nic Nax Smokeshop.

The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia says the Macara-Barnstead building is one of only a few examples of its kind, and should be conserved.

"It was built in 1825, it's one of the very few stone Georgian buildings that are left in the city and that is the type of building that really establishes the character of halifax," said Trust chair Philip Pacey.

The owner of the TD building has submitted a plan to keep the building's facade, but demolish most of the structure to add a 22-storey bank tower behind it.

A staff report to council recommends approving the plan.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

From news957.com

Council will write another chapter today in the ongoing debate over development versus heritage in the downtown core.

This time it's about a little building at the foot of the TD centre on Granville Street, currently home to the Flower Shop and Nic Nax Smokeshop.

The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia says the Macara-Barnstead building is one of only a few examples of its kind, and should be conserved.

"It was built in 1825, it's one of the very few stone Georgian buildings that are left in the city and that is the type of building that really establishes the character of halifax," said Trust chair Philip Pacey.

The owner of the TD building has submitted a plan to keep the building's facade, but demolish most of the structure to add a 22-storey bank tower behind it.

A staff report to council recommends approving the plan.

This shouldn't be a surprise. This group is going to do everything it can to save the building - it's pretty much their mandate. But I don't think they will end up getting a win on this, council has been very consistent in their opinion of Pacey and his group.

Council's view became very clear during the Roy/Discovery building public hearings when Pacey and his gang came out and challenged HRM in having power to even hold a public hearing or make a decision - they voted to approve and then the HT did nothing. It reminds me of a line I heard on a Star Trek show where an alien was making threats to some humans and they responded back with a threat - the alien replies "you are like (some sort of) cat with no teeth". That's pretty much the HT to a tee.

[someone123]

I think they're right in pointing out that it's an important building but most of its value is in its facade, which will be in better condition if this development moves forward.

I agree that it's the HT's mandate to preserve these buildings so they should be seen as a special interest group, with concerns to be weighed against many others.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think they're right in pointing out that it's an important building but most of its value is in its facade, which will be in better condition if this development moves forward.

I agree that it's the HT's mandate to preserve these buildings so they should be seen as a special interest group, with concerns to be weighed against many others.

I can understand the HT's point of view; at the same time I don't understand their distaste for modifications to preserved buildings. We are keeping--and improving--the Georgian facade. The character of the building is therefore preserved. It seems as though HT has intolerance toward even a change in usage of a building.

This TD proposal is very Halifax in my eyes. It is blending the old with the new; it truly creates a building uniquely to this city. Seeing this merged modern architecture with the Georgian facade will turn heads, make an impression, make people ponder its history, and contribute to Halifax's historical character.