General Updates and News - Page 175

-Harlington- · #**3481** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 5:57 PM**

There was no yellow siding in the rendering :

someone123 · #**3482** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Harlington-

Dockyard Clock:

Does anybody know if there is a timeline for redevelopment of the Cable Wharf area? A few months ago plans were released.

It makes sense to get this part done now so that it's ready if Queen's Landing is done a few years down the road. Add in a Sackville Landing overhaul and the Cunard development and the central waterfront would be in great shape aside from the Waterfront Warehouse/Salter block part.

Keith P. · #**3483** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

Unbelievable crap! Can't anyone stop this carnage?

That's even worse than the abomination at the corner of Agricola and North, which is a standard I didn't think it was possible to go below.

Empire · #**3484** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That's even worse than the abomination at the corner of Agricola and North, which is a standard I didn't think it was possible to go below.

You would think that after that mess was built at the corner of Agricola and North a red light would have gone on. As much as it is said over and over again that you can't legislate good design I don't believe it. It is obvious from the playschool renderings for these buildings that they will be horrific and the concept should be sent back to the drawing board. This is something that Design Review Committee has no control over either and they should for the downtown area.

There isn't a single recent development in this area that has any quality or architectural merit. This loophole is destroying the area.

Where is the STV crowd when you need them?

Ugly mess at Agrolica & North.....waste of a prime corner.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=...XDvaj403BM8yrkCow&cbp=12,178.38,,0,-22.5

worldlyhaligonian · #**3485** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 8:55 PM**

Its not tall, ergo these groups are satisfied.

It could be a literal pile of shit, but less than 5 stories... so it fits with the Kommissar's vision of Halifax.

Empire · #**3486** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

You would think that after that mess was built at the corner of Agricola and North a red light would have gone on. As much as it is said over and over again that you can't legislate good design I don't believe it. It is obvious from the playschool renderings for these buildings that they will be horrific and the concept should be sent back to the drawing board. This is something that Design Review Committee has no control over either and they should for the downtown area.

There isn't a single recent development in this area that has any quality or architectural merit. This loophole is destroying the area.

Where is the STV crowd when you need them?

Ugly mess at Agrolica & North.....waste of a prime corner.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=...XDvaj403BM8yrkCow&cbp=12,178.38,,0,-22.5

This is the type of architecture that I think should be springing up in the north end.....this building style would be fantastic on the corner of North & Agricola or Cunard & Gottingen...and yes even a cheaper version would be better than these garden sheds!!!

133 Hazelton
http://133hazelton.com/

planarchy · #**3487** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

This is the type of architecture that I think should be springing up in the north end.....this building style would be fantastic on the corner of North & Agricola or Cunard & Gottingen...and yes even a cheaper version would be better than these garden sheds!!!

133 Hazelton
http://133hazelton.com/

You're ignoring the issue of construction costs, average income in the area. We can certainly have better buildings that ones like the North and Agricola, but suggesting the Yorkdale example would work is ludicrous. There is such a small market for units like this. This isn't Yorkdale - thankfully

- and the average price point for dwelling units in part dictate the quality of buildings. Much of the problem in Halifax is that developers actually try and build buildings like the 133 Hazelton, but have to cheap out on finishes or don't hire good architects, etc.

planarchy · #**3488** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Harlington-

There was no yellow siding in the rendering :

Ha! So it looks nothing like this so far. Not even close.

DigitalNinja · #**3489** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 9:20 PM**

That building makes me want to throw up.

On a better note, Dartmouth cove looks awesome and I hope they do well with it ignoring those comments calling for short buildings instead making it a place people will travel to.

someone123 · #**3490** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by planarchy

Much of the problem in Halifax is that developers actually try and build buildings like the 133 Hazelton, but have to cheap out on finishes or don't hire good architects, etc.

Yeah, often these buildings would look better if they were simplified, and it might even be cheaper to build them like that. In principle it should be possible to build an okay looking four or five storey box on a fairly small budget.

In any case I don't actually believe that the North End is worse off with these buildings. Vibrant neighbourhoods with ugly buildings are far better than dead neighbourhoods with no buildings!

Keith P. · #**3491** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 11:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Harlington-

There was no yellow siding in the rendering :

Not only that, but the windows are completely different and inferior, and the central section above the entry doors is completely changed for the worse.

HRM approved these changes? If not, can they shut it down?

Empire · #**3492** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by planarchy

Ha! So it looks nothing like this so far. Not even close.

Smoke and mirrors. No building looks like the version blown by planning and council. The problem is that it is taking decades for them to clue in. BTW the rendering screams of crap.

Empire · #**3493** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by planarchy

You're ignoring the issue of construction costs, average income in the area. We can certainly have better buildings that ones like the North and Agricola, but suggesting the Yorkdale example would work is ludicrous. There is such a small market for units like this. This isn't Yorkdale - thankfully

- and the average price point for dwelling units in part dictate the quality of buildings. Much of the problem in Halifax is that developers actually try and build buildings like the 133 Hazelton, but have to cheap out on finishes or don't hire good architects, etc.

I guess you missed the point. You can still build a building with some architectural merit on a reasonable budget. It is the building form that is the problem. You can build in style without breaking the bank.

Most of the designs in the Gottingen area have no thought at all. Keep the rain out and sucker planning, council and someone to rent and we're good to go.

BUILD IT RIGHT OR DON'T BUILD IT AT ALL!!

Hali87 · #**3494** Posted **Feb 25, 2012, 11:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

That building makes me want to throw up.

On a better note, Dartmouth cove looks awesome and I hope they do well with it ignoring those comments calling for short buildings instead making it a place people will travel to.

The planners running the workshop made it pretty clear that the recommended height allowances were based on the amount of square footage required to keep the development viable and affordable, rather than on personal height preferences, since there were such a wide range of opinions expressed. In general most people seemed to support this approach, especially since the high-rises will be centred along the greenway.

JustinMacD · #**3495** Posted **Feb 26, 2012, 12:04 AM**

When did Pizza Delight go in next to the Mustache?

mcmcclassic · #**3496** Posted **Feb 26, 2012, 2:54 AM**

It opened about 2 weeks ago. My gf works there as a waitress and says that business is fairly slow there so far.

cormiermax · #**3497** Posted **Feb 26, 2012, 2:57 AM**

With all the other options close by I can't see Pizza Delight doing well there.

Empire · #**3498** Posted **Feb 26, 2012, 1:05 PM**

Subject: Poor quality developments with little architectural value occuring in north end needs to be addressed by planning, council and developers.

There was one building built recently in the north end with thought and quality. If they can do it so can others.

Time & Space Media Building 2570 Agrolica St.
http://www.timespacemedia.com/

Here is a great example of architectural merit in St. John's.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundla.../02/22/nl-duckworth-development-223.html

We have the bar set far too low.

someone123 · #**3499** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 3:13 AM**

Very interesting article tonight in ANS about Scotia Square. As mentioned before, there are a couple of building pads that could accommodate small office developments (40,000 sq. ft. and 100,000 sq. ft.).

A more interesting bit of news was about possible plans for a residential addition to the top of the Trade Mart building. It's been talked about a few times in the past as a good candidate for expansion and residential in that area would be great. Ideally they'd also overhaul the street level of the existing building.

The CEO of Crombie REIT mentioned the importance of residential downtown and he is completely correct. If there were better residential options in that area and more people lived there it would be a more attractive place for office development. Lots of people enjoy the lifestyle of living in an urban neighbourhood with lots of services and being able to walk to work in 10 or 15 minutes. People do not enjoy fighting traffic and parking.

Development around Scotia Square and Brunswick/Cogswell (potentially 5 residential/hotel towers) has good implications for an eventual Cogswell redevelopment as well. Even if Cogswell were torn down right now it would be somewhat unattractive because it is surrounded by a wasteland of concrete and empty lots. If the surroundings were developed a bit more then it would be easy to integrate all the development together.

worldlyhaligonian · #**3500** Posted **Feb 27, 2012, 5:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Very interesting article tonight in ANS about Scotia Square. As mentioned before, there are a couple of building pads that could accommodate small office developments (40,000 sq. ft. and 100,000 sq. ft.).

A more interesting bit of news was about possible plans for a residential addition to the top of the Trade Mart building. It's been talked about a few times in the past as a good candidate for expansion and residential in that area would be great. Ideally they'd also overhaul the street level of the existing building.

The CEO of Crombie REIT mentioned the importance of residential downtown and he is completely correct. If there were better residential options in that area and more people lived there it would be a more attractive place for office development. Lots of people enjoy the lifestyle of living in an urban neighbourhood with lots of services and being able to walk to work in 10 or 15 minutes. People do not enjoy fighting traffic and parking.

Development around Scotia Square and Brunswick/Cogswell (potentially 5 residential/hotel towers) has good implications for an eventual Cogswell redevelopment as well. Even if Cogswell were torn down right now it would be somewhat unattractive because it is surrounded by a wasteland of concrete and empty lots. If the surroundings were developed a bit more then it would be easy to integrate all the development together.

Totally! I think the reason we have so much suburban office space is because everybody lives in the suburbs, not because its specifically that much more attractive.