General Updates and News

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Just to provide a counter to the negativity--yes, there were serious problems with the design, and it's unfortunate that they have to go back after the fact to try and correct those errors.

But the market is a fantastic civic resource. A beautiful, sunny building overlooking the harbour is a vastly better location than the warren of underground tunnels it used to be in. It's still a great place on a Saturday morning, and I've never brought an out-of-towner there without them coming away with positive impressions. (Hopefully it can become more vital throughout the week, after the renos.)

I think the new building is a huge improvement and a major asset to the city. It's too bad it wasn't executed a little better, but if I had to guess I would bet that a lot of initiatives like this that were eventually successful had rocky starts.

Halifax is better than it used to be but I think it's still too conservative for its own good.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by scooby074

Ok, so the Market is knee deep in red ink to the tune of millions, so they spend "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in additional monies to upgrade a building that was supposed to be "top of the line" a mere few years ago.

Brilliant !!

I don't get the impression that the rework is intended to address parts of the building considered to no longer be top of the line. I think that they are trying to address issues like access and pedestrian flow (the upgrades mentioned involve the stairs and creation of a new main entrance). The building materials and finishes are ok, but the overall design needs tweaking. I think it's smart to try to address shortcomings now, rather than carrying on with a layout that isn't/wasn't working.

My observations have been that from the exterior, the building looks like a nicely detailed box, but doesn't express "market." Perhaps a better indoor/outdoor connection (the garage doors) and some exterior canopies will help. I was talking to a coworker about this yesterday, and he observed that on the walk from parking (I assume from the lot over closer to Pier 21 and the Cunard Centre) there is quite a stretch of barren sidewalk, and you don't really experience "market" until you walk through the doors. This could be a (good weather?) fix of including outdoor vending stalls as an alternative to expanding southward into the annex, which happens when there are 1) enough vendors and 2) no cruise ships.

My personal experience has been that if I go with the intent to fulfill a shopping list, I can end up bouncing back and forth between stalls on the interior, retracing my own steps a few times - this can be frustrating, and doesn't encourage me to go, unless I feel like battling directionless milling about on a Saturday morning. If, on the other hand, I go with the intent to browse and people watch (probably adding to the directionless milling about), the layout isn't as frustrating.

I don't hate the existing green wall, but if removing it helps make a more useable space, I say go for it.

Now, I wonder what open garage doors will do to the (presumably carefully controlled) heating and ventilation system installed as part of the LEED effort.

[bluenoser]

Barrington Street height limit increase considered

Proposal will affect Westin Nova Scotian, Via Rail and Atlantic Superstore

CBC News
Posted: Mar 15, 2013 9:41 AM AT
Last Updated: Mar 15, 2013 12:00 PM AT


This lot on the corner of South and Hollis streets has been vacant since a fire two years ago. (CBC)

The Halifax Regional Municipality is considering increasing the height limit for several properties at the south end of Barrington Street, including a lot that has been vacant since a fire two years ago.

Although the current height restriction on the site is 45 feet or approximately 13.7 metres, planners with the municipality want to change that to nearly 22 metres — approximately seven storeys.

Waye Mason, the councillor for Peninsula South Downtown, said the lower height restriction was kept in place while new rules were developed for the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District near the street's south end.

But some historical buildings at the corner of South and Hollis streets had to be demolished after faulty wiring sparked a fire two years ago — the lot has been vacant since.

Mason said he doesn't think the previous height restrictions need to be in place for a vacant lot.

...

Phil Pacey, of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, said the proposal alarms him.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/15/ns-barrington-height-limit.html

------

I wonder if Phil feels another parking lot better complements the train station and rounds out Cornwallis Park?

[Drybrain]

Good lord. Does Phil Pacey actually think the train station is in danger of being demolished? It's A: Heritage-designated, and B: Still in use as a train station. It's a lot more likely that the enormous, awful Atlantic Superstore site would be redeveloped to something less suburban in character.

Meanwhile, there are historic buildings in real, imminent danger of being demolition, and Pacey is completely silent on that.

[W.Sobchak]

Antime I read something by phil pacey, I immediately think of the the three manors that were originally on the Trillium site, and due to the HT's vision, nothing was done and away they went. The developer even said they would help in their transfer.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I don't get the impression that the rework is intended to address parts of the building considered to no longer be top of the line. I think that they are trying to address issues like access and pedestrian flow (the upgrades mentioned involve the stairs and creation of a new main entrance). The building materials and finishes are ok, but the overall design needs tweaking. I think it's smart to try to address shortcomings now, rather than carrying on with a layout that isn't/wasn't working.

My observations have been that from the exterior, the building looks like a nicely detailed box, but doesn't express "market." Perhaps a better indoor/outdoor connection (the garage doors) and some exterior canopies will help. I was talking to a coworker about this yesterday, and he observed that on the walk from parking (I assume from the lot over closer to Pier 21 and the Cunard Centre) there is quite a stretch of barren sidewalk, and you don't really experience "market" until you walk through the doors. This could be a (good weather?) fix of including outdoor vending stalls as an alternative to expanding southward into the annex, which happens when there are 1) enough vendors and 2) no cruise ships.

My personal experience has been that if I go with the intent to fulfill a shopping list, I can end up bouncing back and forth between stalls on the interior, retracing my own steps a few times - this can be frustrating, and doesn't encourage me to go, unless I feel like battling directionless milling about on a Saturday morning. If, on the other hand, I go with the intent to browse and people watch (probably adding to the directionless milling about), the layout isn't as frustrating.

I don't hate the existing green wall, but if removing it helps make a more useable space, I say go for it.

Now, I wonder what open garage doors will do to the (presumably carefully controlled) heating and ventilation system installed as part of the LEED effort.

I think they should hold off on any investments until they start to gain support through the week.

From what I read of the proposed changes, none of them really seem to address the flow of people there on the weekends nor do I think the changes will pull people there through the week.

One addition, roll up doors, will be useless in winter. And in summer, they already have significant outdoor vendors without needing these doors. They may help people get in and out, but in my experience that is not the problem, the problem is flow once inside.

Adding ledges upstairs so people can eat and look down on the floor below, is interesting, but how many people will actually wander upstairs with their snacks as opposed to just eating on the lower floor as is done now? And, if eating upstairs happens to become popular, is it wise to have those extra bodies up there cluttering up the already narrow upper walkway?

On fire safety and electrical, thats just bad design from the start!! But it looks like they must have that sorted now because there are several kitchens in the market currently. I didnt see any reference to upgrades for the food court in this new design. May have missed it though.

I dont find the walk from Cunard to the market to be particularly bad. Its not that far. Nice wide sidewalks. I usually stop in at Garrison on the way through. Its a non issue for me.

As to encouraging people to explore the market...Is there really anyone in Halifax who doesn't know it exists? There is already lots of advertising. The front facade to me is a nice design and welcoming. Lots of glass. If a person is already down there (lets face it, at this time, the market is in a bit of an out of the way location) they are likely there for a reason, like Garrison or the market itself. I dont believe they get many random people in there that just happen to be going by, other than tourists perhaps.

I agree that some semblance of order when it comes to what stall goes where would be a big help. Right now it is a bit flea-marketish. Adopting more of a grocery store style layout and grouping like vendors together would make more efficient use of time while shopping.

I just dont agree with structural changes (and adding to the market's already huge bill) until the market starts to draw more customers, because I feel that the structure of the building is not the reason the market is failing through the week.

Personally, I love the market, and want it to succeed, but I think that they are focusing on the wrong thing.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Good lord. Does Phil Pacey actually think the train station is in danger of being demolished? It's A: Heritage-designated, and B: Still in use as a train station. It's a lot more likely that the enormous, awful Atlantic Superstore site would be redeveloped to something less suburban in character.

Meanwhile, there are historic buildings in real, imminent danger of being demolition, and Pacey is completely silent on that.

I actually agree with Pacey on this one - I don't see why the height limits on the hotel and train station should go up? They seem unrelated. Superstore I get.

If the height limits on the hotel and train station do end up being increased, then I think there should be provisions to prevent outright demolition and make sure additions are sensitive to the existing buildings.

I think there actually is a real risk that the train station could be torn down, depending how things play out with commuter rail and VIA service. There's a lot of concern that VIA will pull out of Halifax completely following its recent service reductions.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I actually agree with Pacey on this one - I don't see why the height limits on the hotel and train station should go up? They seem unrelated. Superstore I get.

It is a complete red herring. It's absurd to focus on height limits when City Hall is carelessly handing out demolition permits and encouraging demolition with its tax system. HRM creates economic pressure to demolish heritage buildings regardless of whether or not they can be replaced with 7+ storey buildings. Barrington in fact used to have a 7 storey heritage building at George Street that is now a parking lot!

The biggest problem right now is that the heritage registration process is owner-initiated, and even registered buildings can be demolished after a 3 year waiting period. Pacey's unfocused complaining is counter-productive. The city would be much better off if all the attention went to actual buildings and provincial legislation to fix the registration process.

[ILoveHalifax]

Every change that comes along in this city seems to have to meet the approval of Phil Pacey.
He proudly presents himself as the great saviour of the city dating back to when he and company stopped the demolition of the waterfront and Harbour Drive, and the Arm bridge.
We have a city now that has stagnated over the decades with very little downtown development. I am not advocationg that we should have taken the alternative (Harbour Drive, etc) but we really have no idea what the city might look like today had we taken that approach. We could be a vibrant city of 650,000 population with lots of good paying jobs. We will never know.
However, as much as we have a great city with a few problems what we have is not working. Barrington, Granville and Hollis have practically no retail and are lined with empty buildings and storefronts. Scotia Square is a small remnant of what it once was. Granville Mall, Historic Properties and Maritime Center are mainly empty. Those business' that do survive seem to hang on until hope runs out. Very few people live downtown, even less shop downtown.
We have a few office towers and a street or two of bars and a boardwalk used mainly for a few months in the summer.
Yes, I am excited about the new construction. It will take more than these new developments to really change downtown because without people they will be empty storefronts in a few years. We are not going to get any kind of density in renovated three story buildings.
We need a huge amount of imagination to make Halifax a great city.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Every change that comes along in this city seems to have to meet the approval of Phil Pacey.
He proudly presents himself as the great saviour of the city dating back to when he and company stopped the demolition of the waterfront and Harbour Drive, and the Arm bridge.
We have a city now that has stagnated over the decades with very little downtown development. I am not advocationg that we should have taken the alternative (Harbour Drive, etc) but we really have no idea what the city might look like today had we taken that approach. We could be a vibrant city of 650,000 population with lots of good paying jobs. We will never know.
However, as much as we have a great city with a few problems what we have is not working. Barrington, Granville and Hollis have practically no retail and are lined with empty buildings and storefronts. Scotia Square is a small remnant of what it once was. Granville Mall, Historic Properties and Maritime Center are mainly empty. Those business' that do survive seem to hang on until hope runs out. Very few people live downtown, even less shop downtown.
We have a few office towers and a street or two of bars and a boardwalk used mainly for a few months in the summer.
Yes, I am excited about the new construction. It will take more than these new developments to really change downtown because without people they will be empty storefronts in a few years. We are not going to get any kind of density in renovated three story buildings.
We need a huge amount of imagination to make Halifax a great city.

Good post - I agree.

Stopping the Harbour Drive was a big plus for the city. However, the North West Arm Bridge should have been built and should be built. It would get truck traffic out of downtown Halifax and, if routed properly, the trucks would have a direct passage out of the city.

I often wonder if Halifax would be over 600,000 now if not for the Halifax explosion (which is not related to Phil Pacey). I wonder how many decades of population growth that Katrina has set New Orleans back? (I think Katrina has set New Orleans back by at least 20 years in terms of population, I think the great explosion had a similar effect on Halifax - it set the population back by 20 years since a couple of decades were required just to get the city back to where it was)

[Drybrain]

We need A: Developers who understand the economic value of well-preserved heritage to their projects, B: heritage designations that can be instigated by the government or by citizen lobby, and C: a city council with the legal authority (and the will) to tell developers "no," in no uncertain terms, about innappropriate demolition.

I think Pacey is so obsessed with height limits as a preservation tool because he just doesn't want to see tall buildings. Sounds simple, but I think it's true. Pacey, in my opinion, is a menace to heritage preservation in the city--with the HT as our defacto heritage-advocacy group, nobody else is bothering to take up the fight. And we need someone else to do it--someone who's not so obsessed with height limits, and who's willing to work with government and developers to come to mutually agreeable outcomes, not just argue against every single project that comes down the pipe.

Anyway, if the VIA station were ever threatened (I think it's unlikely), let's all promise to mount a big anti-demolition campaign.

[fenwick16]

I don't think you will find much support for an anti-demolition rally on this skyscraperpage forum. The main support here seems to be for development.

I can't see why the Atlantic Superstore and Via Station area should have a 10.668 meter building height limit. Are there any real heritage properties in this area? Just because it is adjacent to Cornwallis Park isn't a suitable reason. Having highrises around The Halifax Public Gardens hasn't destroyed the Public Gardens.

[ILoveHalifax]

I am not sure if I would want to save the train station or not. I think we need to be open to all possibilities. If we were to build something of much greater value, design, purpose, or iconic, I would certainly consider all options.

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't think you will find much support for an anti-demolition rally on this skyscraperpage forum. The main support here seems to be for development.

I'd definitely be in favour an anti-demolition rally if something were ever to happen to the train station. I do support development in some cases, but I also support the careful and purposeful preservation of our heritage. I'm not passionate about development, I'm passionate about this city; Halifax has so much potential to become a truly amazing city, but to reach that potential requires more than just new buildings.

[Phalanx]

I think you're on your own on that one, Fenwick. Most people here have advocated the protection of heritage buildings at one point or another. It all depends on what and why.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't think you will find much support for an anti-demolition rally on this skyscraperpage forum. The main support here seems to be for development.

There are plenty of empty lots and mediocre buildings in Halifax that provide an opportunity for development without having to tear down buildings like the train station. I think the "development vs. heritage" dilemma in Halifax is completely false. It is at least partly a invented by Pacey and groups like STV who use heritage preservation as a pretext for NIMBY lobbying. In the process they have hurt new development and heritage buildings.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

We need A: Developers who understand the economic value of well-preserved heritage to their projects, B: heritage designations that can be instigated by the government or by citizen lobby, and C: a city council with the legal authority (and the will) to tell developers "no," in no uncertain terms, about innappropriate demolition.

Part of the problem is that, as far as heritage protection goes, the city has roughly the same ad hoc dynamic that used to exist before HRM by Design. There should be reliable, systematic preservation of buildings of heritage value in HRM, not a patchwork of indirect rules.

[MeEtc]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet, so I'll add it in here. The Raddison Hotel is currently undergoing major renovations that started in January. The re-opening is estimated to be in May, but I'm not sure if that will be met. The 3 harbour facing rooms on each floor have been demo'd and 4 new rooms are being built in their place. The lobby is getting an overhaul as well. Ryan Duffy's in the ground level is not affected and remains open.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't think you will find much support for an anti-demolition rally on this skyscraperpage forum. The main support here seems to be for development.

I can't see why the Atlantic Superstore and Via Station area should have a 10.668 meter building height limit. Are there any real heritage properties in this area? Just because it is adjacent to Cornwallis Park isn't a suitable reason. Having highrises around The Halifax Public Gardens hasn't destroyed the Public Gardens.

I think there are a lot of people around here who are invested in built heritage. Development doesn't have to be at odds with preservation. We don't live in a blank slate; we live in a city that has a been building itself for hundreds of years, and a lot of it is working fine as-is, and should be kept. It's about determining what's good and what's not, aesthetically and functionally. (For example: A development that involved destroying the train station would be unacceptable. A development that involved destroying the Superstore, or incorporating into a more urban template, would be WONDERFUL.)

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by haligonia

I'd definitely be in favour an anti-demolition rally if something were ever to happen to the train station. I do support development in some cases, but I also support the careful and purposeful preservation of our heritage. I'm not passionate about development, I'm passionate about this city; Halifax has so much potential to become a truly amazing city, but to reach that potential requires more than just new buildings.

I think the Via Station is worth saving but having several blocks that includes open parking lots with a ridiculously low height limit isn't the way to do it.

In order for the Halifax area to become a truly amazing city then one of the things that it does need is new development and a significant amount of it. I believe in having a mix of old and new but even at its current size, probably well less than 5% of the urban core of Halifax/Dartmouth consists of significant heritage buildings. If new buildings are going to be limited for the sake of trying to preserve the areas surrounding heritage buildings then this is equivalent to promoting urban sprawl.

In any case, I stand by my assertion that it would be very tough to organize an anti-demolition rally on this forum even if there were a proposal to demolish the VIA Station, which I wouldn't want either. How many on this forum were opposed to the Nova Centre? Most on this forum were opposed to the groups trying to stop the Nova Centre (and I cheer all the ones who did oppose these groups).

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think there are a lot of people around here who are invested in built heritage. Development doesn't have to be at odds with preservation. We don't live in a blank slate; we live in a city that has a been building itself for hundreds of years, and a lot of it is working fine as-is, and should be kept. It's about determining what's good and what's not, aesthetically and functionally. (For example: A development that involved destroying the train station would be unacceptable. A development that involved destroying the Superstore, or incorporating into a more urban template, would be WONDERFUL.)

I agree with what you have stated, I just don't think that there would be a big turnout for an anti-demolition rally to save the VIA Station (from this forum). Perhaps university students would go?

If there were a proposal to demolish the Province House or Citadel Hill then I would attend an anti-demolition rally . After all, the VIA Station is only 80 years old - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax,_Nova_Scotia_railway_station. I think that there is more heritage associated with the old Halifax Forum but I doubt that people would turn out to save it from demolition.