[Halifax] Citadel Halifax Redevelopment | 3X49 m | 18-16-16 fl | Completed

[Nifta]

I think the blank-walls rule only applies to street-facing walls. Although this wall's very visible because of the height, technically, it's the rear of the hotel and doesn't face a sidewalk.

Sad to see it though. I think it'll be one of the most visible walls from the citadel hill (if my geography is correct!)

[someone123]

It would be nicer not to have the blank wall but it is pretty narrow.

The shot looking down Cogswell makes me hope that the Cogswell tower will one day get a recladding.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I like your pictures but I am shocked to see this large 16 storey blank wall. It is similar to the blank end walls on the Scotia Square apartment towers but higher. I thought the Design Review Committee was put in place to avoid such mistakes.

Even just a couple windows on each level would have been a big improvement. (and a finish that was lighter, such as on the TD Tower blank wall, instead of bricks - yikes!)

However, the other perspectives look good.

Photos by RyeJay






This is a real shame. This is similar to the Midtown debacle and clearly demonstrates how little power or foresight the Design Review Committee has.

I would say the issue here is the same old story as with other blank walls in HRM. The fire code does not permit windows within 5ft. of a property line. It looks as thought they are built to the police station property line and therefore are encouraged/legislated to construct a blank wall. This ruling has to change. If a building is over three floors then they should have to set the building back and incorporate windows. Even fake windows to match the rest of the building should have been penciled into the development agreement. The CIBC on Barrington and Duke has windows all around because they set the building back from the propert line. The TD building next to it has two blank walls because they built to the property line.

I think HRM should offer to pay for fake windows and not allow this mistake again. Waye?

[Fischbob]

Solution: redevelop the police station

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Empire

Photos by RyeJay

This is a real shame. This is similar to the Midtown debacle and clearly demonstrates how little power or foresight the Design Review Committee has.

I would say the issue here is the same old story as with other blank walls in HRM. The fire code does not permit windows within 5ft. of a property line. It looks as thought they are built to the police station property line and therefore are encouraged/legislated to construct a blank wall. This ruling has to change. If a building is over three floors then they should have to set the building back and incorporate windows. Even fake windows to match the rest of the building should have been penciled into the development agreement. The CIBC on Barrington and Duke has windows all around because they set the building back from the propert line. The TD building next to it has two blank walls because they built to the property line.

I think HRM should offer to pay for fake windows and not allow this mistake again. Waye?

Thanks for the information Empire regarding the fire code (I didn't know this was a regulation, although it makes sense). I agree, it would be best not to allow blank walls (although if it will be hidden by an adjacent building on narrow lots then I think it should be ok).

I glanced through the Downtown Halifax Land Use Bylaw (DHLUB) and Design Manual (i.e. HRM by Design) and since the Citadel Hotel project lies outside the map for Central blocks it should have required a 5.5 meter setback (or 10% of the lot width, whichever is less) between 18.5 meters and 33.5 meters (the midrise portion) and then a 11.5 meter setback over 33.5 meters. (reference http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf)

Based on my understanding of the DHLUB and Design Manual, this project should have required a setback at 18.5 meters and could have had windows from the 7th floor on up. The upper 5 floor section is designed with a setback so it is especially surprising that there are no windows in the upper 5 floors on the police station side.

The adjacent police station has a 23 meter building height, so technically the Citadel Hotel could have been setback and had windows over 23 meters without risk of them being blocked by future development.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

RayJay, you need to take more pictures. You find some great views, great pics.

Thank you. Now that I am capable of connecting my camera to my laptop (I had to repair part of the camera), I will be able to contribute more often. And I also need to get lucky with enough spare time to walk around the downtown!

Halifax's downtown is getting big enough that you pretty much have to plan an entire day if you want to be able to personally see all the larger buildings. I didn't have enough time to go see Dal's rising res building.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thanks for the information Empire regarding the fire code (I didn't know this was a regulation, although it makes sense). I agree, it would be best not to allow blank walls (although if it will be hidden by an adjacent building on narrow lots then I think it should be ok).

I glanced through the Downtown Halifax Land Use Bylaw (DHLUB) and Design Manual (i.e. HRM by Design) and since the Citadel Hotel project lies outside the map for Central blocks it should have required a 5.5 meter setback (or 10% of the lot width, whichever is less) between 18.5 meters and 33.5 meters (the midrise portion) and then a 11.5 meter setback over 33.5 meters. (reference http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/DHLUBandDesignManual.pdf)

Based on my understanding of the DHLUB and Design Manual, this project should have required a setback at 18.5 meters and could have had windows from the 7th floor on up. The top 5 floors is designed with a setback so it is especially surprising that there are no windows in the upper 5 floors on the police station side.

The adjacent police station has a 23 meter building height, so technically the Citadel Hotel could have been setback and had windows over 23 meters without risk of them being blocked by future development.

Good info. Fenwick. It would appear as though it was an economical design choice to eliminate windows. The Design Manual should introduce a section on blank walls and window requirement. If someone wanted to build a building of this size with no windows there seems to be very little to stop them.

[kph06]

I think this is a new rendering of the apartment building form an angle we haven't seen yet:


Source

[someone123]

It really does look like a larger version of the Vic apartments.

It's clear from the pictures above that these will completely change the feel of the area. It felt like a no man's land of concrete and parking lots before.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I like your pictures but I am shocked to see this large 16 storey blank wall. It is similar to the blank end walls on the Scotia Square apartment towers but higher. I thought the Design Review Committee was put in place to avoid such mistakes.

Even just a couple windows on each level would have been a big improvement. (and a finish that was lighter, such as on the TD Tower blank wall, instead of bricks - yikes!)

Agreed 100% This blank wall is quite shocking. This is an important vista looking down Cogswell to the harbour. Driving east on Cogswell this will not look nearly as nice as it could have. Since it looks west towards the Commons, it would have provided a nice view for the hotel. Windows on this elevation would have been a win all around.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Agreed 100% This blank wall is quite shocking. This is an important vista looking down Cogswell to the harbour. Driving east on Cogswell this will not look nearly as nice as it could have. Since it looks west towards the Commons, it would have provided a nice view for the hotel. Windows on this elevation would have been a win all around.

Scroll up - Fenwick actually provides a response to his issue in terms of the building code/DT LUB.

[teddifax]

I think they can address this situation by some form of building decoration and for sure decorative lighting in the evening. This would take away from the starkness of the blank wall.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Scroll up - Fenwick actually provides a response to his issue in terms of the building code/DT LUB.

The sad part is that this could have been addressed in the DA but staff didn't see it coming. If they developer wants to cheap out and create blank walls then there is nothing to stop them. This needs to change.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Empire

The sad part is that this could have been addressed in the DA but staff didn't see it coming. If they developer wants to cheap out and create blank walls then there is nothing to stop them. This needs to change.

I doubt this is about the developer "cheaping out". I'd say it has more to do with wanting to have maximum site coverage, especially as they are putting surface parking behind the towers, build up to the property line and plan for a future redevelopment of the adjacent site.

If they put windows here, they would have to leave to considerable space to the property line due to limiting distances/fire regs associated with any glazing. And their building permit would be based on the assumption that the adjacent lot could hypothetically be redeveloped in the future. I don't think this is disaster that people seem to think it is. If this was one tower in the middle of the lot on a podium base, then you would expect windows on all sides. But its not.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by planarchy

I don't think this is disaster that people seem to think it is.

This blank wall also covers maybe 1/20 of the outside surface of the three buildings that make up this development. The other two towers will apparently have windows on all four sides because they don't have this lot setback issue.

It's not a very big deal. On balance this is a wonderful new development for the city. The added residential space and storefront retail are exactly what this neighbourhood needs.

[Nifta]

They seem to be using a different brick texture for the centre of that wall too.. It's a little thing, but it'll help a bit.

[RyeJay]

As a very sensible citizen, with very appropriate demands , I demand that this Citadel Hotel redevelopment decorate that blank wall to help create the illusion that the creation of this physical void was more of a choice.

Maybe an old fashioned clock arranged near the top, with a few different sources of light to help dress the old-style clock, and much of the blank wall, during the night.

Brick work that is also slightly different than the walls with windows is also appreciated.

[Jonovision]

The issue for me though is that the blank wall is not built at the property line. If the adjacent site was ever redeveloped there would still be a good 5 meters between this wall and any future buildings. There is a setback in the small podium.Which means there was no excuse for having this blank wall.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

The issue for me though is that the blank wall is not built at the property line. If the adjacent site was ever redeveloped there would still be a good 5 meters between this wall and any future buildings. There is a setback in the small podium.Which means there was no excuse for having this blank wall.

Exactly....the developer cheaped out.

[Haligonian88]

I don't see why so many people are so hung up on one, relatively small, blank wall, when the development as a whole is a great thing for the area and the city. As for whether or not the developer "cheaped out," why don't you email them and find out why it was done instead of making baseless accusations. They chose to invest a lot of money in this site, I would hardly call them cheap.