[Halifax] The Maple | 72 m | 21 fl | Completed

[Ziobrop]

anyone know why the tower was lopped off?

[JET]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

anyone know why the tower was lopped off?

"This lead to the construction of the first permanent Post Office opened in 1852. In keeping with the prosperous period of development that transpired in the late 19th century, a new Post Office opened in 1893. Sadly, as we have discovered on this tour, buildings built in the late Victorian period were often consumed by fire. The Post Office building we see today was built in 1915 with a striking Clock Tower (see photo). The tower immediately became a landmark - it housed the first electrically illuminated clock in Dartmouth. Unfortunately the tower was removed when it became a safety concern. "
pg 19: http://downtowndartmouth.ca/images/uploads/DDBC_Final_LowRes_Revised.pdf

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

I don't believe the winning bid has been announced yet but, yes, I believe the expectation is it will be outside the downtown core.

Utterly stupid, and not surprising from this Federal Government, of course.

Is there anyone out there making some hay about the Federal Government's basic stupidity in such public asset sell offs, that ultimately promotes sprawl and all the costs associated with it, both in taxpayer dollars and the health/morale of federal workers?

I wouldn't mind if they sold off the public asset, but then became a long term tenant to the Ralston building. But if they are moving out to the suburbs, then this is itself a kind of downloading-of-costs by the feds onto cities; they pay less rent out in the boondocks, but cities then have to shoulder the costs resulting from traffic congestion, new roads and repairs, increased pollution, etc.

[Dmajackson]

Armco won the Canada Revenue Agency bid. The new offices will have a ten year lease out of a proposed 86'000 sq ft building on Hobson Drive. The building will have 4-5 floors and a total floor plate of 120'000 sq ft.

Source : "George Armoyan Bids Low To Move Taxmen To Burbs" (December 17th, 2013) - AllNovaScotia.com

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Armco won the Canada Revenue Agency bid. The new offices will have a ten year lease out of a proposed 86'000 sq ft building on Hobson Drive. The building will have 4-5 floors and a total floor plate of 120'000 sq ft.

Source : "George Armoyan Bids Low To Move Taxmen To Burbs" (December 17th, 2013) - AllNovaScotia.com

That's a huge hit for downtown. How many hundreds of employees being moved from the core to the fucking boondocks around a lake?

Why is everyone so asleep at the switch on this stuff. We have news organizations, newspapers, and a plethora of NGOs in Halifax to focus on this stuff, but I never hear about it until it's a fait accompli.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Armco won the Canada Revenue Agency bid. The new offices will have a ten year lease out of a proposed 86'000 sq ft building on Hobson Drive. The building will have 4-5 floors and a total floor plate of 120'000 sq ft.

Source : "George Armoyan Bids Low To Move Taxmen To Burbs" (December 17th, 2013) - AllNovaScotia.com

Are the tendering documents anywhere online? I can't find anything. Shocking.

Also, so who owns the Ralston building now? I hope they at least sold it. The government has moved out to the suburbs leaving behind an old government building, probably not properly maintained. If not re-developed, it'll likely sit there empty for years, increasing the downtown office vacancy rate.

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

So who owns the Ralston building now? I hope they at least sold it. The government has moved out to the suburbs leaving behind an old government building, probably not properly maintained. If not re-developed, it'll likely sit there empty for years, increasing the downtown office vacancy rate.

The Ralston is still owned by Public Works and Government Services Canada. Faced with the cost of major restoration work (the facade and underlying anchoring system must be completely replaced) or selling it, I'd be very surprised if PWGSC doesn't take the latter course.

I commented to a PWGSC manager a couple of years ago that the proposed CRA move would come at a good time, when downtown would have thousands of available square metres of vacant space. He responded then that it was very unlilkely the offices would remain downtown; it would be cheaper to build a completely new structure in the suburbs. And that's exactly what's happening.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

That's a huge hit for downtown. How many hundreds of employees being moved from the core to the fucking boondocks around a lake?

Why is everyone so asleep at the switch on this stuff. We have news organizations, newspapers, and a plethora of NGOs in Halifax to focus on this stuff, but I never hear about it until it's a fait accompli.

Because they are quietly against Halifax doing well in the terms that many SSPers appreciate. Too bad urbanity, you're let down by all involved and the consequence is sprawl.

[Barrington south]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

That's a huge hit for downtown. How many hundreds of employees being moved from the core to the fucking boondocks around a lake?

Why is everyone so asleep at the switch on this stuff. We have news organizations, newspapers, and a plethora of NGOs in Halifax to focus on this stuff, but I never hear about it until it's a fait accompli.

I used to contribute to this site on a regular basis. I have not for many years. I have been reading it over this time, but had no reason contribute. Things have changed over the years. This used to be a place where people who had enthusiasm towards development and an interest in the process would come to share, learn and discuss. There are great new projects in this city, and there many more on the horizon. I'm seeing less and less interest in development and more and more pseudo intellectual cynicism. I am no longer enjoying reading this site and find myself skipping people's posts due to their negativity and self righous attitude. This is not a response to this post in particular, but a trend.

[spaustin]

The federal government isn't really in the urban planning game in the big picture way that municipal governments are (or should be anyway). In an era of cost-cutting, real estate is an obvious place to reduce expenses. The problem isn't that the feds want to move to the burbs, it's that we have an urban planning regime in this city that sets the decision up in the first place. The argument for the feds staying Downtown is that they should stay, despite the costs, because it's the right thing to do. That's not a winning strategy! We would be better off if the incentives to be Downtown is what drove the decision. CRA's move is a symptom of an underlying problem, not a cause. As long as the costs of development aren't recovered and as long as the planning process favours greenfield development, this will be the result.

[Hali87]

+1s to the last two posts.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Barrington south

I used to contribute to this site on a regular basis. I have not for many years. I have been reading it over this time, but had no reason contribute. Things have changed over the years. This used to be a place where people who had enthusiasm towards development and an interest in the process would come to share, learn and discuss. There are great new projects in this city, and there many more on the horizon. I'm seeing less and less interest in development and more and more pseudo intellectual cynicism. I am no longer enjoying reading this site and find myself skipping people's posts due to their negativity and self righous attitude. This is not a response to this post in particular, but a trend.

Excellent post Barrington!

I remember when you were a regular contributor. Please don't give up the ship! We need people like you back!!

[teddifax]

Originally Posted by Barrington south

I used to contribute to this site on a regular basis. I have not for many years. I have been reading it over this time, but had no reason contribute. Things have changed over the years. This used to be a place where people who had enthusiasm towards development and an interest in the process would come to share, learn and discuss. There are great new projects in this city, and there many more on the horizon. I'm seeing less and less interest in development and more and more pseudo intellectual cynicism. I am no longer enjoying reading this site and find myself skipping people's posts due to their negativity and self righous attitude. This is not a response to this post in particular, but a trend.

Here, here, well said.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Barrington south

I used to contribute to this site on a regular basis. I have not for many years. I have been reading it over this time, but had no reason contribute. Things have changed over the years. This used to be a place where people who had enthusiasm towards development and an interest in the process would come to share, learn and discuss. There are great new projects in this city, and there many more on the horizon. I'm seeing less and less interest in development and more and more pseudo intellectual cynicism. I am no longer enjoying reading this site and find myself skipping people's posts due to their negativity and self righous attitude. This is not a response to this post in particular, but a trend.

You know that belittling someone's genuine disappointment about bad government decisions as "pseudo-intellectual cynicism" is a kind of pseudo-intellectual cynicism, right?

[Dmajackson]

It should be noted NONE of the bids received for the CRA relocation were in downtown locations. The closest was for the West End Mall. The second lowest was also on Hobson's Lake Drive and the rest were in Burnside or Bayers Lake.

I'm not trying to jump to the defence of the federal government BUT building a 5-storey building in Bayers Lake doesn't require a special approval process like building in the urban core does. With a tight 2016 timeline this reduces downtown's possibilities to approved projects of 80'000 sq ft or more. This only leaves the Discovery Centre Tower (1592 Barrington) and International Place as possibilities according to their DA's. Discovery Centre has been hinting towards residential and International Place has been proposed for so long it's not really a serious proposal anymore IMO. Also don't forget this is the CONSERVATIVE government were talking about. Their whole mandate is to appear like they are helping us economically by saving money.

[Hali87]

Belittling someone's genuine disappointment about bad government decisions...

I don't think he was though. Over the past couple of years there definitely has been a noticeable shift in tone from the being actively pro-urbanist to sort of passively urbanist and actively anti-everything-else. I don't really know how to describe it. The best analogy I can think of is Christopher Hume's attitude in this article. I never used to notice that attitude on this forum. Now I do. As well as gratuitous use of the word "fuck" - I can remember a time when no one swore at all on this forum, incidentally the era when the HT was at the height of its obstructionism, council was in a constant stalemate and there were plenty of things to swear about. Go figure.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I don't think he was though. Over the past couple of years there definitely has been a noticeable shift in tone from the being actively pro-urbanist to sort of passively urbanist and actively anti-everything-else. I don't really know how to describe it. The best analogy I can think of is Christopher Hume's attitude in this article. I never used to notice that attitude on this forum. Now I do. As well as gratuitous use of the word "fuck" - I can remember a time when no one swore at all on this forum, incidentally the era when the HT was at the height of its obstructionism, council was in a constant stalemate and there were plenty of things to swear about. Go figure.

Look, I can't answer for the "past couple years" of posting on here, as I haven't been here for five years. I can't answer for Chris Hume or anybody else. But for me, I'm decidedly *not* "pro urban" and against "everything else". That's a silly strawman, and, frankly, I don't get where criticizing sprawl policy means being "anti-everything else". I grew up in the suburbs. It's not a thing to oppose. I just support better city planning, and a responsible role for each level of government in that plight.

As for the "gratuitous use of "fuck", again, I can't speak for anyone else. But if you look through my 150+ posts, you'll find I dropped the F-bomb a total of *once*, in that post above. If that is enough for people to go off the deep end, well then, I apologize, but perhaps some skin needs to be thickened too.

PS: I don't get your reference to the Hume article either. He's attempting to understand-- admittedly with armchair pop psychology and with little empirical support-- the thinking animating Torontonians who continue to support a crack-smoking, thuggish, lying, fratboy clown mayor. The article is about urbanism only to the extent to which Ford's supporters seem to populate suburban areas. It's really about irresponsible politicians and voters, and what sort of thinking might underlies it.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

It should be noted NONE of the bids received for the CRA relocation were in downtown locations. The closest was for the West End Mall. The second lowest was also on Hobson's Lake Drive and the rest were in Burnside or Bayers Lake.

I'm not trying to jump to the defence of the federal government BUT building a 5-storey building in Bayers Lake doesn't require a special approval process like building in the urban core does. With a tight 2016 timeline this reduces downtown's possibilities to approved projects of 80'000 sq ft or more. This only leaves the Discovery Centre Tower (1592 Barrington) and International Place as possibilities according to their DA's. Discovery Centre has been hinting towards residential and International Place has been proposed for so long it's not really a serious proposal anymore IMO. Also don't forget this is the CONSERVATIVE government were talking about. Their whole mandate is to appear like they are helping us economically by saving money.

Thanks for the info, DMA. I definitely agree that the Conservative Government's modus operandi is to save money, and this is a part of their cost cutting-- they see an expensive asset and rent in downtown Halifax, and can save money by moving employees out into the burbs.

For this reason, it seems like it's the Municipal Government's responsibility to raise concerns about such a move with the Feds early, for example, to see if the 2016 deadline is a hard one. Perhaps there was flexibility there. But who knows?

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Look, I can't answer for the "past couple years" of posting on here, as I haven't been here for five years. I can't answer for Chris Hume or anybody else. But for me, I'm decidedly *not* "pro urban" and against "everything else". That's a silly strawman, and, frankly, I don't get where criticizing sprawl policy means being "anti-everything else". I grew up in the suburbs. It's not a thing to oppose. I just support better city planning, and a responsible role for each level of government in that plight.

As for the "gratuitous use of "fuck", again, I can't speak for anyone else. But if you look through my 150+ posts, you'll find I dropped the F-bomb a total of *once*, in that post above. If that is enough for people to go off the deep end, well then, I apologize, but perhaps some skin needs to be thickened too.

PS: I don't get your reference to the Hume article either. He's attempting to understand-- admittedly with armchair pop psychology and with little empirical support-- the thinking animating Torontonians who continue to support a crack-smoking, thuggish, lying, fratboy clown mayor. The article is about urbanism only to the extent to which Ford's supporters seem to populate suburban areas. It's really about irresponsible politicians and voters, and what sort of thinking might underlies it.

I didn't mean you specifically. I don't think Barrington South did either. Just things that I've observed over the past couple of years, in support of what he said he's observed.

Regarding the Hume article, the "they drink Tim Hortons" part was sort of what I was getting at. It's a very literal, unintentional caricature of the "latte-sipping elitist" mindset. The sort of dismissal of a very large part of the population, the whole "obviously anyone who voted for Ford sees little value in the city and drives everywhere because they choose to do so and doesn't think of themselves as real Torontonians"... I dunno. It came off as a bit arrogant and self-satisfied to me. Even though the article is an exploration of "what type of thinking goes into voting for someone like this?" the starting point of that exploration is a set of very bold assumptions. Read the comments on the article if you want a better idea of where I'm coming from. It's not really a big deal though. Again it's just a change in tone that I've noticed over the last couple years. Not you specifically, the forum in general. Maybe it's just a result of me re-evaluating my own beliefs and trying to be more pragmatic.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I don't think he was though. Over the past couple of years there definitely has been a noticeable shift in tone from the being actively pro-urbanist to sort of passively urbanist and actively anti-everything-else. I don't really know how to describe it. The best analogy I can think of is Christopher Hume's attitude in this article. I never used to notice that attitude on this forum. Now I do. As well as gratuitous use of the word "fuck" - I can remember a time when no one swore at all on this forum, incidentally the era when the HT was at the height of its obstructionism, council was in a constant stalemate and there were plenty of things to swear about. Go figure.

Well, I mean swearing is just a representation in a way other words aren't as impactful... I'm known to do it, but the Penn and Teller episode on the topic really is a good place for anybody to approach that discussion. Anyway.

Halifax is doing better than ever, I guess the outcry is about the fact that although regulations permitting various developments have been adopted, some of the anti-development folks are still using similar tactics.

I don't think its passive urbanity, I think its more about looking beyond the pipeline for Halifax and also at design. We used to have scraps on here in 2007 and now this forum has more content than I've ever seen.