[Halifax] The Roy (1650 Granville) | 71 M | 22 FL | Completed

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Is that from the Maritime Center?
Had a friend in Centennial Bldg take this for Me.

As always, from http://buildingtheroy.tumblr.com/

Wow... seeing that still kinda gives me the shivers. I mean, I'm sure all the loading calculations have been done and I know that this procedure is done all the time, but I still can't get my head around the ability of that building to support such a dynamic load while it's being disassembled. After all, the stresses on the beams will change every time an adjacent beam/column is removed and those excavators weigh a little more than a feather.

Great photos though!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Wow... seeing that still kinda gives me the shivers. I mean, I'm sure all the loading calculations have been done and I know that this procedure is done all the time, but I still can't get my head around the ability of that building to support such a dynamic load while it's being disassembled. After all, the stresses on the beams will change every time an adjacent beam/column is removed and those excavators weigh a little more than a feather.

Great photos though!

I'd be nervous too if I were up there on the roof, but brick-and-beam industrial architecture is sturdy stuff.

[Jonovision]

We've lost sight of the building.

[haligonia]

It is so nice to feel change happening on Barrington. Right now the street is a bit of a mess, but seeing all of this construction means that in ~5 years the street should be in great shape. The Roy, the old CD Plus site, Espace (I can't wait to see the tenants!), an updated Khyber, NFB and possibly the Discovery Centre site. Things are looking up!

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

We've lost sight of the building.

Was that you, Jono, the young fearless fellow I saw standing in the middle of Granville Street yesterday snapping this view of the Roy? No risk is too great for a good shot

Speaking of risk, watching the demolition on the roof of the Roy has been fascinating the last few days. It's mostly consisted of two or three guys dropping roofing materials and debris down a big hole, maybe 10 sq. ft., they opened up in the roof. At this rate they'll be done by Christmas. Less amusing is that much of the time they're working without safety harnesses.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

Was that you, Jono, the young fearless fellow I saw standing in the middle of Granville Street yesterday snapping this view of the Roy? No risk is too great for a good shot

Speaking of risk, watching the demolition on the roof of the Roy has been fascinating the last few days. It's mostly consisted of two or three guys dropping roofing materials and debris down a big hole, maybe 10 sq. ft., they opened up in the roof. At this rate they'll be done by Christmas. Less amusing is that much of the time they're working without safety harnesses.

Where Do you have a view from?

regarding the fall protection - that too is a pet peeve of mine. I report it when i see it - Either to Dept of Labor or the site office.

[musicman]

Fall arrest protection is not mandated or legally needed in all cases of working at height. You only need it if you are within a certain distance of a fall hazard or if there is no other fall protection equipment.. IE scaff around a building of fences to prevent falls.. So these workers could be well within the law.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

Was that you, Jono, the young fearless fellow I saw standing in the middle of Granville Street yesterday snapping this view of the Roy? No risk is too great for a good shot

Speaking of risk, watching the demolition on the roof of the Roy has been fascinating the last few days. It's mostly consisted of two or three guys dropping roofing materials and debris down a big hole, maybe 10 sq. ft., they opened up in the roof. At this rate they'll be done by Christmas. Less amusing is that much of the time they're working without safety harnesses.

Not this time. I was on the sidewalk.

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by musicman

Fall arrest protection is not mandated or legally needed in all cases of working at height. You only need it if you are within a certain distance of a fall hazard or if there is no other fall protection equipment.. IE scaff around a building of fences to prevent falls.. So these workers could be well within the law.

Understood. My view is from the top floors of the Maritime Centre, aided by binoculars. It seems to me that tearing up roofing materials along the unguarded edge of the roof (there is no railing or scaffolding along the south side), then carrying the material to the lip of a big hole and throwing it in, likely meets the definition of a fall hazard.

http://www.novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/ohsworkplace.htm#TOC1_20

Ziobrop is right: if I witness again I will refer to LAE.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

Understood. My view is from the top floors of the Maritime Centre, aided by binoculars. It seems to me that tearing up roofing materials along the unguarded edge of the roof (there is no railing or scaffolding along the south side), then carrying the material to the lip of a big hole and throwing it in, likely meets the definition of a fall hazard.

http://www.novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/ohsworkplace.htm#TOC1_20

Ziobrop is right: if I witness again I will refer to LAE.

Musicman is also Correct - they are probably fine on the sides of the building, however if their is no rail around the hole, they should be tied off.

[Ziobrop]

they must read the forum..
2 guys up their today, properly tied off.
from buildingtheroy.tumblr.com
he is using some kind of gas powered saw, not taking a leak as it appears in the photo.

[Ziobrop]

The top floor is now 90% gone

Photo from http://buildingtheroy.tumblr.com

[Duff]

One from today.

[Ziobrop]

A Couple of floors are now gone, and I'm Starting to get a view
See more at http://buildingtheroy.tumblr.com/

[ns_kid]

The top three floors of the Roy Building are now mostly a memory.

[fenwick16]

Great shot ns_kid. So they are only 3 storeys above Barrington Street.

[Keith P.]

Interesting to see the bricked-over window detail there. Is the north-side wall we see with those wondow openings - some bricked-up, a couple with some white-colored material, and one still with glass- a remnant of the Roy that still stands or is it part of the Johnston Building? I thought the Roy predated the Johnston, so I am confused.

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Interesting to see the bricked-over window detail there. Is the north-side wall we see with those wondow openings - some bricked-up, a couple with some white-colored material, and one still with glass- a remnant of the Roy that still stands or is it part of the Johnston Building? I thought the Roy predated the Johnston, so I am confused.

My understanding is the top two floors of the Roy were added in 1928, the same year the Johnston -- originally Eaton's -- was being built. Which kind of begs the question why there would be windows at all in the top two floors of either structure. Perhaps the windows were originally framed but then bricked over as construction on the adjacent building caught up.

The third and fourth floors were added to the Roy in 1919 and predated Eaton's so those windows would have originally had glass. Perhaps it was considered enough just to rebuild the interior walls and cover them over.

Maybe someone with more historical insight can weigh in. Anyone want to call the HT?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

Maybe someone with more historical insight can weigh in. Anyone want to call the HT?

They'll just block the discussion from developing any further...

[Ziobrop]

I believe those are Johnston building windows. The spacing seems consistent. I suspect the white May be in the Roy. Unsure of the glass. The glass looks like a Johnston building window, but the placement is odd.

I guess I'll have have to walk down to the third floor and look on Monday