General Updates and News

[JET]

Originally Posted by mcmcclassic

I can't remember/find a thread for this one, but here are some photos anyways. The new building on Dal's campus (corner of Summer & University Ave.)

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=192226

[mcmcclassic]

Originally Posted by JET

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=192226

Thanks for that link. I'll be sure to take more time looking for older threads to save cluttering the general updates thread.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

A bit of a flip side of issues, here's people rather enthusiastically describing the demolition of a historic building in Ottawa:

Historic Ottawa building is reduced to rubble

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/07/20140714-102151.html

Here's a little more background on the building-- a familiar story:

Deconstruction' of historic site another sign of the times

ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/archival-deconstruction-of-historic-site-another-sign-of-the-times

I'm not sure what was "historic" about the building other than that it opened during Centennial year. It sounds like the original construction was badly mismanaged and that the details of the design were not well thought out. Add to that the usual govt lack of maintenance and you end up with a bad building. The Sir John Thompson Building here was a similar story.

One can argue that it was a waste of an asset but that is not the same as decrying it's demolition on grounds that it was "historic".

[JET]

Originally Posted by mcmcclassic

Thanks for that link. I'll be sure to take more time looking for older threads to save cluttering the general updates thread.

keeping track of the various threads can prove difficult, some are listed by address, or the name of a demolished building, or by the proposed development name.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

A bit of a flip side of issues, here's people rather enthusiastically describing the demolition of a historic building in Ottawa:

Historic Ottawa building is reduced to rubble

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/07/20140714-102151.html

Here's a little more background on the building-- a familiar story:

Deconstruction' of historic site another sign of the times

ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/archival-deconstruction-of-historic-site-another-sign-of-the-times

In Halifax we wouldn't even bat an eye at ripping down a 40-year-old building, especially ones like this which aren't all that particularly interesting visually. I find it curious that, although it had a heritage designation, it was still ripped down - perhaps they don't have a heritage group with any influence there either.

Here in Halifax, we like to rip down or gut out 100+ year old buildings... there's much more sport in that.

[JET]

10 million to build, estimated 57 million to renovate, and 4.8 million to demolish. All sounds a bit crazy.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In Halifax we wouldn't even bat an eye at ripping down a 40-year-old building, especially ones like this which aren't all that particularly interesting visually. I find it curious that, although it had a heritage designation, it was still ripped down - perhaps they don't have a heritage group with any influence there either.

Here in Halifax, we like to rip down or gut out 100+ year old buildings... there's much more sport in that.

Yeah. The old Memorial Library and Dartmouth City Hall—both far superior to this Ottawa building—may well be demolished, and I doubt that if they are there'll be much more than a peep about it locally.

(I know some people probably think Dartmouth City Hall is a hulking concrete monstrosity, but I think it's a perfectly proportioned little brutalist/modernist gem.)

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah. The old Memorial Library and Dartmouth City Hall—both far superior to this Ottawa building—may well be demolished, and I doubt that if they are there'll be much more than a peep about it locally.

(I know some people probably think Dartmouth City Hall is a hulking concrete monstrosity, but I think it's a perfectly proportioned little brutalist/modernist gem.)

No peeps. The HTNS will be too busy bringing law suits to stop the Nova Centre and the installation of free public WIFI (anyone else laugh at the de Adder cartoon in the CH today?), or moonlighting as "Friends of Halifax Commons" to stop round-about construction...

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah. The old Memorial Library and Dartmouth City Hall—both far superior to this Ottawa building—may well be demolished, and I doubt that if they are there'll be much more than a peep about it locally.

(I know some people probably think Dartmouth City Hall is a hulking concrete monstrosity, but I think it's a perfectly proportioned little brutalist/modernist gem.)

In fairness, don't see the Memorial library getting demolished; I could-- and hope-- it might be incorporated into a bigger development, with a nice public space to make up for the bad public space planning with the library.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

(I know some people probably think Dartmouth City Hall is a hulking concrete monstrosity, but I think it's a perfectly proportioned little brutalist/modernist gem.)

I agree completely. The ivy covered wall facing the landing gives it a nice splash of colour as well.


As for this other building, had it been built in 1966 or 1968 it wouldn't have had any historic designation. You cut your losses and you move on.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah. The old Memorial Library and Dartmouth City Hall—both far superior to this Ottawa building—may well be demolished, and I doubt that if they are there'll be much more than a peep about it locally.

(I know some people probably think Dartmouth City Hall is a hulking concrete monstrosity, but I think it's a perfectly proportioned little brutalist/modernist gem.)

You have me on all early 20th C architecture, and anything older than that.

Without casting judgment on the Dartmouth City Hall, I find it difficult seeing a lot of value in most brutalist architecture; much of it I find was simply an ego-trip for the architect, creating ugly monstrosities aimed more toward projecting images and outward appearance than user experience. Brutalism is anti-human and anti-people; so demolishing that sort of building actually seems to be an act of humanism. Not every demolition is inherently bad, just like every preservation is not inherently good.

The ridiculous UofT Robarts library is a great example of this. Rather than build a library that students might enjoy using, with natural light, etc, they built a ugly concrete monstrosity in the shape of a peacock. I mean, really?

Dalhousie's Killam Library and Life Science building is similarly terribly designed. They are much improved today, because they've been modified with more contemporary design goals in mind-- like the glass ceiling in the Killam creating an atrium for students to sit and enjoy. That was originally designed with an open roof and doors; so in winter, it was a dead zone. Dead zone in summer too.

[JET]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

You have me on all early 20th C architecture, and anything older than that.

Without casting judgment on the Dartmouth City Hall, I find it difficult seeing a lot of value in most brutalist architecture; much of it I find was simply an ego-trip for the architect, creating ugly monstrosities aimed more toward projecting images and outward appearance than user experience. Brutalism is anti-human and anti-people; so demolishing that sort of building actually seems to be an act of humanism. Not every demolition is inherently bad, just like every preservation is not inherently good.

The ridiculous UofT Robarts library is a great example of this. Rather than build a library that students might enjoy using, with natural light, etc, they built a ugly concrete monstrosity in the shape of a peacock. I mean, really?

Dalhousie's Killam Library and Life Science building is similarly terribly designed. They are much improved today, because they've been modified with more contemporary design goals in mind-- like the glass ceiling in the Killam creating an atrium for students to sit and enjoy. That was originally designed with an open roof and doors; so in winter, it was a dead zone. Dead zone in summer too.

"That was originally designed with an open roof and doors"

just to clarify, there were doors from the open courtyard, but no doors from the peimeter of the building into to the courtyard. I rather liked entring into the coutyard when it was just an opening. I can see how the closed atrium creates a year round function

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

You have me on all early 20th C architecture, and anything older than that.

Without casting judgment on the Dartmouth City Hall, I find it difficult seeing a lot of value in most brutalist architecture; much of it I find was simply an ego-trip for the architect, creating ugly monstrosities aimed more toward projecting images and outward appearance than user experience. Brutalism is anti-human and anti-people; so demolishing that sort of building actually seems to be an act of humanism.

Oh, we're gonna disagree on that! I love good brutalism and modernism. Here's another favourite.

I love Killam too, and I think the long-range plan to replace the concrete with glass is just atrocious.

However, I do have to concede that when brutalism is bad, it's awful, and indeed can even seem anti-human. And there's not a lot of middle ground. A run-of-the-mill Victorian building is still attractive. A run-of-the-mill brutalist building is like a Borg spaceship. Robarts is public-enemy number one in that regard, as is Scotia Square, the apartment towers nearby on Brunswick, and all that stuff around there.

In a way, that's why I'd like to see the relatively rare good examples preserved. But don't worry, I'm used to being in the minority on this front!

[Ziobrop]

brutalism was a branch of modernism, which stripped any sense of the human from the building - it was universal. the building was a monument, and it was all about the building.. yah we hate them, so they are easy to knock down, but they are just as important, and some are worth saving.

the Sir john Carling building was kind of off by itself - no one lived near it, and it was just another government complex in a greenbelt. I know lots of people who bemoan its loss, but it certainly wasen't prominent, and some people probably drove by it everyday without noticing it.

The Bigger issue with the SJC is how governments view their buildings, and to a greater extent budget. Capital costs are bad, and evaluated with all other government priorities. operational expenses are fine, so governments sell rather then maintain their buildings now and lease space. Often in the building they just sold. (Ahem Joseph Howe Building)

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah. The old Memorial Library and Dartmouth City Hall—both far superior to this Ottawa building—may well be demolished, and I doubt that if they are there'll be much more than a peep about it locally.

(I know some people probably think Dartmouth City Hall is a hulking concrete monstrosity, but I think it's a perfectly proportioned little brutalist/modernist gem.)

Agree %100! I love that building, especially how the north wall is covered in ivy and provides a lush backdrop to the stairs to the ferry. I really hope they can save it and turn it into a museum/small arts center. The old council chambers in there (with proper engineering) could make a great intimate music venue. Think "Music Room" on Lady Hammond.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Agree %100! I love that building, especially how the north wall is covered in ivy and provides a lush backdrop to the stairs to the ferry. I really hope they can save it and turn it into a museum/small arts center. The old council chambers in there (with proper engineering) could make a great intimate music venue. Think "Music Room" on Lady Hammond.

HRM wants to sell all their land along the downtown Dartmouth waterfront and have visions of 15 storey buildings. In a recent staff report they have an estimate of sales revenue as part of long term capital expenditure plans. Quite obvious they have no knowledge of the real estate market.
Or perhaps they think the province will build more LTC facilities.
If anyone is looking for condo sales data in metro I have the data.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

HRM wants to sell all their land along the downtown Dartmouth waterfront and have visions of 15 storey buildings. In a recent staff report they have an estimate of sales revenue as part of long term capital expenditure plans. Quite obvious they have no knowledge of the real estate market.
Or perhaps they think the province will build more LTC facilities.
If anyone is looking for condo sales data in metro I have the data.

What would you prefer? The parking lots and abandoned brown sites that populate the Dartmouth waterfront now?

FWIW, I find most long term condo sales and rental rate projections for HRM often highly speculative and overly conservative; they're often touted by HTNS and other NIMBY groups to justify their (shockingly unsurprising) opposition to development, when its really just about opposing change.

And even if the numbers suggest a weaker market, we still need to increase supply of downtown residential developments-- especially now, when it is cheaper to borrow and build-- and yes, that includes creating an over-supply to bring down prices, rental rates, and the downtown costs (to make it more competitive with the sprawlburbs) to encourage greater densification in the core over the long term.

I'm a frequent critic of HRM staff, but I'll laud them if they're planning for higher density development in the downtown core all day long.

There are people in Halifax who view the city as their quiet little retirement community, and they don't like new immigrants, developers, or, quite frankly, people, changing that.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

What would you prefer? The parking lots and abandoned brown sites that populate the Dartmouth waterfront now?

Personally, I'd prefer that they keep a keener eye to the long-term future of the city, and reserve that valuable downtown waterfront land for future public use, for things such as museums, concert venues, cultural centres, an aquarium, or whatever. Would be nice to see them repurpose the old city hall, but if they do decide to scuttle it, then the land should be turned into an extension of the park to reserve it for future possibilities.

This area is growing, and a natural progression for downtown Dartmouth will be for it to be developed and grow as downtown Halifax values continue to rise in the future. Note that I'm not talking 5 - 10 years from now, which seems to be all that local politicians are able to plan for, I'm talking 20 - 50 years from now. Let's get a plan in place that will keep this valuable land available to the public once this area becomes largely developed. There will still be plenty of areas in the downtown available for condos long into the future, but the coveted waterfront area should be kept for the public to enjoy, not just the highest bidder.

Just my

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Personally, I'd prefer that they keep a keener eye to the long-term future of the city, and reserve that valuable downtown waterfront land for future public use, for things such as museums, concert venues, cultural centres, an aquarium, or whatever. Would be nice to see them repurpose the old city hall, but if they do decide to scuttle it, then the land should be turned into an extension of the park to reserve it for future possibilities.

This area is growing, and a natural progression for downtown Dartmouth will be for it to be developed and grow as downtown Halifax values continue to rise in the future. Note that I'm not talking 5 - 10 years from now, which seems to be all that local politicians are able to plan for, I'm talking 20 - 50 years from now. Let's get a plan in place that will keep this valuable land available to the public once this area becomes largely developed. There will still be plenty of areas in the downtown available for condos long into the future, but the coveted waterfront area should be kept for the public to enjoy, not just the highest bidder.

Just my

I don't disagree, you can do all the things you mention in your first para, while also not just opposing every private development. You can place restrictions and requirements on waterfront projects to ensure public access and spaces, etc.

Right now, we don't have museums, public spaces, or public uses, because its just a bunch of parking lots and former industrial brown sites. Government is not going to develop, so if we want these things, it will be private developers.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I don't disagree, you can do all the things you mention in your first para, while also not just opposing every private development. You can place restrictions and requirements on waterfront projects to ensure public access and spaces, etc.

Right now, we don't have museums, public spaces, or public uses, because its just a bunch of parking lots and former industrial brown sites. Government is not going to develop, so if we want these things, it will be private developers.

There is one property a few blocks from the waterfront that has been empty for almost 50 years. Zoned for 84 units of townhouses for more than a decade and the owner has done nothing.
What should HRM do to ensure their planning policy for the area is complied with ? (The policy seeks to increase the number of families in the area)

Up at the MacDonald bridge the R-2 zoned land has been empty for at least 15 years and HRM has sat idly by as the fully serviced 3,300 sq ft lots sit on the assessment rolls at $36,000- 53,000.
Planning in Dartmouth is a mess; we need some real professionals and a council which walks the talk.