[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[someone123]

Originally Posted by portapetey

I'd say a couple of those terrible drawings actually get it close to right.

I'm having a hard time finding it now but they had an old one (maybe of the Roy, maybe United Gulf, and it may have been HT rather than STV?) that showed the storefront elevations of some of the smallest Barrington Street buildings superimposed on top of a giant, ominous (also probably rendered in dark grey) tower. Even if they have gotten the perspective down since those earlier pictures I would say that the dark grey colouring, viewpoint (are they even all the way up the hill? you can barely see any water even without the Nova Centre), and cropped image are all distortions.

The question is, is it the great tragedy they make it out to be?

My take on this has always been that the viewplanes were meant to strike a balance between views and development. This is one of the few spots where tall buildings are permitted; there are others where they're not and there are views that are protected. STV isn't going to share before-and-after pictures of those because nothing's going to change. The Nova Centre is part of a balanced development plan and it's STV who have an extremist opinion and essentially want to ban new development over 4 storeys.

A side point is that Halifax is pretty much the only spot in the region that comes anywhere close to having a vibrant urban feel rather than a small town or rural feel. NS has quaint small town and rural down. Can't there be one spot in NS where you can go to look at buildings as well as water and hills? Or is vibrant because it actually has some density and development from this century? If you want just the water and hills, or placid small towns, why not go to the other 99.9% of the province?

[worldlyhaligonian]

What if we had these as well.



Something has to be done about that lot soon.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

What if we had these as well.



Something has to be done about that lot soon.

I would hope that something better could be built on that lot, but yes, it's been a vacant lot long enough. It's time for them to use it or lose it, IMHO.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I would hope that something better could be built on that lot, but yes, it's been a vacant lot long enough. It's time for them to use it or lose it, IMHO.

One thing about that proposal: if it had been built, with the Spatz project now across the street, it would have resulted in a very canyon-like stretch of Hollis St. Good or bad, who's to say.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by portapetey

I'd say a couple of those terrible drawings actually get it close to right.

The question is, is it the great tragedy they make it out to be?

Yeah - I'm not sure they were far off in terms of the massing (neglecting to accurately render the tartantastic glazing pattern is an omission for which I will forgive them).

I'm not sure we are worse off for having this project IN BETWEEN VIEWPLANES AS THE BYLAWS INTEND, though I'm not an overall fan of this project in the middle of downtown. Views of cities are rarely panoramic and uninterrupted.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by someone123

One thing I remember about the STV drawings is that they appeared to use the same kind of perspective you'd see in an elevation drawing, i.e. near and far objects of equal dimensions were drawn with the same size. The effect is similar to telephoto lenses but not actual human visual perception. To human eyes things look smaller when they're farther away so I'd expect the final apparent size of these buildings to be smaller than what the STV renderings suggested.

I remember the exact drawing but I can't find it anywhere. It was a rendering of the Twisted Sisters with Barrington streetscape and the towers above, but to get that actual perspective you would have had to have been at the level of Barrington Street, but as far away as Market St. I remember being so angry because the Herald used it in one of their articles and I think I actually wrote a letter to the editor that might have been published I was so angry.

[someone123]

Source

[q12]

Big Improvement over this :

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

For now we are stuck with this. Photo by me taken from the 6th floor of 1718 Argyle St.

[teddifax]

Originally Posted by someone123

Source

I love the different colours, too bad it wasn't even taller to really stand out, but it looks like it will be a fantastic building.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by teddifax

I love the different colours, too bad it wasn't even taller to really stand out, but it looks like it will be a fantastic building.

It really makes the red-brick stubby brothers of the Marriott Residence and the Prince George look very old and outdated.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It really makes the red-brick stubby brothers of the Marriott Residence and the Prince George look very old and outdated.

The Marriott and other buildings like the Four Points Sheraton on Hollis show how much standards have risen during the last decade. The Marriott isn't that bad but is an example of what goes wrong when you do faux-historic on a budget. The whole thing looks very low-slung, the decorative elements look tacked on, and the vents make it all look worse. That being said, it's probably not too far off from being an okay building, and Argyle is pretty healthy and interesting.

Neptune is an earlier version of the same sort of thing but with some nice brickwork and stonework. You can tell it's a product of the 80's/90's, but it doesn't look cheap.

The Four Points and that stretch of Hollis are a textbook example of bad urban design and planning from circa 2000. You've even got the Ralston Building as a representation of federal government mismanagement.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by teddifax

I love the different colours, too bad it wasn't even taller to really stand out, but it looks like it will be a fantastic building.

The pattern and the colors in the glass were a bit jolting when they first began to take shape, since most early renderings made it appear a fairly solid dark blue....but it is looking better and better. I think the end result will be better than it first seemed.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by portapetey

The pattern and the colors in the glass were a bit jolting when they first began to take shape, since most early renderings made it appear a fairly solid dark blue....but it is looking better and better. I think the end result will be better than it first seemed.

I think it perfectly ties in the two "vernaculars" of Halifax glass: "seafoam green" and "dark blue" into one building, making the skyline look more cohesive. This is especially true considering the waterside centre, etc.

To be honest, we now have a nicer mix of glass and stone-clad buildings than most big cities in North America.

Roy, Alexander, and Maple are going to keep this moving forward.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by portapetey

The pattern and the colors in the glass were a bit jolting when they first began to take shape, since most early renderings made it appear a fairly solid dark blue....but it is looking better and better. I think the end result will be better than it first seemed.

The building is indeed starting to look a lot better than I had originally thought. I think the one change that really would have set this building right is splitting the "two" towers into two. A gap in-between would have made the massing much better.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The building is indeed starting to look a lot better than I had originally thought. I think the one change that really would have set this building right is splitting the "two" towers into two. A gap in-between would have made the massing much better.

And since we appear to be taking suggestions from armchair architects, I think two taller, slimmer towers with more setback from the streets would have been even better.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The building is indeed starting to look a lot better than I had originally thought. I think the one change that really would have set this building right is splitting the "two" towers into two. A gap in-between would have made the massing much better.

Yes, I think most of us would agree that two separate towers with some daylight between would look a lot nicer. Squat is out, narrow is in. Oh well. Still better than the old Herald building!

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Oh well. Still better than the old Herald building!

Agreed!

[halifaxboyns]

The different colours looks really cool!

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The different colours looks really cool!

Welllll, I'm not as horrified as I was when the colours first started going up. Whoever it was that suggested we wait until it's closed in to get a better sense of what the end result would be was probably on to something.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Welllll, I'm not as horrified as I was when the colours first started going up. Whoever it was that suggested we wait until it's closed in to get a better sense of what the end result would be was probably on to something.

Exactly.

Also, that picture is deceiving because it only shows the how the Martello (and that other building in the foreground) matches the green glass, but not how Waterside, 1801, TD and other towers match up well.

We have a vernacular of old and new, brick, stone and primarily two different glass colours.

I want to see what the Roy's tower is going to look like. I'm also more comfortable with The Alexander now and excited to see a white tower at the end of the skyline to tie in with Purdy's and the other white towers throughout the skyline.

Good times in Halifax except for the destruction on SGR. The new buildings better be high quality!!!