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

[Dartboy]

I didnt see that comment but if that is the argument againstthe CC thenm build it to spite the idiot LOL.

Anyway we are making some progress.


http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/local/article/691938--no-tax-free-ride-for-centre-hrm

The property tax stays, the current convention centre is off the bargaining table, and there should be an option to buy after leasing

[fenwick16]

Thanks for the info Dartboy. Hopefully the province will accept the counteroffer. Although the old WTCC is off the table, I hope that the province or HRM will keep it since it could eventually be used for a larger Metro Centre II.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thanks for the info Dartboy. Hopefully the province will accept the counteroffer. Although the old WTCC is off the table, I hope that the province or HRM will keep it since it could eventually be used for a larger Metro Centre II.

Certainly the staff presentation from HRM lent support to going back because right now HRM will either break even or come out losing. I support the idea of going back and looking at ownership. The government can always change the condo act as needed.

[fenwick16]

I have been wondering for the past several weeks how the federal government could guarantee their financial portion of the convention centre. Say they pledge $47 million to be paid in 2015 once the convention centre is substantially complete; there is the risk of having a change in government before 2015. I assume a legal contract between the federal government and provincial government would be sufficient. Alternately, the money could be committed now and put in trust until 2015, but the federal government would probably not want to tie up its money until then.

Can anyone speculate on a secure method for the province to get the allocated federal money in 2015?

[someone123]

It is my understanding that when it comes to standard contracts and civil matters the federal government can be held liable by the courts in the same way that an individual or corporation can be.

In other words, if the government today writes up a contract and a subsequent government breaches it, they can still be taken to court. If this weren't true then the government would have a hard time getting a good deal on contracts.

[fenwick16]

Yes, I agree. It will essentially be a purchase order for their portion of the convention centre. Once it is substantially complete, they will be legally liable for their portion.

[hoser111]

The feds can and have backed out of contractual commitments, although I would think it'd be highly unlikely on something like the CC..... but it costs them dearly when they do! Can you say EH-101 Helicopter???

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by hoser111

The feds can and have backed out of contractual commitments, although I would think it'd be highly unlikely on something like the CC..... but it costs them dearly when they do! Can you say EH-101 Helicopter???

If I remember correctly for the EH-101's; the RFP that was done for the project had an out clause - hence the penalty we still incurred when the liberals axed the deal.

With the money that was dedicated for this project, there are usually contractual committments, plus didn't NFLD sue the government (Harper's government) over committments for offshore oil for NFLD? I think that's what someone123 maybe thinking of? Or something along that line?

[fenwick16]

It seems as though the allnovascotia.com has now started publishing lopsidedly negative opinions regarding the convention centre. Two days ago it was the likes of John Wesley Chisholm and James Drage. Tonight they published an article titled "Op-Ed: Building on the Convention Centre" which criticises its design as going against HRM by Design and refers to the towers as mediocre 70's style buildings that are wrong for that site. Supposedly it will be competing with Las Vegas for conventions.

Once again, I feel that I am being manipulated. Did allnovascotia.com publish an old article or did the author simply decide not to note the change in design? Based on the article tonight, there appears to be nothing good about the current design. I guess the 22 councilors who voted in favour were just uninformed regarding its poor design (luckily we have Frank Palermo to enlighten us ).

Can't allnovascotia.com find anyone to provide a positive article regarding the convention centre? Personally, I am ready to cancel my subscription if they can't find anyone in favour of it. I know there were 2000 people who signed a petition in favour of it and several in the business community who are in favour - where are their opinions? I would like to accept the optimism expressed by Joe Ramia instead of a tired old "we are competing with Las Vegas" attitude put forth by Frank Palermo.

[halifaxboyns]

I wouldn't put too much 'salt' into it. A good newspaper puts views from both sides in; I give the CH reasonable marks for trying to be fair to both sides.

The fact is they will continue to argue this right into court and right down to the wire. What we (as a group) need to do is make sure that we are constantly posted factual truth; rebutting their arguments and where we can - constantly reminding the clear majority (emphasis on clear majority) on the fact this is a good project.

[DigitalNinja]

I don't really understand all nova scotia... Is it supposed to be something aimed more towards the business crowd?
I love the new design from what I see, I think it is great, there could be a few improvements but it is like that with any development.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I wouldn't put too much 'salt' into it. A good newspaper puts views from both sides in; I give the CH reasonable marks for trying to be fair to both sides.

The fact is they will continue to argue this right into court and right down to the wire. What we (as a group) need to do is make sure that we are constantly posted factual truth; rebutting their arguments and where we can - constantly reminding the clear majority (emphasis on clear majority) on the fact this is a good project.

Over the next few days, if the allnovascotia.com starts to publish articles from the people in favour then they will show that they are a good media source. Otherwise they will start morphing into another version of "The Coast".

[someone123]

Frank Palermo is a planning prof at Dal and has been involved in some HRM planning. I don't think his op-ed piece was overly lopsided, although it's possible that he was a little hung up on the old renderings of the building. Even the new design could be improved substantially.

I disagree about towers being back for that site. In fact, I prefer seeing more significant buildings in that area. I think building height limits on the upper blocks are part of the reason why they are so underdeveloped. I also think that it's much more visually appealing to have more consistent height moving up the hill rather than a "tabletop" type of arrangement. There are towers near the hill in the Spring Garden Road area and they don't hurt the view - they're a part of the city. If you want an unobstructed ocean view from a hill, go to any one of the thousands of hills along the coast of NS that do not have cities by them. If you choose to stand on the only one that has a city by it, stop complaining.

[beyeas]

I think it is clear that he was commenting on the old design, at which point the odd thing is that ANS ran it without adding that comment.

I thought his article was only slightly lopsided. The thing that I didn't like was that he provided a numbered list of the negatives, but then only gave a sinple paragraph on the positives (thereby clearly weighting it to the negative).

Alot of his points in the body of the text though are fair, and are not all that different than what many people on here have said. The old design WAS a recycled '80s building, and it DID have a poor relationship to the street, and there HASN'T been enough public consultation.

Having said that, I think that much has changed since the time when I would assume he wrote that and now. Now the design has already greatly improved, the towers are better, the street-side is better (except for Sackville-Argyle corner), and they have increased communication and allowed for a period of public input (much of what Frank was lobbying for).

There is no question that on the whole the article was slanted to the negative, but it wasn't horribly so and many comments were fair. I have seen some positive op-ed pieces as well from ANS in the last weeks as well, but I agree that all the media outlets need to make sure they continue to give balanced views.

[Dartboy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

It seems as though the allnovascotia.com has now started publishing lopsidedly negative opinions regarding the convention centre. Two days ago it was the likes of John Wesley Chisholm and James Drage. Tonight they published an article titled "Op-Ed: Building on the Convention Centre" which criticises its design as going against HRM by Design and refers to the towers as mediocre 70's style buildings that are wrong for that site. Supposedly it will be competing with Las Vegas for conventions.

Once again, I feel that I am being manipulated. Did allnovascotia.com publish an old article or did the author simply decide not to note the change in design? Based on the article tonight, there appears to be nothing good about the current design. I guess the 22 councilors who voted in favour were just uninformed regarding its poor design (luckily we have Frank Palermo to enlighten us ).

Can't allnovascotia.com find anyone to provide a positive article regarding the convention centre? Personally, I am ready to cancel my subscription if they can't find anyone in favour of it. I know there were 2000 people who signed a petition in favour of it and several in the business community who are in favour - where are their opinions? I would like to accept the optimism expressed by Joe Ramia instead of a tired old "we are competing with Las Vegas" attitude put forth by Frank Palermo.

Fen - actually the OP ed I read on Monday Morning had two letters to ANS and the first one was PRO cc and the second was anti ( wesley now that I checked). I do not remember the others although I have the Wesley and Devanne mental filters on. Todays was a piece well balanced from the editor. I think ANS has presented both sides equally. I am slowly warming up to CC but I wantto see clear metrics on the business case and I want those to be measured going forward. Right now if I was chair of the board of some company and that was put in front of me I still would not be for the project.

[halifaxboyns]

People are always going to have different views; that is just a fact of life. I agree, I think Frank was looking at the old drawings and I suspect he may have submitted the article some time ago and they only just got around to publishing it (I could be wrong).

I agree with someone123 to a point. I like to be a person of balance and I think we have to go back to what the original intent of the viewplanes were. It was to pretect designated views from specified points along the roadway and cap the height at the ramparts. It wasn't about protecting the entire view - I suspect the council of the day realized that by doing that, they would've capped development rights as far as the eye could see, but not in Dartmouth. So technically they could've done something that would've given Dartmouth an advantage and then their downtown would've gone taller despite Halifax's. (I'm guessing, but it seems logical)

The heritage trust did manage to get added to the rules 'band a' which is all the buildings along the hill on Brunswick Street - but for the life of me I can't understand how that policy to 'restore or reclaim the view' got adopted and it would be my goal to have it removed or at least reworded to make more sense. I believe that if you aren't inside the viewplane, you should be able to build up to the ramparts, but that you also have a responsibility in designing your building so that you don't wall the view in. So that doesn't mean you build right to the edge of the viewplane. So I think there should be more design related policies for development agreements that gives staff the ability to say to applicants you are right at the viewplane edge, push it back. So for example, perhaps once you reach say 10 stories - you push back from the viewplane edge 2m. Then at 15 stories, another 2m and if you get up to 20 stories, another 2m. This can reduce the walling effect and actually create an interesting building design because you'd have some facade articulation.

It's this issue I think that the STV and the HT trust see as a big problem and honestly I can understand that. One of the towers is right up against the viewplane (I may be wrong but both might be). So a response to the design might be to push in some of the upper floors. The problem is that they won't accept that and try to crush the project.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

It's this issue I think that the STV and the HT trust see as a big problem and honestly I can understand that. One of the towers is right up against the viewplane (I may be wrong but both might be). So a response to the design might be to push in some of the upper floors. The problem is that they won't accept that and try to crush the project.

It seems unfair to first lobby for bylaws and then go after developers who don't go above (or, uhh.. beneath) and beyond them. It's also not a winning tactic when it comes to the URB.

I think the building impact on the view is mostly a design issue, not a height issue, especially given the viewplanes that are in place. The Martello is relatively tall but looks good from the Citadel because it has windows on all sides and an interesting shape. The Metro Centre looks bad because it is a giant chunk of concrete, even though it's only maybe 1/3 as tall.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

People are always going to have different views; that is just a fact of life. I agree, I think Frank was looking at the old drawings and I suspect he may have submitted the article some time ago and they only just got around to publishing it (I could be wrong).

I agree with someone123 to a point. I like to be a person of balance and I think we have to go back to what the original intent of the viewplanes were. It was to pretect designated views from specified points along the roadway and cap the height at the ramparts. It wasn't about protecting the entire view - I suspect the council of the day realized that by doing that, they would've capped development rights as far as the eye could see, but not in Dartmouth. So technically they could've done something that would've given Dartmouth an advantage and then their downtown would've gone taller despite Halifax's. (I'm guessing, but it seems logical)

The heritage trust did manage to get added to the rules 'band a' which is all the buildings along the hill on Brunswick Street - but for the life of me I can't understand how that policy to 'restore or reclaim the view' got adopted and it would be my goal to have it removed or at least reworded to make more sense. I believe that if you aren't inside the viewplane, you should be able to build up to the ramparts, but that you also have a responsibility in designing your building so that you don't wall the view in. So that doesn't mean you build right to the edge of the viewplane. So I think there should be more design related policies for development agreements that gives staff the ability to say to applicants you are right at the viewplane edge, push it back. So for example, perhaps once you reach say 10 stories - you push back from the viewplane edge 2m. Then at 15 stories, another 2m and if you get up to 20 stories, another 2m. This can reduce the walling effect and actually create an interesting building design because you'd have some facade articulation.

It's this issue I think that the STV and the HT trust see as a big problem and honestly I can understand that. One of the towers is right up against the viewplane (I may be wrong but both might be). So a response to the design might be to push in some of the upper floors. The problem is that they won't accept that and try to crush the project.

I have no problem with the height, but the Hotel is where i think the biggest problem for most is.

Because of how it more or less runs the length of the block it has substainal mass and scale. It has no features that lesson the block feel.

Furthermore, because the Hotel is turn in this direction it should be noted that the section of argyle street will a substainal reduction in afternoon sun.

There should be more effort put into the design of the hotel.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sdm

I have no problem with the height, but the Hotel is where i think the biggest problem for most is.

Because of how it more less runs the length of the block it has substainal mass and scale. It has no features that lesson the block feel.

Furthermore, because the Hotel is turn in this direction it should be noted that the section of argyle street will never experience afternoon sun.

There should be more effort put into the design of the hotel.

It would be interesting to see a shadow study for the hotel. There are companies that can generate an animation showing the shadow movement throughout the year. The direction of the shadow will change throughout the year because the angle of the sun will vary with the seasons. So, although I get your point, there won't be one area on Argyle Street that will be blocked in the afternoon throughout the year. The area being blocked will keep moving a bit each day. (The only place where a tower would block the same spot each afternoon all year long would be at the equator).

PS: The shadow will have a sweeping effect along Argyle Street as shown in the following shadow study done for the Roy tower proposal - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/Case01172ShadowStudy.html .

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

It would be interesting to see a shadow study for the hotel. There are companies that can generate an animation showing the shadow movement throughout the year. The direction of the shadow will change throughout the year because the angle of the sun will vary with the seasons. So, although I get your point, there won't be one area on Argyle Street that will be blocked in the afternoon throughout the year. The area being blocked will keep moving a bit each day. (The only place where a tower would block the same spot each afternoon all year long would be at the equator)

Never experience is incorrect, i will correctly say for extended periods dependant upon the time of year.

The other study i would like to see is a wind study, as again with the placement and the southeasterly/northeast wind it would be interesting how the struture would interact along the street.