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

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I've been enjoying the BS that the Save the view facebook has been posting. Apparently students at DAL are upset that money would be spent on this versus education. As much as I'm tempted to say why aren't they upset over money for roads, hospitals and anything else, I've decided to just ignore it. They are grasping, as is Tim and the whole anti-project crowd. I'm convinced thanks to Fenwick's economic analysis that even at the worst case; this would be a money neutral thing. But I am taking a positive position and I think this will be a good thing. It's certainly better than the whole in the ground there now!

Thanks halifaxboyns, however, I wouldn't call my opinions an economic analysis. My gut feeling based on a bit of basic research is that the new convention centre will work out in Halifax's favour in the coming years. (I feel that Halifax will be a very desirable location for national conventions - as it has been in the past).

Phil Pacey was reportedly handing out flyers regarding the convention centre on the Dalhousie University campus (a few weeks ago) - probably stating that the convention centre will decrease money for education (or something along those lines). Thus the reaction from Dalhousie University students; otherwise the majority of these students would hardly notice a proposal for a convention centre complex.

Dalhousie University seems to be a hotbed of convention centre opposition. Didn't a couple of architecture professors also write negative commentaries in the Chronicle Herald?

[Keith P.]

Chisholm is a good example of the left-wing chocolate cake eaters described earlier. He is a blowhard who considered himself an expert on everything, but fortunately, like most of the noisy left-wing artsy types, has very little real influence. Still, he is annoying with his constant proclamations of how he knows best, regardless of the development issue.

It was encouraging to hear the Premier speak to the Chamber of Commerce this week and state:

"We can’t be satisfied with the fading achievements of years ago. This government and this province needs to look to the future.

That is one reason I saw that a new convention centre, at the heart of a much larger development, is a major positive change for this city and for our province. I am not satisfied when Halifax is unable to host major national conventions because an old facility has fallen behind those elsewhere in Canada – despite its hard working staff and supporters.

The province took the time to look at the business case, in detail. That’s our responsibility. If it is not a good deal for Nova Scotia, we have no business in the deal.

We understand that in order to make the province stronger, we need to strengthen the parts, and we actively seek opportunities to do just that.

A new convention centre will be an asset for the province, and a great asset for this city. It can symbolize a positive turning point in our growth and ambition. I want a partnership that works, so this project can proceed. I want an equal partnership. I know that the value of this centre to HRM justifies the city assuming a 50 per cent share of responsibility and benefits. I want to move forward on that basis."

People like Bousquet and Chisholm and the rest of their anti-development cheerleading section need to move on.

[MonctonRad]

I think the Nova Centre project is something that the entire Maritime region can get behind.

Although there are new convention centres being built in Fredericton (almost ready) and Charlottetown (shovels hitting the ground next year) and there may be a convention component to whatever downtown entertainment /arena complex that may eventually get built in Moncton, there is no question that these facilities will pale in comparison to the Nova Centre, which will be built to attract major conventions of national and international stature. As such, I do not anticipate tremendous competition for business between the Nova Centre and the other facilities elsewhere in the region.

The Nova Centre will be able to introduce many people to the pleasures of Atlantic Canada and may end up boosting tourism throughout the region. I think it will end up benefitting everyone.

The Nova Centre will be an economic generator which will boost business and thus the regional tax base so that we can pay for the hospitals and universities (and chocolate cake) that Bousquet and Pacey "care" so much about.

I work in the health care sector and I realize how my bread gets buttered.

Let's git'er done Halifax.

[Waye Mason]

Anyone know when the designs are going to the review committee? When will we see actual real artist renderings and real elevations?

[fenwick16]

It is hard to say when it will go before the design committee - probably not until the federal government has committed funds to the convention centre.

A lot has been released regarding the design. This following document has floor plans showing room numbers, square footage, stairways, elevators, loading bays - essentially the entire convention centre layout on 8 levels - https://conventioncentreinfo.com/wp-...id-Summary.pdf .

The rendering below looks quite detailed. However, Rank Inc. has indicated that the exterior can change after public consultations - so it has not been finalized. The public consultations can proceed as excavation proceeds - if it goes ahead.



The illustration below shows elevations and also shows how the Grafton Street Pedway/Ballroom Ceiling is supported with arches (this is part of the structure). This illustration was copied from this report - http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/si...e%20Report.pdf - note that the image is cropped to make the numbers easier to read (it doesn't show the full height of the towers - but you can see them in the report).



The Rank Inc. website has other elevations, but some are of the old design - http://www.novacentre.ca/

PS: $21 million of the $140 million estimated construction cost of the convention centre is for engineering design. Thus I don't think that the detailed design will be finalized until excavation is well underway - I can't imagine that much money being spent without a signed agreement from the 3 levels of government.

[Waye Mason]

I've seen those, they are a vast improvement over the first set of ugly pictures, but I can see 3-4 challenges to the design requirements in HRMbD just in a quick look at them. My understanding as a further refinement was going to be produced with significant changes.

Do we like the covered street/pedestrian walkway? I don't know, it could be amazing, or it could end up dirty, cold and underused.

I like the overall glass design, this was what excited me about Twisted Sisters.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I've seen those, they are a vast improvement over the first set of ugly pictures, but I can see 3-4 challenges to the design requirements in HRMbD just in a quick look at them. My understanding as a further refinement was going to be produced with significant changes.

Do we like the covered street/pedestrian walkway? I don't know, it could be amazing, or it could end up dirty, cold and underused.

I like the overall glass design, this was what excited me about Twisted Sisters.

The details of the convention centre were finalized prior to the HRM by Design (DHLUB - 2009). Thus the sections below are specifically included in the DHLUB regarding the convention centre complex: (source: http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistric...signManual.pdf )

Publically-Sponsored Convention Centre
(15A) Notwithstanding any provision of this By-law except subsections (14) through (17) of section 8, a publically-sponsored convention centre together with retail, hotel, residential or office, and underground parking space, may be developed on the two blocks bounded by Argyle Street, Prince Street, Market Street and Sackville Street in accordance with the drawings attached as Appendix "B" to thisBy-law. For the purposes of this subsection, “publically-sponsored convention centre” means an establishment funded or otherwise financially supported by any or all levels of government which is used for the holding of conventions, seminars, workshops, trade shows, meetings or similar activities, and which may include dining and lodging facilities for the use of the participants as well as other compatible accessory facilities.

(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual.

subsections (14) through (17) of section 8 are the criteria listed:

View Plane Requirements
(14) Notwithstanding any provision of this By-law, no building shall be erected, constructed, altered, reconstructed, or located in any zone so as to protrude
through a View Plane except as permitted pursuant to Section 24 of the Halifax Peninsula Land Use By-law, as amended from time to time.
(15) Any permit issued by the Development Officer pursuant to plans and data presented by the applicant shall not, at any time, be deemed to be permission to
protrude through a View Plane.
(16) No building shall be constructed so that it is parallel to a view plane, unless such view plane is parallel to a street line.

Rampart Requirements

(17) Notwithstanding any provision of this By-law, no building shall be erected, constructed, altered, reconstructed, or located in any zone so as to be visible above the ramparts as specified by Section 26B of the Halifax Peninsula Land Use Bylaw, as amended from time to time.

So the convention centre complex must simply meet the viewplane requirements. PS (added): I should have stated that the exterior must be approved by the Design Review Committee.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Do we like the covered street/pedestrian walkway? I don't know, it could be amazing, or it could end up dirty, cold and underused.

I think it mostly comes down to how public it feels and how well it is connected to the rest of the development. If it feels like a private mall and has inward-facing businesses for convention goers it will be a failure and people will avoid it in favour of Argyle (this is the problem with places like Scotia Square). If it has stuff like good late-night restaurants people will go there - it needs to be part of the "night life" district.

It also needs good lighting at night, seating, and displays to make it a safe, comfortable, and interesting place to be at all hours. If it's executed successfully it would be something new in the downtown.

There was some discussion of the Seattle convention centre a while ago in this thread. The design is very similar to this, although the canopy there covers a hilly street. It is a little darker because it has pedways over parts. It also seems like more of a "transient" street on the beaten path for some pedestrians while this block of Grafton is only one possibility in an area where people tend to hang around. Market, one block up, is totally dead. There's no reason for people to pass through those streets unless they are visiting a business on them (unlike, say, Spring Garden Road, which gets a ton of traffic as a gateway to the downtown).

[someone123]

Here's the Seattle covered area, clearly an inspiration for the Nova Centre design:


Source

I thought it looked kind of cool when I was there but it is a little dated since it was built in 1988 (though I'm guessing it's been renovated somewhat).

Another interesting fact about Seattle's convention centre is that it was built over part of I-5. Major buildings could similarly be built over roads in downtown Halifax when redeveloping the Cogswell Interchange.

Seattle actually reminds me a lot of Halifax, although it is larger and newer. I know a few people from there who've been to Halifax and they said the sample thing. The setting is very similar - small hills and blocks. There are also some cultural similarities and it rains there all the time.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Seattle actually reminds me a lot of Halifax, although it is larger and newer. I know a few people from there who've been to Halifax and they said the sample thing. The setting is very similar - small hills and blocks. There are also some cultural similarities and it rains there all the time.

Seattle is one of the few big American cities I feel at home visiting. It's like what Halifax could be if we ever grow up.

[fenwick16]

If only Halifax had of reached its potential. If the Halifax explosion hadn't occurred, would Halifax be significantly larger now (maybe a metro population of 600,000)? The explosion occurred at a time when Halifax was booming (no pun intended). Other cities continued to boom after WWI, did the explosion slow Halifax down?

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

So the convention centre complex must simply meet the viewplane requirements.

But you quoted this:

"(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual."

Which means that the Design Manual applies, and there are elements in the current artist renderings that don't meet that.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Which means that the Design Manual applies, and there are elements in the current artist renderings that don't meet that.

What would you change specifically? I think that there could be a lot of improvements made to the design but the design manual isn't particularly clear about what should change. There are some contradictions in HbD (e.g. this site is supposed to be "lowrise" or "midrise" but this height is permitted - another great one is how on one page they show a picture of Freak Lunchbox and talk about how great it is, then on another page they complain about the colours) and a lot of the requirements are subjective.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

But you quoted this:

"(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual."

Which means that the Design Manual applies, and there are elements in the current artist renderings that don't meet that.

Could you specify what does not apply? Section 7 subsection 15(A) refers to drawings in Appendix A - page 61/62 of this document - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...alifax_LUB.pdf . It certainly looks like the Nova Centre design. So I guess the manual is referring to items such as exterior cladding. I don't think that step back requirements apply to the Nova Centre. The manual shows a fairly detailed drawing that doesn't indicate any step back requirements to the hotel or office. Which is fine with me, since one of my favorite Halifax buildings is 1801 Hollis Street. I just wish that the Nova Centre hotel were 30 storeys tall (straight up) and that there were a 600 foot observation tower in downtown Halifax.

[halifaxboyns]

I have to say; after reading some of the downtown LUB - wow, that's really complex wording. Not that the Calgary LUB is any better; since I'm working on changes to the sign component; that section is all lawyer speak but Calgary's LUB has much different wording than this so it took me a few reads to understand it.

From reading the Bylaw, I don't believe that only the viewplanes are the only rules to apply here. In order to interpret the Bylaw; you need to look at each section as it's written. I think Fenwick, you've done a pretty good job, but where you may have missed something - is the actual site planning section.

So 15B says that the application must go to the design committee, but the catch is that they must look at the applications qualitative elements. BUT subsection 6 of part 5 applies; which is this: "Where a proposed development requires a relaxation of the requirements of this By-law, the applicant shall provide a written proposal explaining the rationale for the request based on the applicable criteria contained in the Design Manual."

So the way I'm reading it is: Yes, the application goes to the design review committee. No, it isn't exempt from the design manual guidelines for things like streetwalls, etc BUT the applicant can submit a letter rationalizing a variance to those requirements; which can then be approved with the DP by the Development Officer.

The other issue I'd have, which I think HRM's lawyers have probably thought about is the fact that appendix II contains the 'site plan' for the convention centre. It's been my experience that when any diagrams are adopted with an LUB (such as a map or diagram), any variation from that requires council's approval because the diagram/map forms part of the bylaw. Now in HRM's case, perhaps making it as an appendix deviates from that rule (meaning that it's not hard and fast to that diagram). But if that's not the case, then the bylaw may have to be amended to change the diagram in order to vary the design. The reason I worry about that is that I didn't see anything in the diagram that said 'for illustration purposes only'.

I'm hopeful that when this was being reviewed prior to public hearing - that was taken into account and I'm sure I'm worrying for nothing though.

[fenwick16]

I won't pretend that that I understand this fully (maybe I don't understand it at all). Here is section 7 subsection 15 b)

(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual.

Below is the section of the Design Manual that includes 1.1 b).

(source: page 65/141 of this pdf file - http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistric...signManual.pdf )

1.1
Purpose of the Design Manual
The Design Manual is to be the primary reference used during the design review component of the Site Plan Approval process for downtown Halifax development applications.

Site Plan Approval is a development approval process enabled under the HRM Charter that brings improved clarity, predictability and timeliness to development approvals. Under Site Plan Approval, the approval of any development application will proceed in two parts:

a. The quantitative elements of an application (maximum height, setbacks, stepbacks, lot coverage, etc.) are subject to approval based on the prescriptive criteria in the Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law. This will enable an applicant to understand exactly how much development is possible before the application is submitted. This part of the approval is not subject to the Design Manual.

b. The qualitative elements of an application (architectural design, streetscape presence, public realm contribution, sustainability, etc.) are subject to a discretionary approval resulting from a design review process. It is this discretionary process for which the Design Manual is intended. Additionally, the Design Manual contains criteria by which modest modifications to the quantitative elements of the Land Use By-law may be made through the design review process.

Since it must only meet the qualitative requirements in 1.1 b) of the Design Manual (as stated in section 7 subsection 15 b) ) it therefore must be exempt from 1.1 a) which are the quantitative elements that include setbacks and stepbacks. As stated above in 1.1 a) - "This part of the approval is not subject to the Design Manual." which to me means that the setbacks and stepbacks of the Nova Centre are not subject to the Design Manual (since approval of the quantitative elements are not required). I may misunderstand this, but I take this to mean that the massing of the buildings has already been approved (quantitative elements in 1.1 a) ). I also take it to mean (and this is what might be in error on my part) that 1.1 b) gives the developer and Design Review committee some leeway in making changes to the design based on streetscape presence and that the exterior design (for example, cladding) must be approved.

I won't pretend that what I have stated is the law - it is just how I interpreted it.

[Keith P.]

This is a good example of why, to paraphrase Will Shakespeare, "The first thing we do is, let's shoot all the planners."

[Waye Mason]

I am not an expert in this, and really, no one is an expert on this particular set of rules, as the ink is still wet on the bylaws and no one has really taken it for a rigorous test drive yet.

My imperfect understanding was that the setback still needs to happen, and that street level integration is critical, etc, etc. I look at the current rendering, and I see a lot of big blank concrete walls, especially on the angle between Grafton and Argyle, and along the south end of the street level with Argyle.

I mean, the arts conceptions we were shown before I think are significantly different from the current clear glass model. We saw significant improvement, can't we hope for more? I would like to see really high end street level integration across from the Carleton/Shoe Shop so that really solidifies that part of the restaurant bar district.

Its not a drop dead requirement, as the area did fine with the ugly old dead at street level Herald building there, but it would be nice.

I also want to make sure that the Market St side does not become the "back" of the building, it should still be decent design. I don't want any more designers deciding that a former lively street is now going to be a dead to people alley.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

But you quoted this:

"(15B) In addition to the requirements of subsection (15A), the requirements of subsection (6) of section 5 shall apply. The Development Officer shall refer the application for site plan approval to the Design Review Committee for their approval of the proposal's qualitative elements as set out in section 1.1 b. of the Design Manual."

Which means that the Design Manual applies, and there are elements in the current artist renderings that don't meet that.

It will be interesting to see how stringent the Design Review Committee is when it comes to the big show. Qualitative issues on a project like the cc will be very much subject to interpretation by the committee members. The cladding on the Nova Centre has already been changed from a design perspective so the likelihood of the DRC objecting is probably quite low. Furthermore, this committee was conceived to streamline major developments and to come out of the gate being obstructionist will not sit well with their creators. Also, it could be argued that the second level outdoor mezzanine provides the street presence on Arglye that the parking garage entrance eliminates.

[halifaxboyns]

Actually I think fenwick is onto how it seems to be logically interpretted - so I think your right. I missed that part; shows you how well I read it.

I also think that empire is on to things. It will be interesting to see how it moves forward. I think the design can only get better.