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

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I know I might be crucified for saying it... but the Nova Centre is shaping up to be pretty darn ugly. It looks oooook when viewed from the north or south, but when viewed from the water or citadel hill it is just a big slab of a wall with a mish-mash of glass colours and tones.

I've been thinking it ever since I first saw it topped-out in concrete, but that's just my opinion and I don't want to take away anybody's enthusiasm for the project.

When you think of it, for any type of 1970s-style blockbuster project like this, there will have to be a profile or two that just looks massive and awkward, unless it is designed with a large, low podium and a series of slim towers.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by kwajo

It does look checkered in the renderings, although with not nearly as much contrast between tones as it looks from certain angles.



I will reserve judgement until it is done however, as I still recall how much discussion went on about the glass at the library during installation and it turned out fine.

On the library: the orange is OK, in my opinion. The leaf print is not.

On Nova Centre: I am less a fan of the glazing pattern the more I see it (from a distance)... on the streets a few blocks away, I feel like it's pretty exciting. On the streets adjacent, it feels massive (I'm not decided if massive is good or not yet).

[Phalanx]

I don't think the mottled effect will be quite so noticeable once the interior structure is in place. Right now everything is dark and cavernous, which makes it stand out against the comparatively light looking spandrels. Once the interior walls (presumably white) are in place, it will lessen the effect.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I've been thinking it ever since I first saw it topped-out in concrete, but that's just my opinion and I don't want to take away anybody's enthusiasm for the project.

When you think of it, for any type of 1970s-style blockbuster project like this, there will have to be a profile or two that just looks massive and awkward, unless it is designed with a large, low podium and a series of slim towers.

I think this has become a pretty common opinion. Many people I know that were enthusiastic supporters (including myself) have come to question what we hath wrought. I recently sat at Lot Six with a few friends, several of whom are development types who were very much in support, and almost unanimously they all looked across the street and wondered aloud just what they had been thinking...

I was going to post a comment reflecting that at the time, but I decided to quiet my fingers :-)

Why this became such a 70s blockbuster is the big question. I saw early in the construction that this had the potential to be another Scotia Square, and I wondered what happened to the idea of three more-or-less separate towers. And I think public input - design-by-committee - might be the answer!!

I think there are going to be a lot of "I told you sos" coming from the "Friends of..." crowd.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by kph06

The greenish checkered glass looks pretty bad. I was hoping the webcam wasn't showing it's true colors. I have concerns, hopefully it will all come together.

This is probably a stupid question, but might there be a layer missing? Is there a darker blue that goes outside what's there? I dunno. I really hope this isn't the final finish.

[someone123]

I think the "Friends of..." are perhaps the biggest contributing factor to the design flaws of this development. The viewplanes and ramparts bylaw are what shaped the massing of this building. Developers are just going to build what fits, and when it comes to large multi-use complexes like this there aren't many alternatives. The design rules make it hard to build a slender tower downtown with hundreds of thousands of square feet of space.

In this instance I think it would have been a great trade-off to have a slender office tower somewhat visible from inside the Citadel (it would complement the 70's buildings that are already visible). However, I still think this is a positive development for the city and I suspect it will work out a lot better than Scotia Square in terms of its impact on adjacent properties. Its footprint is much smaller and it is much more permeable for pedestrians. If it turns out well the covered street and interior path down to Argyle could be really interesting.

[Phalanx]

I think the biggest contributing factor to the monolithic 'blockbuster' feel is the relocation of the convention floor from below ground to above ground. It went from light glass arch connecting two blocks to one massive slab making it one huge, effectively unified block.

I definitely preferred the glass arch to what we ended up with, and since that change was largely driven by public input, then I that could be at least partially to blame.

That said, I agree that having 3 towers vs the 2 that we ended up with would have gone a long way toward helping.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the "Friends of..." are perhaps the biggest contributing factor to the design flaws of this development. The viewplanes and ramparts bylaw are what shaped the massing of this building. Developers are just going to build what fits, and when it comes to large multi-use complexes like this there aren't many alternatives. The design rules make it hard to build a slender tower downtown with hundreds of thousands of square feet of space.

In this instance I think it would have been a great trade-off to have a slender office tower somewhat visible from inside the Citadel (it would complement the 70's buildings that are already visible). However, I still think this is a positive development for the city and I suspect it will work out a lot better than Scotia Square in terms of its impact on adjacent properties. Its footprint is much smaller and it is much more permeable for pedestrians. If it turns out well the covered street and interior path down to Argyle could be really interesting.

Agreed on all points. It just looks so monolithic when you're in the historical buildings along Argyle. Oh, well, we'll see how it turns out!

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

I think the biggest contributing factor to the monolithic 'blockbuster' feel is the relocation of the convention floor from below ground to above ground. It went from light glass arch connecting two blocks to one massive slab making it one huge, effectively unified block.

I definitely preferred the glass arch to what we ended up with, and since that change was largely driven by public input, then I that could be at least partially to blame.

That said, I agree that having 3 towers vs the 2 that we ended up with would have gone a long way toward helping.

Yeah, I still don't really get why the supposed two towers along Argyle had to be connected to one another all the way up, making them effectively one large wide facade. Even a gap of a few metres between them would have made the block look more airy.

[worldlyhaligonian]

In the end, its probably better that the convention space is above ground.

I think its turning out better than expected. The convention space reminds me of the library and the overall form is not 70s in my opinion. The glass might be the most interesting bit and isn't finished.

I like how it ties Halifax's disparate glass aesthetics together and the building itself makes the downtown seem more cohesive (I like how the podium height matches several of the surrounding hotel heights... if there are any bars in the development on the Argyle side, its going to have a very interesting night life scene down in there).

[Keith P.]

I am going to reserve judgement until it is finished. However I have no doubt that the public consultation and design-by-committee features demanded by the "Friends of" obstructionists resulted in a poorly-designed and less aesthetically-pleasing building.

[lawsond]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Wow, not liking the glazing at all!! Looks terrible, mismatched and hodgepodge...and somewhat 80's. Hope it will look better once complete.

That is very high quality glazing. Smooth not too much spandrel. There are two tones to he define the separate structures. It will work. At least it's not like the skanky Wall Centre where they literally ran out and used totally different hue.

[counterfactual]

From what I've seen, I think it looks good. I think the disparate glass will have a "shimmering" effect once done.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

The viewplanes and ramparts bylaw are what shaped the massing of this building. Developers are just going to build what fits, and when it comes to large multi-use complexes like this there aren't many alternatives.

I think in this case the view planes are responsible for the most redeeming architectural feature of the building, which is the angled corner at Sackville and Argyle.

The design rules make it hard to build a slender tower downtown with hundreds of thousands of square feet of space.

The very frustrating thing in this case is that HRMxDesign has design rules to prevent the worst part of this building, which is the monolithic slab along Argyle. If the design rules--or at least those related to maximum tower width--had been followed I think this building would be much improved.

[Drybrain]

I didn't expect to like the building much at all, and generally I'm a big advocate of the much-derided (on here) human scale in architecture. But I am sort of enjoying the massiveness of it, which is amplified by the fact that it is, unquestionably, out of scale for the immediate area, and situated on narrow streets.

It reminds me a bit of the TIFF Lightbox across from Toronto's King West restaurant strip. Though in Halifax's case, the street is narrower and the restaurant strip is more patio-oriented, which changes the dynamic.

Anyway, the effect on Argyle remains to be seen, but I can't imagine it being worse than when the Herald building was there, empty and un-used.

Hopefully we don't have any of the falling panes of window glass that have plagued Toronto window walls.

[TheGreenBastard]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I didn't expect to like the building much at all, and generally I'm a big advocate of the much-derided (on here) human scale in architecture. But I am sort of enjoying the massiveness of it, which is amplified by the fact that it is, unquestionably, out of scale for the immediate area, and situated on narrow streets.

It seems much taller than it really is on the Argyle side. I really like that effect.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the "Friends of..." are perhaps the biggest contributing factor to the design flaws of this development. The viewplanes and ramparts bylaw are what shaped the massing of this building. Developers are just going to build what fits, and when it comes to large multi-use complexes like this there aren't many alternatives. The design rules make it hard to build a slender tower downtown with hundreds of thousands of square feet of space.

In this instance I think it would have been a great trade-off to have a slender office tower somewhat visible from inside the Citadel (it would complement the 70's buildings that are already visible). However, I still think this is a positive development for the city and I suspect it will work out a lot better than Scotia Square in terms of its impact on adjacent properties. Its footprint is much smaller and it is much more permeable for pedestrians. If it turns out well the covered street and interior path down to Argyle could be really interesting.

Very well said, and I agree.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by lawsond

That is very high quality glazing. Smooth not too much spandrel. There are two tones to he define the separate structures. It will work. At least it's not like the skanky Wall Centre where they literally ran out and used totally different hue.

Not true about the Wall Centre. in 1999 when One Wall Centre was being built there was a dispute between Busby, the Architects, and Peter Wall, the owner/developer, Busby wanted clear, Wall wanted dark tinted so they compromised , the hotel portion ( lower floors ) would be dark and the condos clear. After 15 years of no tint, and oppressive heat from the sun, the condo voted to re-glaze, as it had been many years, the original manufacturer of the lower portion was no longer in business so they had to settle for a close match, which IMO looks terrible.

Glad to hear the Nova Centre glazing is of high quality but one shade or tone would have looked far more cohesive.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the "Friends of..." are perhaps the biggest contributing factor to the design flaws of this development. The viewplanes and ramparts bylaw are what shaped the massing of this building. Developers are just going to build what fits, and when it comes to large multi-use complexes like this there aren't many alternatives. ...

This project was excluded by HRMbyDesign's rules. I'm not saying they would have protected it, but this is still the product of previous rules.

It may very well be that the massing of this thing is driven by the floorplates required for the convention pieces. If this is the case, then perhaps such a large floorplate is inappropriate for smack in the middle of downtown... or would be better below grade - I realize that the convention components were originally below grade, but public consultation decided that conventions were better served with access to views.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am going to reserve judgement until it is finished. However I have no doubt that the public consultation and design-by-committee features demanded by the "Friends of" obstructionists resulted in a poorly-designed and less aesthetically-pleasing building.

agreed