[Halifax] 11Ninety (1190 Barrington) | ? m | 8 fl | U/C

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

There are still a pretty decent number of heritage buildings around this area. There certainly is a lot of potential for a flavourful, pedestrian-busy area that is being somewhat squandered by allowing bottom-dollar development in this spot.

I wonder if a development like this is that much cheaper to build than some of the nicer ones in this area or if it merely comes down to vision and design skills. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end space in this building ends up being about as expensive as space in the building with the red balconies by Hollis and Morris or the shipping container inspired building. The Elmwood redevelopment looks good too. It's too bad they can't all be like that instead of being so hit or miss. There have also been mistakes with some demolitions. Not every old building needs to stay but it's a mistake to tear down above average, relatively scarce heritage buildings. One problem seems to be that the city doesn't do a good job of picking some midrange heritage buildings to keep to maintain character. If an area has a lot of midrange buildings they can all be neglected and lost to the point where a whole neighbourhood seriously loses character.

The city doesn't seem to have much planning vision either or ability to drive this area. It could be much much nicer with some comparatively modest renos to key heritage properties. I mean on the level of things like replacing vinyl siding, improving wood storefronts, and not painting rows of buildings in the same greyish or beige colours.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

There are still a pretty decent number of heritage buildings around this area. There certainly is a lot of potential for a flavourful, pedestrian-busy area that is being somewhat squandered by allowing bottom-dollar development in this spot. Not to mention, with it's proximity to the train station and to the cruise terminal, the building around this park almost serve as a "gateway" being the first things arriving tourists are likely to see. Why can't we do better?

Furthermore, I also have to mention how the suburban-format superstore is starting to look like a really poor use of space in this rapidly upzoning area. Hope they have some sort of a longer term plan to build some mixed density on that site while retaining the grocery store with underground parking for customers (a model we see a lot in Montreal, which can actually be better for taking groceries to your car in unpleasant weather).

The case for having higher standards for this specific build site go up again when considering the prominence of this spot if the train station ever becomes a commuter rail terminus.

I recall hearing somewhere that Superstore was planning urban format stores for their Barrington and Young St. locations, but they just repaved their Barrington parking lot so that doesn't give me hope it's happening anytime soon. A real shame.

Agreed on all points though. It's incredibly frustrating seeing the city spend all it's time arguing outdated height regulations while simultaneously approving these horrid designs.

[IanWatson]

Honest question though: how does a city effectively regulate design?

Architecture is contextual and is also so often a "I'll know it when I see it" kind of exercise that's simply impossible to put into precise regulation. And the places that do try often end up being sterile and mono-designed, because there's no way a regulatory document can allow for the breadth of interesting buildings that are possible.

Put another way, write me a set of regulations that allows Queen's Marque but doesn't allow Salter's Gate. Good luck!

Alternatives to regulation are design guidelines (zero teeth) and design review committees (also zero teeth, and add red tape).

Honestly, I think it's more a question of skill and experience in the architecture and development community, as well as economic conditions. There is of course a lot of crap still going up in HRM, but this year's crap is still wayyy better than the crap of yesteryear. And we, as a city, are seeing more and more truly excellent designs.

When it comes to the Municipality's role, I think the emphasis should be on upping our game when it comes to the public realm. A lot can be overlooked when it comes to crap buildings if they're set in a nice public realm. Go to a lot of European cities that people fawn over and look closely at the buildings themselves - a lot are nothing special. What allows them to give the impression of greatness is the "whole package" environment that you find yourself in when you're experiencing those buildings. Again, we're seeing it done much better in Halifax than in years previous, but there's lots more that could be done.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Honest question though: how does a city effectively regulate design?

...


Honestly, I think it's more a question of skill and experience in the architecture and development community, as well as economic conditions. There is of course a lot of crap still going up in HRM, but this year's crap is still wayyy better than the crap of yesteryear. And we, as a city, are seeing more and more truly excellent designs.

I have to generally agree with that. A lot of the poor design we see is the result of poor builders rather than poor regulation. What makes this Barrington building mediocre isn't its basic form (a short tower with a mixed-use podium). It lies in the details. I don't think we want a situation in which the city begins micromanaging things like cladding materials and other details. I'm not at all an expert on this matter, and I'm sure there are things that can be done, but I'm also sure we don't want to over-regulate aesthetics.

I would also say that this building is exceptionally lame, not typical. Even the worst of what we see going up now is generally better than what was being constructed 20 years ago. It is disappointing that more than ten years after a building like the Vic Suites seemed to set a new standard, we're still seeing such a mixed bagm especially in such central areas. On the other hand, we're also seeing a lot of genuinely good stuff. Over

[OldDartmouthMark]

In this case, though, could the City not use the spirit of the Barrington heritage district to require the design of the new building to be done in the same style as the one it replaced? Or create some specific requirements to make it blend with the surrounding neighbourhood? I cringe a little when we collectively throw our hands in the air and say that nothing can be done because the builder isn’t capable of creating an attractive building. Sure, housing crisis, density and all that, but still most of the people in the area will have to look at it for decades to come. Not to mention the impression that it affords visitors to the city, as mentioned.

[Keith P.]

Maybe the way to do it is to not try to write hyper-detailed regulations specifying the type and color or finishes, etc, as HRM planners are wont to do. Requirements that specify more of a "spirit and intent" approach, either site-specific or more broadly, that call for things to be a certain standard will soon be understood by developers and designers and hopefully result in better proposals. It would take some creativity, rare in bureaucrats, but it can be sone.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Maybe the way to do it is to not try to write hyper-detailed regulations specifying the type and color or finishes, etc, as HRM planners are wont to do. Requirements that specify more of a "spirit and intent" approach, either site-specific or more broadly, that call for things to be a certain standard will soon be understood by developers and designers and hopefully result in better proposals. It would take some creativity, rare in bureaucrats, but it can be sone.

So that's basically what Design Manuals are. You may be surprised to learn that there is one for Downtown Halifax. It can be found here (for now, until what remains of HRMxDesign is repealed): https://www.halifax.ca/media/75719

But the problem with "spirit and intent" is, how do you enforce that? Developers LOVE to argue and to push boundaries as far as possible (seriously, I think it's half the fun of the job for a lot of them). And with so much open to interpretation, they do push. HRM's answer to that was to have a Design Review Committee whose job it was to debate and interpret the Design Manual. It didn't work out though because members were in the industry and had no incentive to piss off their colleagues. They also intimately understood the costs that it takes to get a project to a stage where it can be critiqued, and were understandably hesitant to force people to go back to the drawing board.

But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you're right that it can be argued that the Design Manual is somewhat responsible for the shift in the quality of downtown proposals by slowly educating the development community on what's expected?

I think egb put it quite well though. Yes, you CAN regulate design, but at what cost? There are certainly places that do very detailed and "successful" design regulation, especially when it comes to a heritage context. But it takes a very long time, adds cost and complexity, and also very much limits the range of architectural expression in a community. Sometimes those costs are worth it (like around world heritage sites), but often they're not.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

There are certainly places that do very detailed and "successful" design regulation, especially when it comes to a heritage context.

That was my line of thinking, that perhaps it might have been possible to designate some 'hard points' like a podium that imitates the building that was removed, but perhaps that's even too complicated.

As far as cost goes, IMHO the location in a prominent downtown location would be worth the 'cost'.

[egb]

1. I think the answer isn’t that nothing can be done, but that the costs of strict design requirements outweigh the costs of the occasional ugly building.

2. As for the dreaded six plex people often confuse an option with a requirement. Just because a six plex is legal doesn’t mean a street will get turned over in a short period of time. Even if it did, all that tells you is that the previous restrictions were highly costly and it was good to get rid of them.

If it makes you feel any better your house is now worth more without you having to do anything.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by egb

1. I think the answer isn’t that nothing can be done, but that the costs of strict design requirements outweigh the costs of the occasional ugly building.

2. As for the dreaded six plex people often confuse an option with a requirement. Just because a six plex is legal doesn’t mean a street will get turned over in a short period of time. Even if it did, all that tells you is that the previous restrictions were highly costly and it was good to get rid of them.

If it makes you feel any better your house is now worth more without you having to do anything.

Yes, that is correct. And I'm not sure why some residents feel entitled to control the type of buildings other property owners create. The right to choose what to do with your own property is much more foundational and logical in a free society. Which is very important since some people act like removing a restriction is almost the same as properties being expropriated by the government and forcefully redeveloped. Redevelopment only happens when someone who owns a property either chooses to redevelop it, or to sell it to someone else who chooses to redevelop it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes, that is correct. And I'm not sure why some residents feel entitled to control the type of buildings other property owners create. The right to choose what to do with your own property is much more foundational and logical in a free society. Which is very important since some people act like removing a restriction is almost the same as properties being expropriated by the government and forcefully redeveloped. Redevelopment only happens when someone who owns a property either chooses to redevelop it, or to sell it to someone else who chooses to redevelop it.

To a point, but said restriction is considered when one chooses to live there. After the investment is made, it is still a let down if restrictions are removed that may take away the very reason you decided to move there in the first place.

There are two sides to every story, after all. On SSP, it’s common to criticize anyone who ‘selfishly’ wants to maintain the quality of life that they experienced for years, so I get it. The conversation will go as it will go.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

... The right to choose what to do with your own property is much more foundational and logical in a free society...

I think this right has to have some limits. What gets built on a person's property impacts neighbours as well as others who work, travel, or otherwise use the area nearby. That's what good development rules should balance - ensuring some sort of "reasonable" public benefit from development.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I think this right has to have some limits. What gets built on a person's property impacts neighbours as well as others who work, travel, or otherwise use the area nearby. That's what good development rules should balance - ensuring some sort of "reasonable" public benefit from development.

While it's true that there are some limits, it's also obvious enough that it shouldn't need to be said. All laws and rules are about balance (if they're done in a just way). No one is talking about building an ore smelting facility or a giant office tower on a residential street. The issue is that even a lot of of normal residential buildings like small apartment buildings or row houses aren't allowed in a lot of residential areas due to them not being the "taste" of the neighbours aka "neighbourhood character".

But it's also a little dangerous to use vague terms like a new developments "impact neighbours" or should provide "public benefit". The new residents will be members of the public and having a place to live will benefit them. Why should their homes need to benefit other people who aren't living in them when there's no such requirement for the existing homes? The existing homes also impact others in the sense that they occupy space that others can't use and therefore cause displacement, distorts the market, lowers average density which increases travel distances and infrastructure costs, and leads to artificial shortages. But when you place all the onus of providing public benefit and not impacting anyone on the newcomer, you have a systemic bias that favours those already established at the expense of those who need homes. Yet fundamentally the impact of not having a home is greater than the impact of having someone else living nearby.

So the takeaway is that while there needs to be balance, the current balance is skewed much too far in one direction.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

While it's true that there are some limits, it's also obvious enough that it shouldn't need to be said. All laws and rules are about balance (if they're done in a just way). No one is talking about building an ore smelting facility or a giant office tower on a residential street. The issue is that even a lot of of normal residential buildings like small apartment buildings or row houses aren't allowed in a lot of residential areas due to them not being the "taste" of the neighbours aka "neighbourhood character".

But it's also a little dangerous to use vague terms like a new developments "impact neighbours" or should provide "public benefit". The new residents will be members of the public and having a place to live will benefit them. Why should their homes need to benefit other people who aren't living in them when there's no such requirement for the existing homes? The existing homes also impact others in the sense that they occupy space that others can't use and therefore cause displacement, distorts the market, lowers average density which increases travel distances and infrastructure costs, and leads to artificial shortages. But when you place all the onus of providing public benefit and not impacting anyone on the newcomer, you have a systemic bias that favours those already established at the expense of those who need homes. Yet fundamentally the impact of not having a home is greater than the impact of having someone else living nearby.

So the takeaway is that while there needs to be balance, the current balance is skewed much too far in one direction.

Very well said. Said systemic bias for the established and against the newcomers (or, in a broad sense, the youth = those new to the scene economically) seems to be a broader issue across Canadian society these days. A large part of it stems from housing unaffordability, but the Gen Z / younger millenial "failure to launch" could be regarded as a consequence of this ethos.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

... it's also a little dangerous to use vague terms like a new developments "impact neighbours" or should provide "public benefit". The new residents will be members of the public and having a place to live will benefit them. Why should their homes need to benefit other people who aren't living in them when there's no such requirement for the existing homes? The existing homes also impact others in the sense that they occupy space that others can't use and therefore cause displacement, distorts the market, lowers average density which increases travel distances and infrastructure costs, and leads to artificial shortages. But when you place all the onus of providing public benefit and not impacting anyone on the newcomer, you have a systemic bias that favours those already established at the expense of those who need homes. Yet fundamentally the impact of not having a home is greater than the impact of having someone else living nearby...

I understand what you're saying. Honestly wasn't what I meant when I was talking about public benefit. I am thinking of (large) developments that are buffered with large surface parking lots right between the building and the public right of way - this degrades a neighbourhood and has negative impacts. Or... mid-size buildings that have blank walls right at the sidewalk - there's an apartment building across from the Hydrostone commercial strip, at the corner of Novalea and Young that is awfully - especially given the nice urban form of the original hydrostone development.

I also agree with you about the dangerous premise of maintaining neighbourhood character.

This thread is about 1190 Barrington though, and the particular public good that's being impacted is a meaningful edge condition to what should be, or become, a significant public space (the park) in a well-developed urban core. This is not about newcomers in an established neighbourhood, this is about replacing an existing building with something new that I think is a step down in terms of contributing to the civic realm.

So do I feel grateful that this is providing housing? Maybe a little. I'm actually pretty disappointed that this building will degrade (in my opinion) the public realm here and will do so for several years. I doubt I'll be around to see if ITS replacement is any better.

[OldDartmouthMark]

1. What are these costs? As has been said, it may not cost any more, or not significantly more to make the building fit into its surroundings a little better. It’s been mentioned that the difficulty is in how to define it. In this case there’s the heritage district, which should provide some opportunity to more easily define requirements so that they can build something that is not the rendering posted in this thread.

The cost of an ugly building is decades of ugliness, not measurable in dollars.

2. It’s always easy to downplay negative effects of planning decisions on an individual when you are not the one experiencing said negative effects.

I suppose increased value can be motivation to move out of the house you were happy in and didn’t plan to move from into some other overpriced house that, once you add in moving, real estate and legal costs, you might break even… that is, if you can actually find another house in an area that you want to be in. There’s always that.

In the meantime, let’s keep expanding our population at unprecedented rates without any meaningful infrastructure upgrades. It’s the LPC way…

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In the meantime, let’s keep expanding our population at unprecedented rates without any meaningful infrastructure upgrades. It’s the LPC way…

The whole point of the Housing Accelerator Fund is that it's to be used to upgrade infrastructure.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The whole point of the Housing Accelerator Fund is that it's to be used to upgrade infrastructure.

If it will actually be used in a meaningful way, then it appears to be purely reactionary, which seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Like very poor planning at the very least.

I could be missing something here, though. It wouldn’t be the first time.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The whole point of the Housing Accelerator Fund is that it's to be used to upgrade infrastructure.

The HRM planners would likely use the $70 million sack of gold to build a few bike flyovers and bike lanes, benefiting only a tiny but loud minority. We need a total purge at City Hall.

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

2. It’s always easy to downplay negative effects of planning decisions on an individual when you are not the one experiencing said negative effects.

The same thing could be said about preserving arbitrary zoning rules making it impossible to build more housing where we already have infrastructure in place. Easy to defend anti-new-housing zoning when you already own a home and don't care about housing unaffordability or homelessness.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In the meantime, let’s keep expanding our population at unprecedented rates without any meaningful infrastructure upgrades. It’s the LPC way…

Except in NS, where the Liberals want a stop to the Conservative plan to double the population...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...id%20Churchill.