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

[DigitalNinja]

At least we got the Trillium...

[beyeas]

If I remember correctly though, in the case of the trade centre it wasn't necessarily completely arbitrary that the decision was made to 'alter' the rules... it was that specific provision is made in HbD for developments that are for the "public good" (or words something to that effect), and that such buildings could be dealt with as a special case. Or am I mixing that up in my head with something else?

[fenwick16]

The following is in the HbD Design Manual (i.e. Downtown Halifax Land Use By-law, 2009, which resulted from HRMbyDesign)

(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 this By-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.

Interestingly, the saveourview group wants this clause removed: (one more special interest group - is this a real group or just some individual at his/her computer?) http://www.savetheview.ca/pdf/Amendments-SmartBusiness.pdf

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Interestingly, the saveourview group wants this clause removed: (one more special interest group - is this a real group or just some individual at his/her computer?) http://www.savetheview.ca/pdf/Amendments-SmartBusiness.pdf

Save The View is a real group, and seem to be quite active, and lead by many of same people as Heritage Trust. Anyone interested in challenging some of their arguments, they are hosting a panel discussion about the Nova Centre on March 23rd - don't know the details, but I'm sure they can be found somewhere on the interweb.

On another note. Interesting article here - http://americancity.org/magazine/article/unconventional-thinking/ - on convention centres. Whether or not you agree with all the arguments presented, they make some good points to reflect on. And while a new convention centre may benefit halifax's economy, it is a far from ideal place to put it. If the NS government is serious about supporting this, financially and otherwise, and believe it will benefit the province, they really should also be able to see that this location severely limits its potential, including any future expansion of services, spin-off development, etc. This site and any site around it are battle grounds that bring out a lot of opposition and severely slow-down the speed of (re)development. And for better or for worse, I can't see this changing anytime soon.

[Doggard]

Just thought I'd toss in my two cents on this one: neat concept, ugly building, wrong location. Economics aside, I'm not going to be upset at the loss of this one.

[DigitalNinja]

They should put it out by dartmouth crossing or somewhere there is a lot of space for future development. I think it would do a lot better there.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Did I miss something? The decision hasn't been made yet???


This obstructionism has to end here... I know all of you aren't in favour of this development, but I'm seriously worried about the precedent it will set.

Sure, alot of you don't like the design/location... but what is to stop these groups from ruining a development we like?

This isn't likely the final design.



Halifax is totally screwing itself... good luck competing with international cities of similar size.


I'm basically being forced to move away to find employment by a bunch of fucking chumps that would be against the Westin hotel if it was proposed today.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Did I miss something? The decision hasn't been made yet???


This obstructionism has to end here... I know all of you aren't in favour of this development, but I'm seriously worried about the precedent it will set.

Sure, alot of you don't like the design/location... but what is to stop these groups from ruining a development we like?

This isn't likely the final design.



Halifax is totally screwing itself... good luck competing with international cities of similar size.


I'm basically being forced to move away to find employment by a bunch of fucking chumps that would be against the Westin hotel if it was proposed today.

I agree with you totally worldlyhaligonian. I want to see this go ahead. I feel that all these heritage groups and citadel view groups got most of what they wanted (I don't believe their complaints about HRMbyDesign). Now that they got their way in the downtown core, it is time for them to start compromising and do what is best for jobs as opposed to ideological arguments (saving heritage buildings is important, saving a view from the citadel isn't).

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I agree with you totally worldlyhaligonian. I want to see this go ahead. I feel that all these heritage groups and citadel view groups got most of what they wanted (I don't believe their complaints about HRMbyDesign). Now that they got their way in the downtown core, it is time for them to start compromising and do what is best for jobs as opposed to ideological arguments (saving heritage buildings is important, saving a view from the citadel isn't).

Yeah, and if our economy doesn't grow in certain sectors (i.e. financial services and industries that would have downtown offices and the type of people that live downtown), we are going to see more heritage properties go the way of the dinosaur.

Basically, I find this all really funny because the heritage groups are screwing the pooch for themselves.

I agree that we lost heritage in the past, but it was for different reasons.

The new paradigm is going to be tearing down beautiful heritage structures and building cheap 3 story buildings because our downtown economy (private money) won't be able to support the maintenance of heritage properties and the regulations won't allow for tall buildings.

These people know nothing about economics... if they believe that heritage will be saved by anything other than private investment in our downtown then I honestly feel sorry for them. The HRM/NS government won't be saving shit once buildings start falling apart, they will be too concerned with balancing their budget(s).

My prediction is that unless we see some growth in downtown, heritage buildings are going to be torn down by small time developers and cheap replacements will be built. Eventually, we will have maybe 3-6 great examples of heritage downtown. How is a group going to stop a developer if they aren't trying to build a tall building? The answer is that they won't have the ammo to do so... or the money. NSP had to step in with the Morris property and I doubt we will see that sort of action from any other company in Halifax. (Aliant would probably be the only other one with the resources to do so)

Halifax is turning into this ugly sprawl/commutership city, where everybody lives in the sticks and the downtown turns into a wasteland. Where people complain about the downtown getting everything when we are running electrical and sewer systems into the middle of nowhere. And guess who's actions are causing this? Yes, its the groups against development.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

They should put it out by dartmouth crossing or somewhere there is a lot of space for future development. I think it would do a lot better there.

mybe so.... but a convention centre needs to be downtown...poeple don't choose convention destinations to be in a business park just wouldn't work.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Yeah, and if our economy doesn't grow in certain sectors (i.e. financial services and industries that would have downtown offices and the type of people that live downtown), we are going to see more heritage properties go the way of the dinosaur.

Basically, I find this all really funny because the heritage groups are screwing the pooch for themselves.

I agree that we lost heritage in the past, but it was for different reasons.

The new paradigm is going to be tearing down beautiful heritage structures and building cheap 3 story buildings because our downtown economy (private money) won't be able to support the maintenance of heritage properties and the regulations won't allow for tall buildings.

These people know nothing about economics... if they believe that heritage will be saved by anything other than private investment in our downtown then I honestly feel sorry for them. The HRM/NS government won't be saving shit once buildings start falling apart, they will be too concerned with balancing their budget(s).

Halifax is turning into this ugly sprawl/commutership city, where everybody lives in the sticks and the downtown turns into a wasteland. Where people complain about the downtown getting everything when we are running electrical and sewer systems into the middle of nowhere. And guess who's actions are causing this? Yes, its the groups against development.

Exactly, these heritage groups are p**sing in their own soup. In order for heritage buildings to be maintained, the HRM must thrive. I am sure that these heritage groups have done a lot of good in maintaining the historic nature of Halifax but they must understand that without money then the downtown core will become a ghetto and not a thriving sophisticated city. Look at San Francisco - it has kept a lot of its heritage but it also has a lot of tall buildings downtown. It is also in the Bay area close to Oakland, San Jose, etc., so even if people and businesses can't afford San Francisco then they can cross the bridge to Oakland or drive around the inlet to San Jose. HRM must do the same, if Halifax becomes too expensive then people and businesses must be able to have affordable options in Dartmouth.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

The new paradigm is going to be tearing down beautiful heritage structures and building cheap 3 story buildings because our downtown economy (private money) won't be able to support the maintenance of heritage properties and the regulations won't allow for tall buildings.

I was genuinely surprised the first time I read somebody (I think it was Phil Pacey..?) explain that the four storey height limit downtown (which was not a height limit) was necessary to preserve heritage buildings by ensuring that there was nothing to gain by tearing them down. It's hard to imagine a more misguided policy.

The simple fact is that requirements change over time and so every successful part of a city needs to evolve or it will become obsolete. Some old buildings will have to be torn down, some will be modified, and some will be preserved. The nicest solution is to carefully retrofit and restore old buildings but that takes lots of money that has to come from somewhere.

I think there's still lots of room for improvement but HbD and the Barrington Street credits should help a lot. The economy is strong enough that the downtown will thrive if left alone. The problem in the past was that it was being actively ruined by anti-development groups, sewage plants, ugly parking garages, and so on.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by someone123

The simple fact is that requirements change over time and so every successful part of a city needs to evolve or it will become obsolete. Some old buildings will have to be torn down, some will be modified, and some will be preserved. The nicest solution is to carefully retrofit and restore old buildings but that takes lots of money that has to come from somewhere.

I have never really understood why these groups are so misguided as to cling to a single thought process in terms of heritage conservation... i.e. don't let any modern buildings to be built and don't allow anyone to alter a heritage building.

I love many of the beautiful old buildings that we have, and there is a lot to be said for preserving them, in addition to allowing a modern city to grow up and evolve around them.

It boggles the mind that we can't have a proactive heritage group that works to actually provide solutions, rather than just opposing everything in sight. The fact is, as others have raised, keeping these buildings in good shape so they can survive and be used in modern times requires a lot of money. The less development that takes place, the smaller the tax/revenue base, and the less money there is to protect heritage. I would even be fine if they just exhibited some lateral thinking and make positive proposals like requiring portions of a development fee to go towards a fund for fixing up heritage sites! (almost in a way like the developer of the Alexander was proposing in that specific case). That would provide a financial incentive to hold onto and fix up heritage while allowing growth and evolution around it.

Maybe this is a bad idea (just off the cuff) but I would just love to see some actual positive ideas come from a heritage group rather than the incessant negativity and opposition. I would love to see a group that actually does things to save heritage rather than the "Boo to everything Guys".

[Doggard]

I'm certainly not advocating that a better location would be somewhere outside of downtown, quite the opposite! I just think the city really dropped the ball on this one. Remember, the "other contender" for the convention centre wanted to put it where cogswell stands now.

[DigitalNinja]

I guess it is better DT, I was just looking at some of the big cities convention centers like Shanghai which is further away from the downtown core, and just that building has built an economy around it. I hope this goes through, I'm sure the building will look fine.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by beyeas

I have never really understood why these groups are so misguided as to cling to a single thought process in terms of heritage conservation... i.e. don't let any modern buildings to be built and don't allow anyone to alter a heritage building.

I love many of the beautiful old buildings that we have, and there is a lot to be said for preserving them, in addition to allowing a modern city to grow up and evolve around them.

I agree - it is frustrating. And as a result we get a sort of G.W.Bush "you're either with us or against us" view on both sides.

With both sides, I think a lot has to do with the inability to see alternatives. And as I see it and have experienced, this can really be the role of an Architecture and Planning School. In Halifax, we are lucky enough to have a planning and design school in the core, but I find their inactivity and lack of engagement with local issues discouraging. They have the ability, and arguably the resources, to present alternatives, act as consultants, educators, mediators, etc. It is a small faculty, many having been there a long time. Maybe this will change as new faculty, with experience outside of the region, are brought in.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Maybe this is a bad idea (just off the cuff) but I would just love to see some actual positive ideas come from a heritage group rather than the incessant negativity and opposition. I would love to see a group that actually does things to save heritage rather than the "Boo to everything Guys".

Well the reality is that things have improved a lot in the past five years or so. Part of the problem before was that we were hearing from a few people like the Paceys, who I am sure are genuinely interested in preservation and well-meaning but were just out of touch and wrong when it came to economic issues. I hear from them less now than I did before.

There are some genuine issues with this project, although those articles and letters posted earlier seemed like they were grasping at straws. In terms of what is best for the city I would have preferred some medium-scale, straightforward development for this site and then a project for the interchange in 5-10 years' time.

[coolmillion]

Originally Posted by planarchy

In Halifax, we are lucky enough to have a planning and design school in the core, but I find their inactivity and lack of engagement with local issues discouraging. They have the ability, and arguably the resources, to present alternatives, act as consultants, educators, mediators, etc. It is a small faculty, many having been there a long time. Maybe this will change as new faculty, with experience outside of the region, are brought in.

I would respectfully disagree. The City and Environment Unit at the planning school is engaged in exactly these types of activities (forgive me if this is common knowledge...). They are a consulting and research unit headed by a prof, and employ over 10 young planners who regularly engage with local initiatives (one is sits on the downtown PAC). They respond to some local cfps as they emerge (not all work can be pro bono) but consulting gigs regularly go to outfits from Ontario and elsewhere. Planning, architecture and design students are involved in all kinds of cool local projects, but when it comes to paying the bills, they (and their creativity) move away. In terms of faculty engagement, there could be more activity, but I think the main problem is that the municipal and provinicial political networks and structures (eg HRM committees), don't allow much room for creativity or local contributions. Also, the planning and architecture profs have all kinds of different research interests and may be more engaged in something like international development or rural communities than urban issues.

I think that volunteer organizations have a great potential to make an impact on the city because they're not waiting to get paid in order to do work. Heritage trust, for example, has been successful because their members do work in their own time, only requiring funding for admin and legal costs. If only we had a forward thinking planning and design not-for-profit, with equal passion and dedication...

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

I would respectfully disagree. The City and Environment Unit at the planning school is engaged in exactly these types of activities (forgive me if this is common knowledge...). They are a consulting and research unit headed by a prof, and employ over 10 young planners who regularly engage with local initiatives (one is sits on the downtown PAC). They respond to some local cfps as they emerge (not all work can be pro bono) but consulting gigs regularly go to outfits from Ontario and elsewhere. Planning, architecture and design students are involved in all kinds of cool local projects, but when it comes to paying the bills, they (and their creativity) move away. In terms of faculty engagement, there could be more activity, but I think the main problem is that the municipal and provinicial political networks and structures (eg HRM committees), don't allow much room for creativity or local contributions. Also, the planning and architecture profs have all kinds of different research interests and may be more engaged in something like international development or rural communities than urban issues.

I agree with some of this. In no way did I intend to discredit the work of CEU, but they are really focused on different types of issues. What the department fails at - or can at least do better at - is improving their presence within the city. They are, to most of the general public, invisible. Of course not all faculty are engaged in local issues, and they shouldn't be, but public research institutions have a role to play, and need to be vocal, even when expressing more radical ideas. I agree that a big problem is that most RFPs are awarded primarily in cost - and this works to the benefit of large national offices.

But the department can introduce the public to things like best practices in planning and design by bringing more awareness to things like their public lecture series and exhibitions - both student work and professional exhibitions. They need to engage the community in a more effective way.

[coolmillion]

I agree with you, but I think they're trying. The CEU started a newsletter a couple of years ago and had bold ambitions to develop a street front information centre. I know that the newsletter came out with a couple of editions, but I'm not sure if the other project materialized. They have hosted lectures and public forums (see their website) and administered the trillium public art competition. I agree that there could be a more outspoken and vocal presence in this community - a leader could make an even greater impact.