General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

ugh. no Im sure he knew about the viewplanes.
it comes down to what you want. he needs to make money, and to do it he either needs height, or the vacant land. if we gave up some height, maybe we could save a building or 2.

its called negotiation and compromise, but again, since we are unwilling to do that, we loose buildings.

I generally agree with the viewplanes - but the viewplanes are not continuous 360 degree views from the citadel. they are very specific wedges, and despite claims from the opposition, the nova center complies with the legislated views.

The viewplane excuse from Chedrawe DOES seem thin (lots of developers have done much pricier historic restorations with no additional square footage, let alone a tower).

But I still find Miller's letter irritating. I think views TO the citadel from WITHIN the city are more important than views FROM the citadel to the water. Most of us spend our time on the streets, and the citadel is a major iconic civic space. It provides a real sense of locality and history when we see it.

But preserving a perfectly unobstructed view from the hill to the harbour is idiotic. There's no economic justification for it, nor a cultural justification I can imagine giving credence to. But it persists, and completely dominates our understanding of and discussion about heritage in the city. And contrary to Miller's assertion, I really doubt that a majority of Haligonians care very much about it. Few of us want to see a wall of highrises blocking off the harbour entirely, but the solution is not to maintain an 18th-century vista.

[someone123]

The thing is, people can wag their fingers all they want, but developers are generally out to maximize profit and current regulation puts buildings like these ones squarely in the way of that primary goal. Until this problem is fixed developers will tear down lots of buildings.

The city needs to create incentives such that demolishing good buildings is prohibitively expensive and preservation is the economically sensible path from the perspective of a property owner.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is a little late now. He has spent a lot of money on the proposal that is in place. Unfair to expect him to drop all that and pivot into asking for something that is expressly forbidden under current rules and would take years to change.

I just don't get the attachment to the BMO/Maritime Life building so many seem to have here. It has never struck me as particularly noteworthy. Imagine the image below with 20 storeys on top. Is that really all that great?

Check out the link. The BMO Centre would be our mini Rockefeller Center. Maybe we would get a Top of the Rock and actually have a place to see one of the best views in the world.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.7590638,-...w%3D128.73248%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

Check out the link. The BMO Centre would be our mini Rockefeller Center. Maybe we would get a Top of the Rock and actually have a place to see one of the best views in the world.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.7590638,-...w%3D128.73248%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

They don't look even remotely alike though.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is a little late now. He has spent a lot of money on the proposal that is in place. Unfair to expect him to drop all that and pivot into asking for something that is expressly forbidden under current rules and would take years to change.

I just don't get the attachment to the BMO/Maritime Life building so many seem to have here. It has never struck me as particularly noteworthy. Imagine the image below with 20 storeys on top. Is that really all that great?

This is a fair point, Keith. I guess my idea of a compromise would have come far earlier in the process; when the developer would appreciate the view plane but would also take advantage of the "compromise".

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In today's Herald, everyone's favorite here, Bev Miller, weighs in. Naturally she tries to defend the flawed viewplanes, making some contradictory arguments in the process, and thinks there is some alchemy that will turn sandstone into gold:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1324289-voice-of-the-people-nov.-26-2015

OMG. It's like she read my earlier post...

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

ugh. no Im sure he knew about the viewplanes.
it comes down to what you want. he needs to make money, and to do it he either needs height, or the vacant land. if we gave up some height, maybe we could save a building or 2.

its called negotiation and compromise, but again, since we are unwilling to do that, we loose buildings.

I generally agree with the viewplanes - but the viewplanes are not continuous 360 degree views from the citadel. they are very specific wedges, and despite claims from the opposition, the nova center complies with the legislated views.

Precisely, Zio. Though I don't agree generally with the viewplanes. As noted below, I think we should preserve only one or two key directional views.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The viewplane excuse from Chedrawe DOES seem thin (lots of developers have done much pricier historic restorations with no additional square footage, let alone a tower).

But I still find Miller's letter irritating. I think views TO the citadel from WITHIN the city are more important than views FROM the citadel to the water. Most of us spend our time on the streets, and the citadel is a major iconic civic space. It provides a real sense of locality and history when we see it.

But preserving a perfectly unobstructed view from the hill to the harbour is idiotic. There's no economic justification for it, nor a cultural justification I can imagine giving credence to. But it persists, and completely dominates our understanding of and discussion about heritage in the city. And contrary to Miller's assertion, I really doubt that a majority of Haligonians care very much about it. Few of us want to see a wall of highrises blocking off the harbour entirely, but the solution is not to maintain an 18th-century vista.

I can see preserving *some* aspects of the view. Mainly, the view from the Citadel to George's Island, and a view out towards the harbour narrows. Historically, those would have been the essential views for defensive/strategic reasons.

Beyond that, the viewplanes are useless, with those that cut through SGR the most useless of all, as this is one of the areas where we should have the most intense density/height allowances.

[kph06]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

I don't know of any website's but I do have a progress photo from earlier this month;


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

The crane for this is now halfway up. Same crane as Friesian Court. All Crane is setting it up with the crane used on Joe Howe. They are taking a bite into Irving and Leil's work.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

the points system is probably pretty good way to evaluate, but i think to many points are given for age. - thats how more modern stuff slips through, and doesnt get registered - any why you typically need a compelling personal story to go with the building.

I agree about the points related to dates... strong examples of modernism should be protected. The building (can't remember what it's called) with Durty Nellies and Starbucks in it, spanning Barrington/Argyle has been super-bastardized over the years. It's the first curtainwall of appreciable height in Atlantic Canada.

The points for compelling story are meant to allow buildings that have historic significance, but aren't architecturally noteworthy to be protected... the birthplace of so-and-so. I think all too often, the importance of former occupants and occasions are overstated and over-scored in a rush to protect anything old.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I agree about the points related to dates... strong examples of modernism should be protected. The building (can't remember what it's called) with Durty Nellies and Starbucks in it, spanning Barrington/Argyle has been super-bastardized over the years. It's the first curtainwall of appreciable height in Atlantic Canada.

I really like that building. A really classic bit of mid-century modernism. Definitely needs a major renovation though, at least on the exterior.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I really like that building. A really classic bit of mid-century modernism. Definitely needs a major renovation though, at least on the exterior.

its actually pretty intact - though the lobby was changed, and its had a bad paint job.

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalifax/2013/06/canada-permanent-building/

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

its actually pretty intact - though the lobby was changed, and its had a bad paint job.

Cool. (Yeah, I guess it's really just dirty and dingy-looking. More of a scrub-down needed, I guess, maybe not a wholesale reno.)

[bluenoser]

Holiday Inn to get $6.5m reno

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1324459-holiday-inn-to-get-6.5m-reno

Rooms at the Holiday Inn near the Angus L. Macdonald Bridge will be fully renovated, and the lobby and meeting rooms will also be updated, he said. Work is also planned for the building’s exterior.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

its actually pretty intact - though the lobby was changed, and its had a bad paint job.

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalifax/2013/06/canada-permanent-building/

Thanks for that link and those images... I'd heard there was a metal screen of circles: looks like only on the lower level. The Durty Nellies faux paneled heritage crap on the Argyle side is disingenuous at best. I'd love to see it re-modernized to something more period appropriate.

[Hali87]

Source

"FOR THE COMMON GOOD"


Should Doyle Block maybe have its own thread now?

Anyone know what point of the approvals process it's in? Is demolition good to go at this point or can minds still be changed here?

Something that gives me a shred of optimism here is that a lot of the sandstone panels from St. Pat's seem to have been salvaged. That's about it though.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Source

"FOR THE COMMON GOOD"


Should Doyle Block maybe have its own thread now?

Anyone know what point of the approvals process it's in? Is demolition good to go at this point or can minds still be changed here?

Something that gives me a shred of optimism here is that a lot of the sandstone panels from St. Pat's seem to have been salvaged. That's about it though.

I think the only thing that could change it now would be a public-opinion campaign directed at Westwood. Chedrawe already has demolition permits, so even if the city were to step in (which I don't even think it could, legally, though other cities have that power) they'd have to rescind those permits first. All very unlikely. Technically he can get going whenever.

Anybody who cares may want to start writing to Chedrawe and making the case for including the building, at least partially, in the redevelopment.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think the only thing that could change it now would be a public-opinion campaign directed at Westwood. Chedrawe already has demolition permits, so even if the city were to step in (which I don't even think it could, legally, though other cities have that power) they'd have to rescind those permits first. All very unlikely. Technically he can get going whenever.

Anybody who cares may want to start writing to Chedrawe and making the case for including the building, at least partially, in the redevelopment.

Dry, have you written to him? I mean, you could use your Herald Op-Ed as a convo starter. It wasn't a screed; but balanced and reasoned. He might appreciate your thoughts on how to re-design, save BMO facade (at least), and every is happy.

[Hali87]

But also (in theory) could Council, HTNS, etc. step in and fund the preservation of at least something? Something like a (much more rushed) Morris House rescue? I realize many are cynical about the HTNS, I just mean in theory.

I haven't really heard anyone make a good case for this happening, and there seems to be a ton of public opinion against it, and once it's gone, it's gone.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Dry, have you written to him? I mean, you could use your Herald Op-Ed as a convo starter. It wasn't a screed; but balanced and reasoned. He might appreciate your thoughts on how to re-design, save BMO facade (at least), and every is happy.

It might be a lost cause, but I'll do it, if others do. I think it needs more than one voice to be compelling.