General Updates and News

[someone123]

I don't think I've posted this one yet. A new brick building on Brunswick Street that looks pretty good. Most of this streetscape didn't exist 15 years ago. The empty sites across the street still represent a huge opportunity.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Certainly it wouldn't be cheap to do it, of course, but the materials and expertise exist.

I doubt it would really be that great a cost for a large, high-end project, assuming we're talking about doing detailing for lower floors rather than creating a giant carved stone facade.

Stone construction is actually fairly common in Halifax for newer public buildings. A lot of projects around Dalhousie have used sandstone and granite and they have not had enormous budgets. It should also be pointed out that a 4-storey sandstone facade crafted by expert Scottish stonemasons in 1850's Halifax probably wasn't cheap either. Those were the showcase projects of their day, vanity buildings for businesses or public buildings meant to last.

I think the most important reason why we don't see more high-quality materials is that developers don't feel like the extra cost would generate returns through higher sales prices or rents. This is probably true since the amenity is shared with the public. If this is important, it's up to the city to encourage it. Maybe allow or encourage developers to spend their "public art" money on high-end street-level finishes and pedestrian amenities rather than fake lighthouses?

Or the city could just demand somewhat competent architectural design. That Brunswick Street building above looks okay and it probably didn't have an enormous budget. Often buildings look better when they are simpler, and good proportions don't necessarily add to the cost.

[teddifax]

I believe that is Maitland St., near Portland Place?

[Metalsales]

Originally Posted by someone123

I doubt it would really be that great a cost for a large, high-end project, assuming we're talking about doing detailing for lower floors rather than creating a giant carved stone facade.

Stone construction is actually fairly common in Halifax for newer public buildings. A lot of projects around Dalhousie have used sandstone and granite and they have not had enormous budgets. It should also be pointed out that a 4-storey sandstone facade crafted by expert Scottish stonemasons in 1850's Halifax probably wasn't cheap either. Those were the showcase projects of their day, vanity buildings for businesses or public buildings meant to last.

I think the most important reason why we don't see more high-quality materials is that developers don't feel like the extra cost would generate returns through higher sales prices or rents. This is probably true since the amenity is shared with the public. If this is important, it's up to the city to encourage it. Maybe allow or encourage developers to spend their "public art" money on high-end street-level finishes and pedestrian amenities rather than fake lighthouses?

Or the city could just demand somewhat competent architectural design. That Brunswick Street building above looks okay and it probably didn't have an enormous budget. Often buildings look better when they are simpler, and good proportions don't necessarily add to the cost.

This is 100% true. It is the same reason why we get buildings that look like Icon Bay, Point North, Kings Wharf.....they use the cheapest window systems available and they all turn out looking the same. No imagination or diversity in the glazing.

[Colin May]

For all those who have a 'build taller' fetish here is what you have been waiting for :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...led-looking-like-male-genitalia-air.html

[Keith P.]

Well, in the grand HRM tradition of keeping things short and stubby, we have had the official municipal Victorian-style poster kiosks here for many years which resemble that somewhat, on a smaller scale.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

For all those who have a 'build taller' fetish here is what you have been waiting for :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...led-looking-like-male-genitalia-air.html

I haven't seen a single poster anywhere on these boards proposing anything either that tall for Halifax, or that stupid looking.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Colin May

For all those who have a 'build taller' fetish here is what you have been waiting for :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...led-looking-like-male-genitalia-air.html

In reality it's the people who accuse architects of making phallic-looking buildings who are puerile. So what if they look phallic? Who cares beyond people who have the level of maturity of a twelve year old? No surprise this was in the Daily Mail.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I doubt it would really be that great a cost for a large, high-end project, assuming we're talking about doing detailing for lower floors rather than creating a giant carved stone facade.

Stone construction is actually fairly common in Halifax for newer public buildings. A lot of projects around Dalhousie have used sandstone and granite and they have not had enormous budgets. It should also be pointed out that a 4-storey sandstone facade crafted by expert Scottish stonemasons in 1850's Halifax probably wasn't cheap either. Those were the showcase projects of their day, vanity buildings for businesses or public buildings meant to last.

I think the most important reason why we don't see more high-quality materials is that developers don't feel like the extra cost would generate returns through higher sales prices or rents. This is probably true since the amenity is shared with the public. If this is important, it's up to the city to encourage it. Maybe allow or encourage developers to spend their "public art" money on high-end street-level finishes and pedestrian amenities rather than fake lighthouses?

Or the city could just demand somewhat competent architectural design. That Brunswick Street building above looks okay and it probably didn't have an enormous budget. Often buildings look better when they are simpler, and good proportions don't necessarily add to the cost.

Mostly agree, though I think it would be more difficult if you are trying to replicate a previously existing building. Stone construction still exists, but not built and detailed to the level of the 19th century stonemasons, IMHO, and I suspect that the amount of handwork required to do proper detailing would drive the costs up somewhat.

That said, it is possible, but not likely considering the current political/development climate that exists in Halifax. We are seeing some developers stepping up and restoring existing, but not so much creating new "old" buildings. I'd applaud any movement towards this, however.

[someone123]

Here is a CBC article entitled "Architects say city hall has big role in building a beautiful Halifax": http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-architecture-by-design-1.3794513

I thought it sounded promising but then when I read it there was almost no content on what makes buildings or neighbourhoods beautiful except comments that seem to suggest that 80% or more of beauty really comes down to low density and consistency of building heights.

The main tenets of urban design as described in the article are:

1 - Values of scale. Make sure the new stuff is like the old stuff in terms of scale. Presumably only small buildings built before WWII count when determining the optimal scale of a neighbourhood.
2 - Community character, i.e. make sure nothing is too densely built up. See (1).
3 - Neighbourhood livability. Example: make sure that new stuff isn't too large, or it will hurt livability. See (1).

They really drive the point home with a comment in the end that says that if you don't get this scale issue right you can dress up a building all you like but it's still a "sow's ear". People who like the Eiffel Tower or Chrysler Building have actually been fooled all these years; they are just not sophisticated to see those buildings as the ugly livability-sappers they truly are.

Is this really what the architects say or do the CBC reporters choose only to report on the scale issue? A charitable interpretation is that the architects interviewed actually did share a lot more useful wisdom but that it was pruned out by the writer of the article since it didn't tie in with the desired anti-density message.

If continuity of scale is so important then why do people like to live in neighbourhoods like Greenwich Village, New York, which has a mix of 2-4 storey lowrise buildings combined with heritage highrises that runs the full gamut of heights that you find in Halifax (and then some probably), and which has a much higher overall density than anywhere in Halifax?

Similarly ultra-liveable urban planning paradise Copenhagen has a mix of 4-6 storey buildings which are much denser than Halifax. If we were to transplant an optimally-planned Copenhagen neighbourhood there to Halifax would it turn out to be a terrible mistake because it would abut some smaller houses?

Does livability even have a an objective meaning? It seems like a code word for "whatever privileged property owners want".

[IanWatson]

I feel like maybe you're reading too much into the article? Nowhere does the article mention height, and the only mention of density is to suggest that yeah, developers will push the limits of density on their site and it's up to city hall to be the counterbalance to that. "Scale" isn't necessarily referring to height; a large building with artfully-done details can scale well to smaller buildings in its neighbourhood.

My takeaway from the article is that the architects are saying that developers come to them with the building they want and ask them to dress it up all nice an' fancy; the architects want to be involved from the start to help developers set the parameters on what the building should be.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I feel like maybe you're reading too much into the article? Nowhere does the article mention height, and the only mention of density is to suggest that yeah, developers will push the limits of density on their site and it's up to city hall to be the counterbalance to that.

Height and density are more or less the same thing in an urban setting where lot coverage is high, ceiling heights are fairly standard, and subterranean dwellings are discouraged. If they did mean something other than height with the term "scale" then they communicated their point poorly, because the development debate in Halifax remains dominated by concerns over height.

The link between "scale" and density is also unfortunate because as I pointed out Halifax is for the most part very low density. A lot of people in Halifax think that higher density (conflated with "scale" in the article) means less "livability". So they think that if you go beyond low density single family dwellings livability will suffer. The article isn't going to help these people to see the issue in a more nuanced way.

Originally Posted by IanWatson

My takeaway from the article is that the architects are saying that developers come to them with the building they want and ask them to dress it up all nice an' fancy; the architects want to be involved from the start to help developers set the parameters on what the building should be.

Well here is a direct quote:

If the architect is instead brought in to finish the final design of a large building that's conceived without the values of scale, community character and neighbourhood livability in mind, said Macy, "modern design can try and dress up [that building] any way you want."

My paraphrasing would be: if the developers start out by building something that is too large (tall, but maybe wide or deep, it doesn't matter), then nothing can be done to save the project. Scale trumps all other concerns, and the correct scale is one that is similar to the buildings that are there already. Most buildings in Halifax are small single family dwellings and low-slung commercial buildings. Consequently we need architects to tell developers to build small buildings.

[Colin May]

It all changed on October 19 2016 and the staff know that.
At the swearing in I talked with several old and new members of council and they know how the dynamics have changed. I anticipate significant changes regarding slum landlords and crappy developers.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

It all changed on October 19 2016 and the staff know that.
At the swearing in I talked with several old and new members of council and they know how the dynamics have changed. I anticipate significant changes regarding slum landlords and crappy developers.

Don't hold your breath. The bureaucrats pull the strings in this town.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

It all changed on October 19 2016 and the staff know that.
At the swearing in I talked with several old and new members of council and they know how the dynamics have changed. I anticipate significant changes regarding slum landlords and crappy developers.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Don't hold your breath. The bureaucrats pull the strings in this town.

The funny thing here, is both of you mistrust HRM planning, but I think for different reasons.

Colin thinks HRM planning has been to easy on developers.

Keith, I'm guessing they've played too easy on NIMBYs.

I'd be curious to know why things might have changed due to the election? Did I miss countless people running on an anti-height / anti-STV platform?

Or is it like the Centre Plan -- hidden from the people until after the election, and then the real agenda emerges?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here is a CBC article entitled "Architects say city hall has big role in building a beautiful Halifax": http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-architecture-by-design-1.3794513

I thought it sounded promising but then when I read it there was almost no content on what makes buildings or neighbourhoods beautiful except comments that seem to suggest that 80% or more of beauty really comes down to low density and consistency of building heights.

The main tenets of urban design as described in the article are:

1 - Values of scale. Make sure the new stuff is like the old stuff in terms of scale. Presumably only small buildings built before WWII count when determining the optimal scale of a neighbourhood.
2 - Community character, i.e. make sure nothing is too densely built up. See (1).
3 - Neighbourhood livability. Example: make sure that new stuff isn't too large, or it will hurt livability. See (1).

They really drive the point home with a comment in the end that says that if you don't get this scale issue right you can dress up a building all you like but it's still a "sow's ear". People who like the Eiffel Tower or Chrysler Building have actually been fooled all these years; they are just not sophisticated to see those buildings as the ugly livability-sappers they truly are.

Is this really what the architects say or do the CBC reporters choose only to report on the scale issue? A charitable interpretation is that the architects interviewed actually did share a lot more useful wisdom but that it was pruned out by the writer of the article since it didn't tie in with the desired anti-density message.

If continuity of scale is so important then why do people like to live in neighbourhoods like Greenwich Village, New York, which has a mix of 2-4 storey lowrise buildings combined with heritage highrises that runs the full gamut of heights that you find in Halifax (and then some probably), and which has a much higher overall density than anywhere in Halifax?

Similarly ultra-liveable urban planning paradise Copenhagen has a mix of 4-6 storey buildings which are much denser than Halifax. If we were to transplant an optimally-planned Copenhagen neighbourhood there to Halifax would it turn out to be a terrible mistake because it would abut some smaller houses?

Does livability even have a an objective meaning? It seems like a code word for "whatever privileged property owners want".

This is how I read it as well. It's certainly an "angle" that CBC news Halifax has taken constantly on downtown development issues/stories.

This quote said it all:

If the architect is instead brought in to finish the final design of a large building that's conceived without the values of scale, community character and neighbourhood livability in mind, said Macy, "modern design can try and dress up [that building] any way you want."

Note the language -- "large building" (and not "very dense but short building") conceived without "scale, community character", etc. They're quite clearly referring to a tall building.

And the idea that "low density" means better livability seems absolutely hair-brained to me. That if a developer increases density then that is going to reduce the quality of living for the community.

One of Halifax and Dartmouth's downtown's issues, for literally decades, was lack of density -- empty streets, dead neighborhoods, suburban commuting, nothing to sustain small biz in the core, etc. And with fewer people around, more crime.

The architects, at least as spun by the CBC, seem to have it backwards.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

The funny thing here, is both of you mistrust HRM planning, but I think for different reasons.

Colin thinks HRM planning has been to easy on developers.

Keith, I'm guessing they've played too easy on NIMBYs.

I'd be curious to know why things might have changed due to the election? Did I miss countless people running on an anti-height / anti-STV platform?

Or is it like the Centre Plan -- hidden from the people until after the election, and then the real agenda emerges?

No.
I think previous councils had a majority of members who voted for every proposal and here is a quote from a recently defeated candidate who said to me before the election : 'most of them hate Mason and Watts '. What we have now is a group of younger councillors who will not vote for a Wellington development, they won't vote for Wellington out of spite and they will have a much different agenda than Hendsbee, Rankin et al.
There were plenty of candidates who mentioned 'concerns about development' when interviewed by media and now they are councillors.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

No.
I think previous councils had a majority of members who voted for every proposal and here is a quote from a recently defeated candidate who said to me before the election : 'most of them hate Mason and Watts '. What we have now is a group of younger councillors who will not vote for a Wellington development, they won't vote for Wellington out of spite and they will have a much different agenda than Hendsbee, Rankin et al.
There were plenty of candidates who mentioned 'concerns about development' when interviewed by media and now they are councillors.

All it takes is a bit of exposure to a few of the bigger pains on Council and it will all be back to the same schism. It is quite true that most of the old Council hated Mason and Watts. With only 5 new members it won't take much to reinstate that bloc.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

All it takes is a bit of exposure to a few of the bigger pains on Council and it will all be back to the same schism. It is quite true that most of the old Council hated Mason and Watts. With only 5 new members it won't take much to reinstate that bloc.

Don't know why any councillors 'hated' Mason & Watts.
Mosher, Rankin, Gloria gone. Rankin has gone to pension heaven.
Replaced by people who will vote the opposite way on many issues. Developers should be worried, the planners will soon have different marching orders.

[Empire]

I would like to see some buildings based on historic architecture from Halifax and elsewhere rise at the Cogswell St. Interchange site. The Chicago school built in 1904 shown here is a good example of what could be done. It has style but not too ornate to construct today.