General Updates and News

[someone123]

When I say downtown I don't just mean office. Retail is actually in even worse shape and residential is what the city should most be encouraging. Servicing residents in a highrise condo downtown is much cheaper than providing services to suburban subdivisions for Burnside or Bayers Lake commuters.

We're also seeing a constant stream of public dollars for road building to service suburban office parks. This puts a burden on the road network of the entire city and it is never going to be possible to provide reasonable transit service to these new areas.

Partly it wouldn't be so bad even if the office parks were better planned.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Let's see Trinity built and tie the downtown into the north end. I think growth in the north end could improve downtown.

I think Trinity is the key to linking downtown to the extended downtown of the Gottingen district. It`s too bad Staples was allowed to destroy such a prime location.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Empire

I think Trinity is the key to linking downtown to the extended downtown of the Gottingen district. It`s too bad Staples was allowed to destroy such a prime location.

Indeed. Staples is a primo example of poor urban planning in this city, and it never should have happened.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Indeed. Staples is a primo example of poor urban planning in this city, and it never should have happened.

But much like any site; it can be redeveloped. It's getting up there in age; it's what 15 years old now? At least - if someone comes along with the right price I'm sure it could be done over.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Indeed. Staples is a primo example of poor urban planning in this city, and it never should have happened.

If you were to ask councillors why this critical site on the corner of Cogswell and Gottingen was so porrly developed I would be willing to bet that they don't see a problem with it.

Very Ugly Staples:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halif...Bcmb-KQy96iq0V-sIvvRQ&cbp=12,349.76,,0,5

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Empire

If you were to ask councillors why tis critical site on the corner of Cogswell and Gottingen was so porrly developed I would be willing to bet that they don't see a problem with it.

Sadly true.

[Empire]

I think we should have a non-acceptable design thread. We could submit buildings that might qualify, like the two below, and then the forum could vote. If the forum votes to include a building it would get added to the site. The goal would be to get the attention of the owner and perhaps they would make improvements. Future developers may adopt better design practices to avoid making the list. There are enough qualified design critics on this forum to compile an accurate list. We could send HRMxD a link.



Prince Albert & Portland
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8...eXR1oGK1xvlUNqLz8xdFQ&cbp=12,324.87,,0,5

Staples Cogswell & Gottingen
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halif...l=44.663464,-63.5602&spn=0,0.050941&z=15

[JustinMacD]

Just heard from my boss that the Homburg Centre (Saint Mary's new 40 million dollar fitness centre/rink/etc) will be started on August 18th.

A little background on Homburg and his generous gift: http://www.smu.ca/alumni/documents/MW_Fall_2007.pdf

It's going to completely change the northeastern part of campus.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by JustinMacD

Just heard from my boss that the Homburg Centre (Saint Mary's new 40 million dollar fitness centre/rink/etc) will be started on August 18th.

A little background on Homburg and his generous gift: http://www.smu.ca/alumni/documents/MW_Fall_2007.pdf

It's going to completely change the northeastern part of campus.

Thanks for the information. That is a significant project at $40 million. Can you post some drawings of the project? I wish that the refurbished Huskies Stadium was part of it.

PS: I found this one from this source - http://www.smu.ca/masterplan/east.html . Does anyone have a rendering?

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Sadly true.

Actually you would be surprised.
I remember having a conversation with Councillor Sloane about Gottigen street and my thoughts on Agricola. We talked about the staples site and from what I recall; her reaction at the time was that she was glad something got built there.

But now; as the street has evolved - she wanted better. The difficulty I think councillor's are put in (especially if you look at the tower down by the Hydrostone) is that not all residents want change and evolution. They sometimes have to vote with their residents; other times with their conscience.

I'm sure that if someone came along and proposed something that really was good (whatever that would be); you'd see council get behind it. That's part of the reason why downtown planning items go to Regional Council - the feeling was that all of the region should have a say.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Empire

I think we should have a non-acceptable design thread. We could submit buildings that might qualify, like the two below, and then the forum could vote. If the forum votes to include a building it would get added to the site. The goal would be to get the attention of the owner and perhaps they would make improvements. Future developers may adopt better design practices to avoid making the list. There are enough qualified design critics on this forum to compile an accurate list. We could send HRMxD a link.



Prince Albert & Portland
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8...eXR1oGK1xvlUNqLz8xdFQ&cbp=12,324.87,,0,5

Staples Cogswell & Gottingen
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halif...l=44.663464,-63.5602&spn=0,0.050941&z=15

The problem is that what one person thinks is a bad development; others like? So who would be the arbiter of good taste?

I know a few developments I worked on here in Calgary that many thought were really wacko, but I really liked them.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The problem is that what one person thinks is a bad development; others like? So who would be the arbiter of good taste?

I know a few developments I worked on here in Calgary that many thought were really wacko, but I really liked them.

Yes you are right, I have heard that argument before.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The problem is that what one person thinks is a bad development; others like? So who would be the arbiter of good taste?

I know a few developments I worked on here in Calgary that many thought were really wacko, but I really liked them.

I agree that what one person thinks is a bad development others may like. My point is that I feel there are enough members on this forum that are knowledgeable in design and aesthetics to compile a list that most people would agree with. Would anyone really think the two buildings below are good developments? I think the goal of most on the forum is to promote development and good design. Part of the reason for opposition to some developments is because the design is just plain ugly.


Prince Albert & Portland
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8...eXR1oGK1xvlUNqLz8xdFQ&cbp=12,324.87,,0,5

Staples Cogswell & Gottingen
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halif...l=44.663464,-63.5602&spn=0,0.050941&z=15

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Empire

Prince Albert & Portland
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8...eXR1oGK1xvlUNqLz8xdFQ&cbp=12,324.87,,0,5

Staples Cogswell & Gottingen
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=halif...l=44.663464,-63.5602&spn=0,0.050941&z=15

I agree with you - that there should be enough; just that we aren't always going to agree! Btw, are you talking about the townhouses, the apartment building or both for PA and Portland?

I agree about staples; but I do believe there is a place for big box retail in or around the downtown core - if done right. Vancouver has some great examples (as does Toronto) of putting some of what we see as big box retail into a downtown core setting; without the same horrible designs.

Here is an example of Save on Foods, with a Home depot (apartments above). There is a Best buy and Canadian Tire (without units) to the north of the site (pan to the left).

Vancouver

Here is an example from Young Street in Toronto with a future shop. I believe there is a hotel above or offices, but could easily been apartments in another setting.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I agree with you - that there should be enough; just that we aren't always going to agree! Btw, are you talking about the townhouses, the apartment building or both for PA and Portland?

I agree about staples; but I do believe there is a place for big box retail in or around the downtown core - if done right. Vancouver has some great examples (as does Toronto) of putting some of what we see as big box retail into a downtown core setting; without the same horrible designs.

Here is an example of Save on Foods, with a Home depot (apartments above). There is a Best buy and Canadian Tire (without units) to the north of the site (pan to the left).

Vancouver

Here is an example from Young Street in Toronto with a future shop. I believe there is a hotel above or offices, but could easily been apartments in another setting.

I was talking about both, although some people like the Green Monster on Portland. Below is a link describing how MacDonald's has to comply with Savannah Historic Board if they want to locate in a certain area. In Halifax, the developers of big box outlets, KFC, MacDonald's etc. tell council that they can't change their design because no one would recognize them and it could hurt buisness and those are the only plans they have. Council here, of course, buys it hook, line & sinker. I heard that rationale for the Staples on Gottingen.


See link for article - http://savannahnow.com/news/2010-03-16/mcdonalds-planned-broughton-street

"McDonald's plans a complete overhaul of the building.

An architect for the corporation presented those plans to the Savannah Historic District Board of Review last Wednesday. The board failed to vote on the designs, continuing its decision to its April meeting to allow time to research the signage planned for the back of the building - a mural of the McDonald's logo - and the inclusion of a walk-up window along the Jefferson Street side of the building."

[JustinMacD]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thanks for the information. That is a significant project at $40 million. Can you post some drawings of the project? I wish that the refurbished Huskies Stadium was part of it.

PS: I found this one from this source - http://www.smu.ca/masterplan/east.html . Does anyone have a rendering?

Sorry not the greatest renderings.. but there are some in there:

http://www.homburg.nl/binaries/canada/homburg-charitable-foundation/donation-to-smu.pdf

It's not going to be very tall... but anything nice and new is always a positive. The old rink on campus is a dump.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The problem is that what one person thinks is a bad development; others like? So who would be the arbiter of good taste?

I think "taste" should be separated from the issue of whether or not a development functions properly and its effect on the surrounding area. Good or bad buildings can be built in a variety of styles (some styles are also more attractive than others but this is much harder to determine and less important).

The real problem with Staples is that it has inappropriate parking out in front of the building, unlike the vast majority of buildings on Gottingen. The parking destroys the pedestrian orientation of the street, pushing buildings apart and forcing pedestrians to navigate more vehicle crossings. Another issue is that Staples is only one storey while most of the neighbourhood is more densely developed.

[Empire]

Yet another example of poor planning.

SuperStore Barrington?
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8...=3WpmICBGJM127IEnXzWU3Q&cbp=12,25.1,,0,5

[halifaxboyns]

The excuse that places can't adapt always plays well in City's that don't really have any desire to depart from the norm. I agree that the Staples on Gottingen and the superstore site on Barrington (and I'd add the Sobeys on Queen) are bad examples of development. All could've been a great mix of the commercial element and residential units above and then the parking hidden from the street (make them a street oriented building).

One example of a forced market change here in Calgary was the Home Depot on 16 Avenue. The City of Calgary has implemented plans for that street to become a pedestrian oriented, commercial corridor over the next 30 years and all the buildings will be oriented to the street - so auto oriented uses have been excluded. For the HD - they still had a parking lot which faces the street; but the building is right up to the sidewalk and there is underground parking too.

I've copied the streetview photo and I am assuming it was taken in the fall because right now the trees are nice and lush; as are the plants in front. But this is an example of converting to suit the situation.

Home Depot Calgary

My view (on letting the big box retail into or near downtown) is that I have no problem with it; so long as controls are placed to prevent developments like Staples and the superstore from occuring. The buildings should be street oriented (much like the examples I showed in Vancouver and Toronto) and I have no problem with a parking lot as surface, but it must be at the rear and screened with vegitation (trees; shrubs). The building should also have residential above, served with underground parking that the commercial cannot use. OR; the commercial has a cash in lieu parking requirement to help pay for common (or two) parking garages near by.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The excuse that places can't adapt always plays well in City's that don't really have any desire to depart from the norm. I agree that the Staples on Gottingen and the superstore site on Barrington (and I'd add the Sobeys on Queen) are bad examples of development. All could've been a great mix of the commercial element and residential units above and then the parking hidden from the street (make them a street oriented building).

One example of a forced market change here in Calgary was the Home Depot on 16 Avenue. The City of Calgary has implemented plans for that street to become a pedestrian oriented, commercial corridor over the next 30 years and all the buildings will be oriented to the street - so auto oriented uses have been excluded. For the HD - they still had a parking lot which faces the street; but the building is right up to the sidewalk and there is underground parking too.

I've copied the streetview photo and I am assuming it was taken in the fall because right now the trees are nice and lush; as are the plants in front. But this is an example of converting to suit the situation.

Home Depot Calgary
.The building should also have residential above, served with underground parking that the commercial cannot use. OR; the commercial has a cash in lieu parking requirement to help pay for common (or two) parking garages near by.

Great points, I would go so far as to say add affordable housing residential above...the Staples example would have been perfect for 8 storeys of income assisted and regular housing.