[Halifax] The TED (6290 Quinpool) | ? m | 9 fl | Completed

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I can complain all day about how ugly I think the Quinpool building is, but this will have zero effect on what is being built here. This will be the way forward as long as buildings like this satisfy code/development requirements, and the developers continue extract the desired profits from the venture (a perfect business case). Whether people on an SSP forum like it is not really a consideration.

Halifax is a democratic city and if people want they can talk to councillors, vote, and show up to public meetings. They can sway others or raise issues by posting publicly about them. The debate has already shifted hugely since I started following these issues. Urbanism per se was not on the radar 20 years ago and it would be good to continue to progress and think more about the character and quality of what is being built now that the low-hanging fruit of empty parking lots is largely gone.

There's always a constituency in NS that seems to argue that the province can't have nice things. A bunch of people slid from arguing that it can't have nice buildings due to the weak economy to arguing that it can't have nice buildings due to the strong economy that has generated urgency to pump out housing quickly (a strange argument since the municipal planning procedure for these projects didn't really change; they're whatever went through the slow HRM planning pipeline years ago; there was no special program to build faster/uglier buildings or any real trade-off like that). But there is a way to have more and better housing. One example is to raise height limits, which would allow for more housing and on average bigger budgets for nicer architecture as well as resources for improvement of heritage structures.

[Nouvellecosse]

I would draw a distinction between bland or unremarkable buildings that blend in and serve a utilitarian purpose as opposed to ugly buildings which tend to stand out as being visually offensive in some way. The former is generally much easier to excuse than the latter. While art and design are mostly subjective, there's usually some degree of inter-subjectivity in that aspects of subjective preferences are shared by a majority or a strong plurality. I also don't think that lower budgets or rushed timelines necessarily (must) result in buildings the public finds ugly. A lot of that simply comes down to how much attention developers choose - or are forced to - devote to design. Without some additional nudge, they naturally fall into convenient habits just like anybody else would.

But I do agree with the general principle that everything has trade-offs and that it's ok to make sacrifices for the sake of affordability and efficiency.

[OldDartmouthMark]

All that is well and good, and I'm not arguing in favour of ugly buildings (not actually arguing anything, FWIW). Just noticing what is being built, and tempering expectations based on that. This will provide housing for people. That's it.

If somebody wants to engage publicly to improve the city's standards, more power to them. I hope they can make a difference.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

All that is well and good, and I'm not arguing in favour of ugly buildings (not actually arguing anything, FWIW).

For someone who says you aren't arging anything and have no opinion, you sure seem to have a lot of opinions here, Mark. Go ahead, take a stand on design.

Just noticing what is being built, and tempering expectations based on that. This will provide housing for people. That's it.

Well, in that case, the developer could stack a bunch of Kent Mobiles on a lot to serve that purpose and call it a day. When I read your sentence I was reminded of when I was a kid and would hear people from my parents generation talk about cars. There was a segment that would always say "I don't care what I drive; I just want something that will get me from A to B" as if that was somehow a badge of honor. Then of course they would buy something that was loaded with all kinds of equipment and decoration.

I don't know who the developer is in this instance but I do find it curious that they, or any other developer, would not want to look at design and material choices for their new multi-million dollar structure before agreeing to build. I would think that simply from an ego point of view along with considerations of return on investment, community acceptance and status in the development community, that those signing the cheques would want to build good-looking, nicely designed and finished buildings. These are not utilitarian public housing projects. Good design doesn't have to cost more. Heck, often *bad* design costs more (see the porthole windows and multi-colors on the Mary Ann and its sister building as an example). It just seems that on a lot of new buildings like this one and many others that the architects and developers don't give it much thought.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

For someone who says you aren't arging anything and have no opinion, you sure seem to have a lot of opinions here, Mark. Go ahead, take a stand on design.

I said I wasn't arguing (which I'm not). However I have lots of opinions, and I share them regularly, much to the chagrin of many SSP members...

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, in that case, the developer could stack a bunch of Kent Mobiles on a lot to serve that purpose and call it a day. When I read your sentence I was reminded of when I was a kid and would hear people from my parents generation talk about cars. There was a segment that would always say "I don't care what I drive; I just want something that will get me from A to B" as if that was somehow a badge of honor. Then of course they would buy something that was loaded with all kinds of equipment and decoration.

I don't know who the developer is in this instance but I do find it curious that they, or any other developer, would not want to look at design and material choices for their new multi-million dollar structure before agreeing to build. I would think that simply from an ego point of view along with considerations of return on investment, community acceptance and status in the development community, that those signing the cheques would want to build good-looking, nicely designed and finished buildings. These are not utilitarian public housing projects. Good design doesn't have to cost more. Heck, often *bad* design costs more (see the porthole windows and multi-colors on the Mary Ann and its sister building as an example). It just seems that on a lot of new buildings like this one and many others that the architects and developers don't give it much thought.

Those are great points. Again, all I am saying is that there are tons of buildings going up now, or recently constructed, that I consider butt-ugly. However, I am accepting of their poor architecture and finishing material choices as they provide living spaces for people, and most will fade into the background unnoticed as their newness fades away. This Quinpool structure is just one of many IMHO (Note: "O" is for opinion )...

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Now what's that old sayng?... if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. lol. ODM, I don't want to be more anoying to you than (possibly) I've already been by drawing this subject out further but, I'm suggesting that it's wrong to consider poor architecture as just being benign and fading into the backgroud. I am suggesting that poor architecture can actually have measurable negative effect(s) and because of this the public should absolutley have a say in the way buildings in the public realm look.

[Nouvellecosse]

In my case, I wasn't directing my comment toward anyone in particular but rather just adding a couple more cents worth of input toward the general topic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Now what's that old sayng?... if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. lol. ODM, I don't want to be more anoying to you than (possibly) I've already been by drawing this subject out further but, I'm suggesting that it's wrong to consider poor architecture as just being benign and fading into the backgroud. I am suggesting that poor architecture can actually have measurable negative effect(s) and because of this the public should absolutley have a say in the way buildings in the public realm look.

OMG... don't even think I'm annoyed. I'm lovin' the discussion actually. I tend to toss out my opinions freely and sometimes they hit a nerve (and sometimes I word them haphazardly enough that people misunderstand my point through no fault of theirs - I'll read it later and ask myself "WTF was I trying to say??" ).

I will say that the judgement of what is "poor architecture" is so subjective that I'm sure many people like what I think is crap (and I perhaps will offhandedly offend somebody with my opinions). But I honestly have reached the point where I can accept what I consider "poor architecture" because it creates housing for somebody. I'll still hate it, and still complain about it, but I will accept it. The Quinpool property in question is butt-ugly in my estimation, but I don't see it causing harm to anybody, especially, as Hali87 pointed out, it is sympathetic with the KFC and Pizza Hut next door!

I agree that it's fine to call it out, and if someone wants to appeal to council to change/improve standards, I think that's a great idea. I'm not doing it, though, so perhaps I'm part of the problem?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In my case, I wasn't directing my comment toward anyone in particular but rather just adding a couple more cents worth of input toward the general topic.

I didn't take your comment as being directed at me, FWIW. Even if it were, it would be OK too - it is a discussion forum after all.

[LikesBikes]

Saw that a PetSmart will be moving into the commercial space here. Pretty disappointing as there's already a ma and pa pet shop super close by.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Saw that a PetSmart will be moving into the commercial space here. Pretty disappointing as there's already a ma and pa pet shop super close by.

Not as disappointing as the appearance of the building.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

Not as disappointing as the appearance of the building.

Not going back there...

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Saw that a PetSmart will be moving into the commercial space here. Pretty disappointing as there's already a ma and pa pet shop super close by.

It's PetValu actually. PetSmart is opening in HSC. Photo from yesterday showing the Pepperell Street side;


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[coastalkid]

Couple shots from Pepperell (last night):

[JonHiseler]

Originally Posted by coastalkid

Couple shots from Pepperell (last night):

I lived in the blue building during my last year of university. Fascinating how so much has changed just in that block in just 5 years.