[Halifax] The Roy Halifax | 71 m | 22 fl | Completed

[Spitfire75]

I bet that would like amazing at night time.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Whoa! Aqua gives me vertigo...

I kinda like the back side of Roy in that render..I think they should keep that theme all the way around to the front..

For me it just doesn't work. Looks like a tea light shade sitting on a brick wall.

[Aya_Akai]

I think this is one of those "you either love it or you hate it" types, frankly for me I love it. That wavy glass curtain wall would look AMAZING at night

[hfx_chris]

They need to get rid of the brick on the west side side, and straighten out those curves in the glass. Then it would have my seal of approval.
That curve thing doesn't look good to me at all

[gm_scott]

I hate Aqua, so this doesn't look that great...

[sdm]

Found this in todays Herald

Middle ground


Re: "Is this the new Roy Building?" (July 10), which included a report of my comments at the recent public information session.

While I did say "the only way I could support the project would be if the (lower part of the new Roy) building was an exact replica of the (old) Roy Building," it was in the context of indicating this would be a necessary condition to allow the 17-storey project to proceed. In the story, it appeared I was against the project and wanted only a replica of the old building.

For years, downtown Halifax has been at the centre of a conflict between heritage conservation and new development. As a heritage advocate, and a businessman, I have always attempted to find the middle ground of this debate. The city must proceed with new development and at the same time must protect its heritage. This is what makes our city so special. As I said at the meeting, the compromise is to allow development to proceed, but to require any heritage buildings which suffer as a consequence to be exactly rebuilt, with as much of the original material as possible, as part of the new development. We have some successful examples of this policy in our downtown already: the Delta Barringrton hotel on Granville Street and Founders Square. The Armour Group proposal on Upper Water Street will also follow this model.

The story made me appear to be a knee-jerk heritage supporter who only wants the old buildings to stay. That is far from true.


Alan Parish, Halifax

[terrynorthend]

Whoa! Hold the phone..Parish is a supporter of the Upper Water Street development..and putting a tower atop the Roy?? We do INDEED live in a crazy city!

[sdm]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Whoa! Hold the phone..Parish is a supporter of the Upper Water Street development..and putting a tower atop the Roy?? We do INDEED live in a crazy city!

Hahahah

Thats why i had to post it. I remember him getting up and stating he was for the upper water street proposal the night of the public information session.

[Haliguy]

I wish he was still president of the HT. He seems to have a lot more common sense than Phil Pacey.

[spaustin]

This one was on the CTV news this evening. Apparently a demolition permit has been issued. Clearly we need to get the Barrington Street heritage district in place. Regardless of whether you love the proposal or hate it, some additional protection seems to be a must. Kind of hurts the whole public hearing process if the building's fate is already set.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by spaustin

This one was on the CTV news this evening. Apparently a demolition permit has been issued. Clearly we need to get the Barrington Street heritage district in place. Regardless of whether you love the proposal or hate it, some additional protection seems to be a must. Kind of hurts the whole public hearing process if the building's fate is already set.

Considering it isn;t a registered heritage building there is no public input required or a part of the process. People will get a chance to voice their opinions on the development agreement application however....

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by sdm

Considering it isn;t a registered heritage building there is no public input required or a part of the process. People will get a chance to voice their opinions on the development agreement application however....

Exactly which is why we should get a heritage conservation district enacted so that property owners can't just knock over significant buildings on streetscapes like this on a whim.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Meh, I'm not for demo of this property or even significant redevelopment by any means... this being said, your rhetoric is a bit scary. It is private property and the public should be more concerned with larger issues related to heritage preservation.

If the Heritage Trust actually focused on preserving heritage and getting districts like this inacted, then I would be a supporter. The reality is that all they do is try to fight development while buildings crumble and areas that have clear character are not protected as such before developers have already put out their money. These HT people obviously have alot of free time on their hands for a reason.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Meh, I'm not for demo of this property or even significant redevelopment by any means... this being said, your rhetoric is a bit scary. It is private property and the public should be more concerned with larger issues related to heritage preservation.

If the Heritage Trust actually focused on preserving heritage and getting districts like this inacted, then I would be a supporter. The reality is that all they do is try to fight development while buildings crumble and areas that have clear character are not protected as such before developers have already put out their money. These HT people obviously have alot of free time on their hands for a reason.

My comment had nothing to do with the heritage trust. My issue is that it shouldn't be so easy to just demolish an old building in significant locations like this. We need a conservation district for these types of places where there is still a streetscape. Even in a conservation district though, demolition shouldn't be impossible. If a building is truly gone then it's truly gone, but it just shouldn't be easy to do. It should be an option of last resort or near last resort. Getting this demolition permit was easy. That's my problem. Private property is important, but the world doesn't end at your property line. No one has an absolute right to do whatever they want with their property. The use of property is limited to accomodate the interest of the society. We're not Americans and private property rights aren't enshrined in our constitution. In this case, I think a little more limiting is quite justified and in the interest of the city as a whole.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by spaustin

My comment had nothing to do with the heritage trust. My issue is that it shouldn't be so easy to just demolish an old building in significant locations like this. We need a conservation district for these types of places where there is still a streetscape.

I don't know what a "conservation district" is, but we already have heritage properties legislation and this one didn't qualify. Just because a building is old doesn't mean it should be saved from progress. Why WASN'T this one a designated heritage property? If the old ramshackle canteen on the Wanderers Grounds qualifies as one (which I understand it recently did) then why didn't this?

[someone123]

Well, the current heritage legislation is pointless and dysfunctional. As far as I know the owners have to nominate or agree to the designation when it is applied. All the designation does is add the one year delay for demolition permits and it comes with zero financial benefits. In other words, there is zero real incentive to register a property from the point of view of an owner.

The other problem is that the scoring process is too focused on the history surrounding a building and is not focused enough on maintaining character buildings and streetscapes. The rationale behind the Wanderers' Grounds canteen was that people from the military used to go there or something. Things like that can be commemorated with plaques, in museums, or not at all. It's common to hear the Paceys get up and go on about some captain who used to live in such and such dilapidated little house but ultimately what matters from the point of view of saving buildings is the public realm and the architecture that the public sees on a daily basis. The Roy Building matters far more than little wooden houses on side streets.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I don't know what a "conservation district" is, but we already have heritage properties legislation and this one didn't qualify. Just because a building is old doesn't mean it should be saved from progress. Why WASN'T this one a designated heritage property?

The issue is that the Heritage property act can be overturned by a development agreement and council. Look no further than Waterside Centre to see four registered Heritage buildings on the brink of demolition.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

The issue is that the Heritage property act can be overturned by a development agreement and council. Look no further than Waterside Centre to see four registered Heritage buildings on the brink of demolition.

\
You must be a member of Heritage trust Empire

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Empire

The issue is that the Heritage property act can be overturned by a development agreement and council. Look no further than Waterside Centre to see four registered Heritage buildings on the brink of demolition.

Once again, I am not an advocate for this project. I'm content with International Place being a new building in the area. However, I think you mis-understand the plans of the developer. It seems as though those who are against this project are misrepresenting the language of the developer. The word demolition scares people, but what they aren't wrapping their head around (besides the opposition to the tower portion) is that demolition is required to the interior of the building and the exterior will have to be removed for a portion of the development. Unless they have a signficant problem, it is my understanding that they will be keeping the majority of the facade.

[Jonovision]

My understanding was that they were not able to maintain any of the facade and would have to dismantle it and rebuild it.