[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[IanWatson]

Surprising no one, the DRC has approved all of Rank's requests for changes to the Market Street side design.

[Jonovision]

So sad that the DRC is not standing its ground and demanding better from the developers. It is completely in their power to reject or ask for alterations in order to better conform to the design review panel. But this does not seem to be happening.

And they wasted no time getting started. This was done Friday:

20160821_071545 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20160821_071628 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20160821_071555 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Jonovision]

And just a few more angles.

20160820_071705 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20160820_071818 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[alps]

Back side of this building is really really crap at street level. But I do like the dark brick.

[Duff]

Last week from the 19th floor of the Maple.

[Keith P.]

Nice to capture that before the Roy obscures it.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Nice to capture that before the Roy obscures it.

Save the View from the Maple!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Save the View from the Maple!

Something else for a "Friends of" group to protest. Goodie!

[Jonovision]

20160903_092904_HDR by Jonovision23, on Flickr

And visible all the way out on McNabs!

20160903_112229 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Jonovision]

20160912_110116 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20160912_110043 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20160912_110709 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20160913_071611_HDR by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20160913_071805 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Design-mind]

Mine from a few days ago. I wish this building had a better pedestrian presence. A skyline changer none the less.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

A "human scale" development would clearly have been better. This thing will ruin downtown and nobody attends conferences anymore.

^ Imagine if these people were making the decisions. What would this picture look like?

Agreed. I was trying to remain optimistic but it's just too overpowering, too dark, too glassy, too slick and textureless, and too overwhelming in scale for a small downtown.

I might not have minded one of them, but two together right across the street like that and the overpass covering the street...

Just a total fail for me.

It might have been nice on one of the big vacant lots on the waterfront though. The colour would sort of work with the ocean, and partner with the other blue glass buildings closer to the water.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Agreed. I was trying to remain optimistic but it's just too overpowering, too dark, too glassy, too slick and textureless, and too overwhelming in scale for a small downtown.

I might not have minded one of them, but two together right across the street like that and the overpass covering the street...

Just a total fail for me.

It might have been nice on one of the big vacant lots on the waterfront though. The colour would sort of work with the ocean, and partner with the other blue glass buildings closer to the water.

Jury is out until its done and you can walk around / underneath it.

"Small downtown" is a product of small thinking. It won't always be this way.

[Nouvellecosse]

Whether or not downtown expands, it is still too much for the small geographic area that the current downtown occupies.

[Nouvellecosse]

Actually, I take that back. I mentioned before that i wouldn't have minded it down near the water, but I didn't immediately pick up on why.

Dark colours and modern materials like that tend to feel very cold and overbearing. Other blue glass buildings like 1801 Hollis and Purdy's Wharf are at the bottom of the hill which really suits them. We really should have limited them to no higher than Barrington St., because having something so cold, cold and dark so high up the hill feels really overbearing and oppressive. If they wanted something of that scale, in that location, it should have been lighter colours and warmer textures.

This is a paradigm found throughout various schools of design rather than just community planning. It's found in architecture, fashion, even interior decoration and design.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

A "human scale" development would clearly have been better. This thing will ruin downtown and nobody attends conferences anymore.

^ Imagine if these people were making the decisions. What would this picture look like?

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Agreed. I was trying to remain optimistic but it's just too overpowering, too dark, too glassy, too slick and textureless, and too overwhelming in scale for a small downtown.

I might not have minded one of them, but two together right across the street like that and the overpass covering the street...

Just a total fail for me.

I think @worldlyhaligonian was being sarcastic.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I think @worldlyhaligonian was being sarcastic.

I have yet to see this in person but it could look a lot better once the detailing is complete and once it's lit up and active. Back when the towers were bare concrete there were a lot more comments about how heavy it looked in the skyline.

It's not hard to believe that this development isn't perfect, but that reminds me of the aphorism of perfect being the enemy of the good. The old empty blocks here certainly weren't perfect, nor were the dumpy buildings and blank walls that covered part of the site before they were demolished. This is also a pretty heavily-constrained development since it needs to accommodate large convention spaces. If those spaces are really successful then maybe it is worth sacrificing part of Market Street or whatever. Maybe it's possible to imagine a superior building but it's hard to see how this development is a net loss for the city.

For the most part I think improvement happens through active development, learning, and improvements to the approvals process. It does not come through the imposition of more and more stringent yet untested regulations. If the city decided in 2000 that only excellent buildings would be built I think there would mostly just be a lot more parking lots around. Maybe there would be one or two buildings that very closely matched somebody's ideal standards but other people would still probably complain about them.

[lawsond]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I think @worldlyhaligonian was being sarcastic.

Mmmm. Yeah. Think that was sarcasm.i have seen so many butt ugly convention centres and this is not one of them. The only smallness downtown is the scale of the street grid. And it is roughly like the small town of Lower Manhattan.

[worldlyhaligonian]

It was pure sarcasm. The current wave of development is going to take downtown to the next level.

I personally like the NC from an aesthetic point of view, but I also realize there is a smear campaign as well. I think its too early to tell how it interacts with the street, but I don't think it can be better. The Argyle side should be very lively, especially if it becomes a shared street in that section.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

I have yet to see this in person but it could look a lot better once the detailing is complete and once it's lit up and active. Back when the towers were bare concrete there were a lot more comments about how heavy it looked in the skyline.

It's not hard to believe that this development isn't perfect, but that reminds me of the aphorism of perfect being the enemy of the good. The old empty blocks here certainly weren't perfect, nor were the dumpy buildings and blank walls that covered part of the site before they were demolished. This is also a pretty heavily-constrained development since it needs to accommodate large convention spaces. If those spaces are really successful then maybe it is worth sacrificing part of Market Street or whatever. Maybe it's possible to imagine a superior building but it's hard to see how this development is a net loss for the city.

For the most part I think improvement happens through active development, learning, and improvements to the approvals process. It does not come through the imposition of more and more stringent yet untested regulations. If the city decided in 2000 that only excellent buildings would be built I think there would mostly just be a lot more parking lots around. Maybe there would be one or two buildings that very closely matched somebody's ideal standards but other people would still probably complain about them.

Yet nobody is allowed to complain about the sacred library. Ironically, the two buildings are very similar.