[Halifax] Pavilion (YMCA) and Curve | 2X49 m | 17 & 15 fl | Completed

[sdm]

CBC Sackville Street building to be sold
Move allows CBC to keep production capabilities

CBC News
This iconic building across from the Halifax Citadel has been home to the CBC since the 1930s. (CBC) CBC will sell its landmark building on Sackville Street in downtown Halifax and house all of its radio and television operations under one roof on Bell Road.

Andrew Cochran, managing director for the Maritimes, announced the plan on Wednesday, a day after the CBC board signed off on it.

The building on Bell Road will be upgraded and expanded to include an extra 35,000 square feet. The work is expected to be done by December 2013.

Cochran said this means that all staff will be in one building and CBC can do more TV and radio productions.

"I hope that Haligonians see this as CBC is renewing its commitment to Nova Scotia and remaining an important part of the downtown fabric," he said.

Cochran said it didn't make sense to move everyone into the Sackville Street building — home to the CBC since the 1940s.Besides being too expensive, CBC would have had to give up its production operations, he said.

"We want to build for what we need," he said.

The YMCA has included the Sackville Street building next door in its redevelopment plans.

Cochran won't say how much the move is expected to cost. But he said the money from the sale of one building won't cover all of the costs to expand the other.

Request for proposals will go out immediately. Employees from the Sackville Street building will move over to Bell Road over the next three years.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...#ixzz10HcZ3sVI

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I saw some more renderings for this today. I was told they would put up the drawings on the website by month end.

The CBC tower has been pushed to the back corner away from both Sackville and South Park Street. The atrium is gone and has been replaced with an open air connection to the half a street in behind creating a nice pedestrian thoroughfare. So there are now two distinct buildings. And there is a new atrium located within the new YMCA on the old CBC site that will run north south through the centre of the building.

Worldyhaligonian, you are very observant - the renderings are different. But they don't look like the ones described by Jonovision above - maybe he can clear this up. I was expecting a significant change.

[Jonovision]

Nope, these are old ones. Still more to come soon.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by hfxtradesman

Just a little update; This project is inching along very slowly with some support. But you have the ones that don't like it , like PARKS CANADA, they're complaining about the view plain from Citidal hill and how it will block the area from the view of I don't know what. Isn't there a tax dispute going on here with Canada Parks and Halifax?

Well, clearly a problem here. Visitors to the Citadel won't be able to see the side of the Paramount if this proceeds.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Sounds like there are HT folks involved in some way or influencing this... hasn't this development been proved to not block anything (due to the Paramount) and only increases shade for like 15 minutes in the Public Gardens?

[halifaxboyns]

Usually Parks Canada would be asked to comment given proximity to the fort; since it's federal land. It's similar to the City of Calgary circulating the Airport authority for anything near airport lands.

The block this project is on and the one block heading towards Brunswick Street are the only two blocks in this WHOLE AREA that actually don't get clipped by the viewplanes from the hill. So, I will go back to what I keep repeating over and over (that I've email to the HT several times) - If it's not in the viewplane; it's not a protected view and so STFU.

They didn't protect the whole view and the only thing this application requires is an amendment to the heights for HbD.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The block this project is on and the one block heading towards Brunswick Street are the only two blocks in this WHOLE AREA that actually don't get clipped by the viewplanes from the hill. So, I will go back to what I keep repeating over and over (that I've email to the HT several times) - If it's not in the viewplane; it's not a protected view and so STFU.

There is no point to even have the viewplanes if highrises are prohibited everywhere - clearly the intent in creating the viewplanes was to preserve some views while permitting development elsewhere.

The YMCA proposal is in an area where development should be encouraged. There will still be nice views from the Citadel across to the Public Gardens and the cemetery.

I would like to see the design refined a little but I think this is a great development. Hope it moves forward as quickly as possible, although I'm not holding my breath.

[sdm]

not sure its a simple as a view plane issue. There is a document if you search for it under the land titles system that requires basically a clear shot (cannon). Therefore its not a view plane restriction as much as a "we can shoot through a building" issue.

Funny as it sounds, do the search. Stupid, rule.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by sdm

not sure its a simple as a view plane issue. There is a document if you search for it under the land titles system that requires basically a clear shot (cannon). Therefore its not a view plane restriction as much as a "we can shoot through a building" issue.

Funny as it sounds, do the search. Stupid, rule.

This goes back to a wonderful response which the city wrote to the petition from STV that basically said - only the views that were made viewplanes were protected; not everything else.

As for this document on land titles; the city can be forced to follow a document placed on the titles of land around the fort by a different group. That's just like one of the major problems here for urban redevelopment, the wonderful caveat on title. Because Calgary didn't have any development rules until well into 1920; many of the early subdivisions were developed with caveats - which set out the rules to develop the property. Unfortunately, they still remain.

Despite the fact that planning law has evolved; those caveats still remain on title and many disputes over infill single family houses result because of these caveats and they've even gone to court over simple things such as one community (as far as a caveat is concerned) can only be bungalows - where the bylaw allows up to 10m in height. The case law on the whole thing is a mish mash of various decisions - it's crazy.

I'm a little surprised that this document may have come up because Paramount got built - so I wonder if it came up; there were legal threats and the matter was taken to court? The developer may have headed off the issue in the court on their own by petitioning the court to remove the caveat from title? If so - surely the YMCA would be able to do the same. Besides, when are they ever going to need to fire a cannon at the harbour!?

[Phalanx]

Here's hoping for a wider corner tower, and something other than a basketball court at street level on the corner (what a waste of a good corner...)

All-in-all, though, I'm happy to see this one move forward. This, along with the Trillium, and the potential for the DQ corner to get developed will be great for South Park.

[someone123]

Yeah, it would definitely be better to have a wider corner tower. I'm not sure what purpose the diagonal form serves - it seems like it would block the same views and sunlight as a larger tower built up more along the sides with the same setback that exists on the corner.

I also wish they'd add 5-10 storeys to it. Definitely a case where a taller building would look better, since it's on a large 4 storey podium.

The corner itself is strange because it feels like it is at the "entrance" to the downtown but it's also at the edge of the downtown. This spot gets a decent amount of pedestrian traffic but it's nothing like the south end of the block.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yeah, it would definitely be better to have a wider corner tower. I'm not sure what purpose the diagonal form serves - it seems like it would block the same views and sunlight as a larger tower built up more along the sides with the same setback that exists on the corner.

I also wish they'd add 5-10 storeys to it. Definitely a case where a taller building would look better, since it's on a large 4 storey podium.

The corner itself is strange because it feels like it is at the "entrance" to the downtown but it's also at the edge of the downtown. This spot gets a decent amount of pedestrian traffic but it's nothing like the south end of the block.

This site is also restricted by the parade square height inside the fort; so I'm wondering if they could add much more too it?

If they could; then I would say yeah go for it - but considering the height amendment needed - who knows how it will go.

[spcushing]

There is also the "Public Gardens Protection Act" which limits the type and height of development next to the gardens. Not sure how much more they could add onto this proposal.

[JustinMacD]

Originally Posted by spcushing

There is also the "Public Gardens Protection Act" which limits the type and height of development next to the gardens. Not sure how much more they could add onto this proposal.

What are they protecting exactly? Every progressive city has gardens like this in between skyscrapers and high density buildings.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by JustinMacD

What are they protecting exactly? Every progressive city has gardens like this in between skyscrapers and high density buildings.

If I read the schedule in this act - of areas that it covers: It would cover the blocks including Trillium, Parmount/YMCA and the Park Lane Shopping Centre; it covers the high density block west of the gardens (where the Royal Bank is now) and the high density block south of the gardens (including the private school).

Now; something in the back of my head is saying that this was a temporary piece of legislation. In fact; it says that in the purpose statement section b:
"The purpose of this act is to... (b) protect the Halifax Public Gardens and surrounding area for an interim period to enable the Province to develop provincial land-use policies applicable to the protected area pursuant to the Planning Act. 1991, c. 3, s. 2.".

I'm thinking this act may have been repealled when the planning act was replaced with the MGA? I've got a contact with SNSMR - I'll ask tomorrow. But certainly it wasn't considered with the DA's for Trillium, Parmount and any of the other towers that went up around there...??

[someone123]

Paramount and the Martello were approved back in the 80s, so they would not have been subject to the rule either way.

Garden Crest was a new DA. At one point the developer wanted 19 stories or something similar.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Paramount and the Martello were approved back in the 80s, so they would not have been subject to the rule either way.

Garden Crest was a new DA. At one point the developer wanted 19 stories or something similar.

That's right! Wow, I forgot that. It's funny that there was no mention of it when it came to the Trillium - I went back through the DA and I didn't see anything mentioned about it at all. I'm not sure if it's still in effect, but if it is - you would think that the Province would've stepped in and said something?

When I read the act it keeps talking about an interim period - that was back in 1991 - it's 2010; that's almost 20 years! Surely the interim period is over by now? If not; I'd say there would be a good legal challenge to the act to say that it should be struck. One of my previous manager's always said - there is no such thing as temporary in planning; it's always permanent.

[hfxtradesman]

Alot of really red tape here, this is going to drag on for months too come. There will be new drawings of the buildings coming soon.

[someone123]

Delays with this one are to be expected. As mentioned, the other two towers on this block are products of the 1980s - had they gone through today they probably either would not have been built or would have ended up slightly stubbier and uglier.

Looking forward to seeing new renderings. This project is a great idea but it would look far better with some modifications. Partly I'd prefer to see a larger tower on the corner but I'm not sure that would happen.

[Jonovision]

I have seen some of the new massing drawings and will see more later this week. This looks much much better now. Much cleaner looking.