The Quality of Architecture and Urban Design in Halifax

[Jonovision]

I read the following opinion piece in the Herald today and thought it was a good way to kick off a generalized discussion about the quality of all the developments we are seeing in the city.

The last best place?
Halifax’s physical environment deteriorating
By BRIAN MACKAY-LYONS
Thu. Mar 26 - 6:19 AM

Several years ago, an article in Maclean’s magazine described Halifax as the "last best place," based on its gritty, cultural scene and its quality of life. Like many Nova Scotians, I felt a sense of pride. After all, my own family has lived here since the early 1600s, and I made a conscious choice to come home "from away" in the early 1980s to raise a family and to make a contribution to our community.

As an architect and urban designer, I believe that the quality of Halifax’s physical environment is deteriorating while we smugly hang on to our marketing rhetoric of the good city.

A prominent sign of urban decline in the core of our city is the recent proliferation of poorly designed apartment buildings, many of which are being built in the north-end neighbourhood where I have lived for 26 years. Many of us agree that these buildings erode the fabric of our neighbourhoods.

The distinctive urban fabric of our north-end neighbourhood is characterized by townhouses which aggregate to make consistent streetscapes. They create an urbane, high-density, low-rise pattern, with front doors directly on the street and private backyards. This traditional pattern enhances a sense of community and provides a high level of amenity, supporting a dignified urban life.

By contrast, the apartment blocks that are gradually replacing the historic Halifax fabric are a product of HRM’s R-3 zoning rules, which legislate a box sitting in the middle of the site, surrounded by surface parking lots or ugly parking podiums, or virtually unusable residual green space.

The problem is not the density or even the height of these developments, but the urban form they take. In fact, density is essential for urban living; and we know that, from a point of view of environmental sustainability, there is nothing greener than density. Currently, there is no alternative zoning which allows density compatible with traditional urban form. However, it is a positive sign that Halifax now has an urban design department which has initiated the HRM-By-Design program.

The second problem with much of this development is the poor quality of its architectural design. Developers have cynically figured out the formula for these R-3 apartment blocks, with their impersonal, double-loaded corridors. They typically hire architects or designers who will work for the lowest design fees, resulting in the lowest design service. Planning incentives to promote architectural design do not exist.

The result is apartment buildings that are block-busters, knocking down good streetscapes and street trees, whose facades consist of a tacky medley of vinyl siding, fake stone or peel-and-stick brickwork appliqué. While some developers build with concrete or steel structural frames, the others build with 2x4 and flake board construction, producing a poor construction quality or, worse, an instant slum.

The typical explanation for poor architectural design is often economics, particularly in these tough times. However, good economic times usually produce the worst architecture, in a feeding frenzy of greed and haste. The question of affordability should not be confused with the lack of design quality. In the words of the great 20th-century architect Louis Kahn, "The significance of the Magna Carta has nothing to do with the cost of the ink." The corollary is that if you put pearls on a pig, it’s still a pig.

As an architect, I am surely pro-development. The word "development," however, should mean improvement. High quality urban planning and architecture are critical to the quality of life of our community, especially in the new economy, when we can more easily choose to live anywhere.

Brian MacKay-Lyons is a principal of MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects and a professor at the Dalhousie Faculty of Architecture.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Meh, this article seems to only point to 70's development?

What north end developments is he talking about? Seriously, Armoury Square is the only example I can think that is sizable... all of the other ones have nothing to do with size, just materials... which is obvious... i.e. North & Agricola.

I don't really know what he's talking about here? The Brickyard is adding to the north end signficantly... maybe the hydrostone developments, but I wouldn't call any of those "block busters". Garden Crest has alot of potential... and I think the north end has done nothing but improve. I grew up here and remember when there were shootings on my street.

The fact of the matter is this guy is confused about the actual development in his own city. It sounds like it was written by a come-from-awayer... Mackay-Lyons? I hate when people start this hypenated name shit, its ruining peoples names in Quebec. (I've seen up to 4 last names before)

[Jonovision]

I think his arguments are pretty valid. Yes a lot of them sound like 70s arguments. But think about the quality of design and material we have seen in the North End lately. Yes there is development, but most of it crap. Hopefully things will change but I think he has a point.

I'm guessing you are not familiar with Halifax architects. He is one of the bigger ones in the city and have done some really nice projects. One of them being the Computer Science building at Dal.

This is his website. http://www.mlsarchitects.ca/

[someone123]

He is behind the McCully worklofts, Creighton Street townhouses, and built his offices on Gottingen Street. All of his projects are significantly higher in quality than average.

I think he is talking about urban design more than scale. Many of the small developments are very low quality and poorly planned. Like he says, they often have under-used ground floors. Most of the concrete buildings go up on a giant slab and don't really relate properly to the streets around them.

Some others, like the Brickyard, have very low quality materials.

It would be wrong to say that the North End is going downhill but there's lots of room for improvement without significantly changing the form of development or building costs.

There are examples of better infill buildings in Halifax that I doubt cost much more to build than some others - for example, the Waterford is good because it has townhouses at ground level. W Suites has retail. Letson Court was just as expensive, if not more expensive to build, but is fairly ugly overall and offers little at street level. Like I said, it comes down to planning and design, not money.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Yeah, I was being outrageous because its like kicking a dead horse at this point. I like the majority of his work, its just nothing on a large scale... In the article he seemed to be making a point about "blockbuster buildings", however there haven't really been many of these buildings because of the even lower quality small infill developments.

The best buildings haven't gone up in Halifax yet, but I believe that even in the North-end they will. Trinity baby.

[terrynorthend]

I would also point to, backing up Mackay-Lyons' argument, those "Highfield-Park" style barns they have erected as of late in the Almon/Agricola street area. There has been a fair bit of infill in the North End as well as other parts of the city, and most of it is pretty banal.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

In the article he seemed to be making a point about "blockbuster buildings", however there haven't really been many of these buildings because of the even lower quality small infill developments.

Just to be fair, I believe Mackay-Lyons intended a different meaning with the term "block-buster", not "blockbuster". Rather than implying these buildings are unnecessarily large, he conjectures that they break-up the cohesive historic (or for that matter modern) street scape of the block and offer no architectural merit. He is referring directly to some of this small, low quality infill.

[Empire]

There are many things that need changing in Halifax. Taller buildings need to be allowed in select areas, more emphasis needs to be placed on sport infrastructure, transit infrastructure and the park system. Heritage buildings need protecting and incentives need to be offered to allow that. But of all the things that need changing the one that stands out the most is the lazy cheap design that is destroying this city. The north end is littered with cheap new garbage buildings. The building on the corner of North & Agricola is a prime example. They used chipboard as an exterior finish and that is alright with this town. This is one problem that can be cured immediately with the right team. The current council with Kelly at the wheel is definitely not that team. That Highfield park garbage design is the most common design today in Halifax and can be seen from Mt. Uniacke to Ecum Secum.