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

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Welllll, I'm not as horrified as I was when the colours first started going up. Whoever it was that suggested we wait until it's closed in to get a better sense of what the end result would be was probably on to something.

I thought the same, then I thought of how terrible the library looked while the glass was still open.

[Jonovision]

The glazing is almost done.

[Dmajackson]

Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

The glazing is almost done.

Buuuuuummmmmpppppp!!!! This is your captain speaking. I like this angle and this no surpassing expectations I had 2 months ago.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

Buuuuuummmmmpppppp!!!! This is your captain speaking. I like this angle and this no surpassing expectations I had 2 months ago.

I was down there this afternoon and I have to say, from that angle in person it looks taller than you expect it to. It certainly appears taller than 16 stories when you're right under it.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by portapetey

I'd say a couple of those terrible drawings actually get it close to right.

The question is, is it the great tragedy they make it out to be?

Although there have been some architectural building mistakes in downtown Halifax, the Nova Centre seems to be an architectural gem for downtown Halifax on an even bigger scale than the new Central Library; so I would say that it has not been a tragedy as the Save the View group portrayed it to be.

Since I have been a teenager and worked a few summers at Scotia Square in the 1970's, I have felt that it has been a tragedy that there are no 30 - 40 storey towers in downtown Halifax. I would consider the building of Scotia Square as a super block instead of as more walkable smaller blocks to a an architectural tragedy; although I would prefer smaller blocks with taller buildings in the 30 storey range.

In my opinion, building the Cogswell Interchange was a tragedy as was losing the unique Pentagon Building - http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdb466/...l-1922523@N25/ as a result.

Overall, the past 40 years of construction has greatly enhanced the appearance of downtown Halifax, which was once considered to be a dirty, grey city.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Although there have been some architectural building mistakes in downtown Halifax, the Nova Centre seems to be an architectural gem for downtown Halifax on an even bigger scale than the new Central Library; so I would say that it has not been a tragedy as the Save the View group portrayed it to be.

Since I have been a teenager and worked a few summers at Scotia Square in the 1970's, I have felt that it has been a tragedy that there are no 30 - 40 storey towers in downtown Halifax. I would consider the building of Scotia Square as a super block instead of as more walkable smaller blocks to a an architectural tragedy; although I would prefer smaller blocks with taller buildings in the 30 storey range.

In my opinion, building the Cogswell Interchange was a tragedy as was losing the unique Pentagon Building - http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdb466/...l-1922523@N25/ as a result.

Overall, the past 40 years of construction has greatly enhanced the appearance of downtown Halifax, which was once considered to be a dirty, grey city.

I agree. I think Nova is going to be an iconic building for us; a novel and unique design. It's good to add to our stock of truly modern buildings. We don't really have many. Arguably, we now have two.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I agree. I think Nova is going to be an iconic building for us; a novel and unique design. It's good to add to our stock of truly modern buildings. We don't really have many. Arguably, we now have two.

Seaport market? Maybe not iconic but a damn good building.

[Jringe01]

Three...Purdy's Wharf

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Although there have been some architectural building mistakes in downtown Halifax, the Nova Centre seems to be an architectural gem ...

I wouldn't say "gem"... It's not terrible, and I don't HATE it. I think it's too big for the blocks it now covers, but I don't hate it.

[TheGreenBastard]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I wouldn't say "gem"... It's not terrible, and I don't HATE it. I think it's too big for the blocks it now covers, but I don't hate it.

eh. We need more tall buildings imo.
Nova Centre is a step in the right direction, but I feel like it should be taller.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by TheGreenBastard

eh. We need more tall buildings imo.
Nova Centre is a step in the right direction, but I feel like it should be taller.

More tall buildings, yes.

I just don't like that this one basically consolidates a couple whole blocks and privatizes a street. It's the mass I'm not a huge fan of, and even then, only don't like the mass where it is - smack in the middle of downtown. I always find that big buildings like convention centres should be on the edges of downtowns...

[bluenoser]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

More tall buildings, yes.

I just don't like that this one basically consolidates a couple whole blocks and privatizes a street. It's the mass I'm not a huge fan of, and even then, only don't like the mass where it is - smack in the middle of downtown. I always find that big buildings like convention centres should be on the edges of downtowns...

I agree to an extent, although I think they've done a pretty good job of integrating such a huge footprint into the street network. And as far as that section of Grafton being privatized, I think the contrary: that it will be far more enticing to the public than it's ever been (or at least in the past ~century).

As with others though, I am a bit disappointed with the height. This would have been the perfect area to build taller and slimmer to round out the skyline and mitigate the tabletop (which is becoming extreme), not to mention highlight that this is a signature building.

I've never understood something in terms of the 'ramparts limits': if the Nova Centre hotel tower is allowed to be a given height, why can't the office tower be noticeably taller? Is the sight line angle that shallow? Even if so, surely buildings like The Roy and The Maple could be taller than they are (planned).. I realize that other factors like surrounding heritage etc. are considered, but the Nova Centre already dwarfs Argyle St., and there is nothing really old at all surrounding the Maple, for example.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by bluenoser

I realize that other factors like surrounding heritage etc. are considered, but the Nova Centre already dwarfs Argyle St., and there is nothing really old at all surrounding the Maple, for example.

The thing is, if it was allowed to be taller and narrower, they could also have provided a better step back from Argyle, IMHO. I think what makes it so foreboding from the Argyle perspective is that it's a huge mass that's right on top of you, rather than having a stepped configuration that gives you a better sightline from Argyle. This probably would also have allowed better afternoon sun to the street (and the patios) as a bonus.

It's time that all that view plane business is revamped. I understand keeping a certain amount of it, but to be honest, a tall slim tower doesn't hamper the view from the Citadel that much at all - in fact I think most people would prefer that to looking at a shorter, massive expanse of glass that is the Nova Centre now.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate it, but I can see how it could have been much better overall.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

More tall buildings, yes.

I just don't like that this one basically consolidates a couple whole blocks and privatizes a street. It's the mass I'm not a huge fan of, and even then, only don't like the mass where it is - smack in the middle of downtown. I always find that big buildings like convention centres should be on the edges of downtowns...

Well privatizing a street is a drastic way of referring to it. It's a road closure.
Cities close roads all the time for different reasons.

I can tell you that Calgary did the exact same thing as what Halifax did with the Nova Centre for the Bow Building on 6 Avenue SE. The portion of 6 Avenue SE between 1st Avenue and Centre Street right here is closed and a public access easement put in place. So the city doesn't 'own the road' anymore. It was the best way forward for the Bow to be able to build the parkade from both parcels it has (south/north side of 6 Avenue) and build one continuous parkade right under the road. The City still maintains the road on the surface; pedestrians can still walk across it - but from a legal perspective; there is no road allowance there any more. The road is 'closed'.

I can't tell you how many times I see road closures go to public hearing which are portions of road rights-of-way; because we took a huge area for the right of way but now we don't need it any more. It really comes down to this: does closing the road (and obtaining public access easements) get you a better outcome (building) or not? If the answer is no - it doesn't improve things; I'd lean to saying no keep it as a road. But if it does (gets a taller building, more density, etc.) then close it. So long as public access is provided through an easement; it still looks and functions like a road.

I also agree with comments about the height - it could have been taller, but the ramparts rule stood in the way. I've always wondered about that rule and just how much of an issue that is. Frankly; would it be so bad that tall buildings could be seen from the interior of the fort? I am torn on the issue but I think it would be a worthwhile question to ask the public through some public engagement. I found this movie which should help explain the viewplane limitations on the Nova Centre in a graphic way. I'm sure it's been showed before; but is really great to illustrate the issue.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I found this movie which should help explain the viewplane limitations on the Nova Centre in a graphic way. I'm sure it's been showed before; but is really great to illustrate the issue.

Interesting. In viewing that movie, I'm not really sure what the ramparts are supposed to accomplish - keeping a view of the sky? IMHO, this is clearly a case where tall, slimmer towers would actually allow a better view than what we now have, due to the ramparts rule.

[someone123]

The ramparts rule is about preventing modern buildings from being visible inside the Citadel courtyard. Equivalently it is about preserving open sky. In my opinion the benefits are minimal compared to the cost of contorting and shortening buildings in the entire downtown area.

I think the ramparts bylaw is really a BANANA type anti-development rule masquerading as urban planning.

[Hali87]

Untitled by Hali87, on Flickr

[Nor'easter]

Originally Posted by someone123

The ramparts rule is about preventing modern buildings from being visible inside the Citadel courtyard. Equivalently it is about preserving open sky. In my opinion the benefits are minimal compared to the cost of contorting and shortening buildings in the entire downtown area.

I think the ramparts bylaw is really a BANANA type anti-development rule masquerading as urban planning.

Well if they won't change the bylaw, let's demand higher ramparts!

[Jonovision]

Their proposed amendments which will be going to the DRC probably later this month have been posted and explained on the website along with updated renderings.

Here is the rundown:

Addition of brick surrounds at the north and west elevations of the hotel tower. The intention here is twofold. To distinguish the hotel tower from the office towers and to recall the heritage of Halifax through the use of `punched` windows and masonry.
The corner detail at the southwest and northeast corners of the hotel tower has been modified. Achieves a better integration of the tower’s square and curved geometry.
The arrangement of glazing and spandrel panels at the hotel elevations has been modified.
Addition of two overhead doors at Market Street. This modification is in response to a security concern. The addition of these doors provides both the hotel and the convention centre the ability to operate their shipping and receiving functions independently.
Change in overhead door material. The overhead doors were intended to be provided with translucent panels. Due to the large size of the doors, translucent panels were not available. Additionally, the convention centre did not support the use of translucent panels for security reasons.
Modifications to canopies on Market Street elevations. The Market Street canopies were modified in response to modifications made to the overhead doors.
Delete decorative `punched` windows from north and west elevations. This modification was made at the request of the hotel operator who intends to use the north elevation area for signage. The west elevation was modified for consistency.
Increase height of mechanical equipment and louvers at the south end of Market Street. This modification responds to a change in the convention centre program which increased the anticipated air handling demand. Satisfying this demand required an increase in the size of air handling equipment.
Addition of louver at corner of Sackville and Market. Louver is required to service increase in the size of air handling equipment.
Atrium entry on Grafton Plaza has been enlarged to accommodate a revised vestibule.
Building directory with granite plinth has been added to Grafton Plaza.
The soffit on Grafton Plaza has been modified to accommodate recessed lighting.
The curtain wall at Grafton Plaza, north elevation, has been modified.
Curtain wall at the north and west elevations of the hotel podium has been modified to accommodate additional louvers. This modification responds to a change in the convention centre program which increased the anticipated air handling demand.
http://novacentre.ca/updates/propose...ts-to-the-site

Market and Prince Before


Market and Prince After


Market and Sackville Before


Market and Sackville After