[Halifax] The Alexander | 65 m | 24 fl | Completed - Page 46

Franco401 · #**901** Posted **May 28, 2018, 11:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atbw

It looks quite 'cobbled together' from this angle. The light-coloured wood in the renderings looks a lot better than this orangey stuff.

I think that's construction panelling, not final classing. Agree with the sentiment, though.

atbw · #**902** Posted **May 29, 2018, 8:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco401

I think that's construction panelling, not final classing. Agree with the sentiment, though.

Not the orange tarp, but the faux-wood stuff. Maybe it will look better once all the construction is done, but yeah, hoping the interiors are more cohesive than the exterior.

Jonovision · #**903** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 3:28 PM**

I thought we were rid of these....
Fake copper roof....

20180620_144517 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20180620_144510 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20180620_144623 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20180620_144914 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20180620_144959 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

Jethro Bodine · #**904** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 10:10 PM**

It's all about location in the end.

I was speaking to the individual that handles the leasing for the Alexander and he was telling me that it's 75% leased. All the apartments with any views of the waterfront are all taken. That's what people are looking for, great location, amazing views for a reasonable amount of money.

The fact that it may not be real copper at the top of the building is not important to most people.

Jethro

OldDartmouthMark · #**905** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I thought we were rid of these....
Fake copper roof....

Agree with Jethro's comments above.

However, I recall thinking that the top of the building was going to have some kind of green tinted glass with a lighting feature. Could this be something like that with some kind of opaque backing on it during construction?

someone123 · #**906** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jethro Bodine

The fact that it may not be real copper at the top of the building is not important to most people.

It is important to make a distinction between the different groups affected by the building. There are also effects that may be important to people even if they aren't aware of them.

The fact is that people like to live in areas with attractive buildings. This can be seen through property values. There will also be people moving into the Alexander because they appreciate the charm of the waterfront, the brewery, or Government House.

The disconnect is that the purchasers/tenants and developer pay for the exterior finishes and appearance of the building but most of the benefits go to everybody else living in the neighbourhood and people who just visit. It is much better to live in an ugly house in a beautiful neighbourhood than in a beautiful house in an ugly neighbourhood. Your neighbours see your house more than you do.

Because of this dynamic the city needs to require that new buildings work for the whole city, not just the new residents. If there is no regulation some developers will cheap out or make unreasonable trade-offs that sacrifice a lot of public benefit for a little bit of private gain. And we know it is possible for developers to build good looking modern buildings in the city because many developers have.

IanWatson · #**907** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 12:41 PM**

I've always found it interesting that at one time, buildings were designed from the outside in. The exterior was designed to fit architectural ideals (rhythm of windows and columns, etc.) and then the inside layout had to fit this. At some point we switched to designing from the inside out. Choose your number of bedrooms, the layout of the kitchen, the "bonus rooms", etc., and then wrap the exterior around it in whatever way fits. The result is what I've always thought of as "The Sims houses", with wacky roof-lines (I always think of this one). When did this switch happen?

OldDartmouthMark · #**908** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 1:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

It is important to make a distinction between the different groups affected by the building. There are also effects that may be important to people even if they aren't aware of them.

The fact is that people like to live in areas with attractive buildings. This can be seen through property values. There will also be people moving into the Alexander because they appreciate the charm of the waterfront, the brewery, or Government House.

The disconnect is that the purchasers/tenants and developer pay for the exterior finishes and appearance of the building but most of the benefits go to everybody else living in the neighbourhood and people who just visit. It is much better to live in an ugly house in a beautiful neighbourhood than in a beautiful house in an ugly neighbourhood. Your neighbours see your house more than you do.

Because of this dynamic the city needs to require that new buildings work for the whole city, not just the new residents. If there is no regulation some developers will cheap out or make unreasonable trade-offs that sacrifice a lot of public benefit for a little bit of private gain. And we know it is possible for developers to build good looking modern buildings in the city because many developers have.

I think you make some very good points, that jibe with opinions I have expressed about modern architecture/planning/development. But Jethro's comments more reflect the reality of the situation - that, honestly, the developer doesn't have to care what the building looks like if people are willing to live there. You could put up the cheapest-looking, most generic building in that location and people would still want to live there - because of the location.

But yes, overall the neighborhood suffers and the city suffers as the downtown has the potential to look terrible for other residents and visitors to the area.

I think we need better regulations to ensure more attractive and higher quality buildings are built, but as Keith had stated in another thread, it makes things much more complicated from a pure business standpoint. Where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what isn't? Who makes the decisions? How does the city respond to challenges from developers who contend that the requirements are unreasonable?

Lots of questions requiring lots of work - but is the government up to the challenge? At this point I would have to say... no.

someone123 · #**909** Posted **Jun 22, 2018, 5:24 PM**

I think it works well if you incorporate clear and reasonable (cost-wise) guidelines into a plan like HRM by Design that is established ahead of time. Design requirements don't work out well if they are vague and hashed out on an ad hoc basis with each proposal.

The DRC is also supposed to catch some of this.

It would be pretty easy to just ban Lego roofs on the peninsula. There are many other roof styles available. Exposed concrete cladding with minimal finishing (e.g. giant precast panels) is also dubious. Vinyl siding should be completely out.

Jonovision · #**910** Posted **Jun 25, 2018, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it works well if you incorporate clear and reasonable (cost-wise) guidelines into a plan like HRM by Design that is established ahead of time. Design requirements don't work out well if they are vague and hashed out on an ad hoc basis with each proposal.

The DRC is also supposed to catch some of this.

It would be pretty easy to just ban Lego roofs on the peninsula. There are many other roof styles available. Exposed concrete cladding with minimal finishing (e.g. giant precast panels) is also dubious. Vinyl siding should be completely out.

This is stuff that staff would actually pick up on before the proposal even made it to DRC as these types of materials are just not allowed. Unfortunately The Alexander was approved by regional council prior to the new Downtown Plan taking affect.

Jonovision · #**911** Posted **Jun 25, 2018, 9:37 PM**

20180624_152847 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

someone123 · #**912** Posted **Jun 25, 2018, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonovision

This is stuff that staff would actually pick up on before the proposal even made it to DRC as these types of materials are just not allowed. Unfortunately The Alexander was approved by regional council prior to the new Downtown Plan taking affect.

You are right. I had forgotten about this. It is good that the Lego roof material isn't permitted under HRM by Design. Hopefully the Centre Plan bans plastic siding too.