[Halifax] RBC Waterside Centre | 37 m | 9 fl | Completed

[worldlyhaligonian]

I would favor this project if it had a 15-16 story office component.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Empire

I have always said that. So where is the quality?

so SDM where is the list of quality features of Ben McCrea's squat office building?

- HFX Chris maybe you have something to add ....show us the quality.

[Empire]

Quality is the least to ask for when destroying a block of registered Heritage buildings?

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

so SDM where is the list of quality features of Ben McCrea's squat office building?

- HFX Chris maybe you have something to add ....show us the quality.

Show us? who you and your heritage trust buddies?

I think most can agree that the building isn't the greatest design, but neither you nor i dicate if a building can be built based on our personal opinions. Besides, i don't mind the look.

Secondly to that point, Architecture doesn't = quality..........

Further that, you now are saying height equals quality? If there wasn;t view plane running through the site i am sure you would get your "quality", if again if your height defines quality.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

Quality is the least to ask for when destroying a block of registered Heritage buildings?

More will be destoryed if heritage trust keeps fighting all developments downtown. They have caused properties to be in danger, not the developers.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by sdm

More will be destoryed if heritage trust keeps fighting all developments downtown. They have caused properties to be in danger, not the developers.

Who's fishing now?

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by Empire

so SDM where is the list of quality features of Ben McCrea's squat office building?

- HFX Chris maybe you have something to add ....show us the quality.

Define 'quality' first. What exactly makes a building "quality" to you?

Personally, I don't mind the look of this proposal, the glass is quite nice. I've never been a fan of the way they did the roof. The facades of the existing buildings will remain, and at street level will maintain that same "quality" feel you seem to enjoy going on about.
But on the whole, if given the choice between fixing up the existing buildings without adding a tower and adding the tower, I would go with no tower. But that's not an option, the options before us are basically: glass tower with the existing facades, or gravel parking lot. We have enough empty parking lots in downtown.

[Barrington south]

Empire...you need to chill out man!!...I always though you where a cool operator...(hehehe)....now I'm starting to wonder

[kph06]

Originally Posted by sdm

More will be destoryed if heritage trust keeps fighting all developments downtown. They have caused properties to be in danger, not the developers.

I completely agree with this point. During the time the Heritage Trust was entrenched against the United Gulf development, a very nice heritage building with a great mural of the harbour on the side was torn down. This being one of the buildings the development was apparently threatening, and probably one of the only old buildings in the area. I know this is a slight tangent, but I think it adds the point that the Heritage Trust's skewed idea of "their duties" poses the same problems they say development does.

I was recently in Montreal and that is a good example that historic/old buildings can mesh with new buildings. Their old buildings that were run down or had no heritage significance made way for the new. The main problem in Halifax is the stigma that if a building is old, it automatically has heritage significance, which it doesn't.

For this case I think the facade is better than nothing, and isn't the idea of a heritage building to remind of us of the past? How many people or tourists walk through these buildings as is? I never have, I don't even know how accessible they are to the public? So if all anyone can get out of them is the exterior, wouldn't it be better to have them as a refurbished facade instead of an abandoned building or torn down as it seems those are the two alternatives if the project doesn't proceed?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by sdm

More will be destoryed if heritage trust keeps fighting all developments downtown. They have caused properties to be in danger, not the developers.

Heritage Trust has not always helped in saving heritage buildings by blocking developments. I think fighting proposals like the twisted sisters and perhaps International Place can put heritage buildings at risk.

Gutting, and or demolishing heritage buildings certainly ups the danger factor slightly though.

The issue with demolishing the waterside buildings or building a medium size office building there is that it breaks up what could be a true heritage district in addition to the loss of intact registered heritage structures. One of the problems is that heritage trust is always fighting developments that don't involve demolition or serious modifications to heritage buildings and lose sight of saving actual buildings.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

I think fighting proposals like the twisted sisters and perhaps International Place can put heritage buildings at risk.

The HT line is that rising property values put buildings at risk because there is more temptation to demolish them, but I believe the opposite. Rising property values and investment mean there is more money available to maintain heritage properties and there is more demand of the kinds of businesses that can occupy spaces in heritage buildings.

Right now the balance is off in the downtown but good in the Spring Garden Road area. With half a dozen buildings like International Place and United Gulf the difference would be like night and day downtown.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

Heritage Trust has not always helped in saving heritage buildings by blocking developments. I think fighting proposals like the twisted sisters and perhaps International Place can put heritage buildings at risk.

Gutting, and or demolishing heritage buildings certainly ups the danger factor slightly though.

The issue with demolishing the waterside buildings or building a medium size office building there is that it breaks up what could be a true heritage district in addition to the loss of intact registered heritage structures. One of the problems is that heritage trust is always fighting developments that don't involve demolition or serious modifications to heritage buildings and lose sight of saving actual buildings.

Like others have said, its either this building or no buildings on site.

Look at the reports, studies etc. All easily show the buildings are NOT worth saving in their current state. And even if they were it is uneconomical to do so.
Even, as you say a "savy" investor would not even purchase them, and if they did there intentions would be to tear them down. It is of course the Central Business District and should be developed.

Empire not everything is perfect, nor is it a perfect world, but given the choice between nothing or the waterside i will take the waterside building.

Besides, its a small enough building that it might be the only one in which we see developed downtown out of all proposals which have been seen over the summer.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

The HT line is that rising property values put buildings at risk because there is more temptation to demolish them, but I believe the opposite. Rising property values and investment mean there is more money available to maintain heritage properties and there is more demand of the kinds of businesses that can occupy spaces in heritage buildings.

Right now the balance is off in the downtown but good in the Spring Garden Road area. With half a dozen buildings like International Place and United Gulf the difference would be like night and day downtown.

How does rising property values mean there is more money available to maintain heritage properties?

What about market rents?

[Haliguy]

"I think fighting proposals like the twisted sisters and perhaps International Place can put heritage buildings at risk."

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sdm

All easily show the buildings are NOT worth saving in their current state.

This sort of argument coming from developers seems very disingenuous since what is or is not "worth saving" is so arbitrary. I'm sure there are developers out there who would be willing to buy St. Paul's and tear it down for condos because it's only a wooden structure and they'd find foundation issues and whatnot. They'd give you a study showing that you can't put an office tower on top of a wooden church, so they'd only be able to rent it out for X dollars but the taxes and repairs are Y > X, so it's time to get out the bulldozers!

These studies ignore the huge collective value of having attractive, diverse buildings and of maintaining the city's connection to its past.

The other big part of this is that what is or is not economical depends highly on potential building rents, maintenance costs, and taxes. One of the big complaints of the developer in this case was that the buildings are now losing money, and much of this is because of taxes paid to the HRM - it is a highly controllable factor, not something inherent to the buildings.

It is fine to say that the CBD should be developed but the fact is that Halifax has a very limited supply of heritage buildings but still lots of empty sites downtown. If some of the nicest blocks are being torn down while the parking lots remain there is a big problem somewhere.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sdm

How does rising property values mean there is more money available to maintain heritage properties?

I mean a general rise in demand. Higher potential rents for the buildings, more money for the city and developers to offset the costs of maintenance of older buildings.

Many very expensive cities like Boston are full of heritage buildings in key areas. It is never "economical" to preserve them instead of throwing up a much larger building in a growing city simply from a private dollar perspective, but there is a huge collective value to those buildings and they are saved and maintained properly because the means exist to do so. Halifax is not so small and not so poor that it can't handle keeping up a dozen blocks of heritage buildings downtown.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

I mean a general rise in demand. Higher potential rents for the buildings, more money for the city and developers to offset the costs of maintenance of older buildings.

Many very expensive cities like Boston are full of heritage buildings in key areas. It is never "economical" to preserve them instead of throwing up a much larger building in a growing city simply from a private dollar perspective, but there is a huge collective value to those buildings and they are saved and maintained properly because the means exist to do so. Halifax is not so small and not so poor that it can't handle keeping up a dozen blocks of heritage buildings downtown.

Problem is however the economic rents in Halifax cannot support doing so and most finance companies would not sign on.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

This sort of argument coming from developers seems very disingenuous since what is or is not "worth saving" is so arbitrary. I'm sure there are developers out there who would be willing to buy St. Paul's and tear it down for condos because it's only a wooden structure and they'd find foundation issues and whatnot. They'd give you a study showing that you can't put an office tower on top of a wooden church, so they'd only be able to rent it out for X dollars but the taxes and repairs are Y > X, so it's time to get out the bulldozers!

These studies ignore the huge collective value of having attractive, diverse buildings and of maintaining the city's connection to its past.

The other big part of this is that what is or is not economical depends highly on potential building rents, maintenance costs, and taxes. One of the big complaints of the developer in this case was that the buildings are now losing money, and much of this is because of taxes paid to the HRM - it is a highly controllable factor, not something inherent to the buildings.

It is fine to say that the CBD should be developed but the fact is that Halifax has a very limited supply of heritage buildings but still lots of empty sites downtown. If some of the nicest blocks are being torn down while the parking lots remain there is a big problem somewhere.

Not sure how taxes are a controlable factor, hows the saying go there are to certainities in life, death and taxes? I gather you mean HRM could lower the taxes on the property? If that happen their would be a lineup a mile long wanting the same thing.

I agree there are a number of blocks of vacant property that should be developed downtown. However this proposal sees the buildings maintained albeit facades, and gives new modern office above. I think its the best use of the area.

[someone123]

I agree there are a number of blocks of vacant property that should be developed downtown. However this proposal sees the buildings maintained albeit facades, and gives new modern office above. I think its the best use of the area.

Yes, I agree that this development is reasonable. I am just saying that it is always easy to say something is or is not "economical", and that the bottom line does not necessarily represent the true value of a building to the city. It is also possible for the HRM to step in to protect these buildings. They already do it to some degree, and they could do more of it if there were more development.

Something I've mentioned in the past is density bonuses in exchange for heritage funding. I don't know if that is a part of HRM by Design. The idea would be, for example, that a developer can build a 20 storey building instead of 12 if they pay $1M (or whatever) into a heritage fund.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes, I agree that this development is reasonable. I am just saying that it is always easy to say something is or is not "economical", and that the bottom line does not necessarily represent the true value of a building to the city. It is also possible for the HRM to step in to protect these buildings. They already do it to some degree, and they could do more of it if there were more development.

Something I've mentioned in the past is density bonuses in exchange for heritage funding. I don't know if that is a part of HRM by Design. The idea would be, for example, that a developer can build a 20 storey building instead of 12 if they pay $1M (or whatever) into a heritage fund.

Reading through, i don't believe there is a monentary amount in HRM By Design, but there are height bonuses that have some aspect of heritage involvement. Have to dig it out.