[Halifax] RBC Waterside Centre | 37 m | 9 fl | Completed - Page 32

hfx_chris · #**621** Posted **Dec 31, 2008, 12:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

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.

A true heritage district, huh? As already discussed, Historic Properties underwent some major renovations, and now includes a small office component. I would bet you would find that the interiors were pretty much gutted and rebuilt, plus the section with the food court isn't even original to the structure.
On the other side there's Granville Street. We all know the side which contains the Delta hotel is just a facade, everything else is a new structure. That pretty much leaves just the block between Granville and Hollis (the block that contains the Split Crow), and you can't tell me that hasn't undergone major renovations as well. Isn't there a mall or something in that block?

Not much of a heritage district.

JET · #**622** Posted **Jan 2, 2009, 4:05 PM**

The Split Crow block probably hasn't had a lot done to it in terms of structural Except that NSCAD joined up a # of buildings; { "Our Granville campus is housed in the Historic Properties district, adjacent to the scenic boardwalks of Halifax Harbour. The Victorian terrace-style campus – the only one of its kind in North America – is an interconnected row of 23 former merchant shops and warehouses bounded by Hollis and Duke Streets and the cobblestone Granville pedestrian terrace. Full of character and many mysterious nooks and stairwells, the interiors are open, rugged and hospitable, and have adapted well to varied needs" }
http://www.nscad.ns.ca/about/campus_map.php
One of the fronts of the buildings on Granville Mall(the old JJ rossy bar ?) is cast iron, and was installed due to fire concerns; and pretty old. JET

Dmajackson · #**623** Posted **Jan 8, 2009, 2:20 AM**

Just for anyone who might be curious to know the URB will hear this case on January 19th.

sdm · #**624** Posted **Jan 8, 2009, 2:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

Just for anyone who might be curious to know the URB will hear this case on January 19th.

Yeah saw that on allnovascotia.com

Also saw that the developer is going to the supreme court to delist the imperial oil building as it was not meant to be a registered heritage building as it never met the critiera score requirements.

sdm · #**625** Posted **Jan 8, 2009, 2:21 PM**

Developer defends Waterside
Interior of buildings must be gutted to keep project feasible, Armour says
By STEVE PROCTOR Business Editor
Thu. Jan 8 - 4:46 AM

The Armour Group wants to gut the interior of four historic buildings in downtown Halifax in order to build an office tower.

A Halifax developer fighting to build a downtown office tower incorporating the facades of four historic buildings along the Granville Mall and Duke Street says there are no other viable options for the site.

In documents filed with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, Armour Group chairman Ben McCrea says the feasibility of the $16-million Waterside Centre is "very thin" as proposed, and building it in the form that a local heritage group wants would make no economic sense.

Regional council rejected the original proposal in October and the Armour Group is appealing to the provincial regulator, contending that the decision was inconsistent with the city’s Municipal Planning Strategy and that council failed to follow its own heritage conservation policies. A six-day hearing before a three-member appeal panel is to start on Jan. 19.

The Armour Group has filed hundreds of pages of material from eight experts backing up its position on both its interpretation of planning issues and its financial assessment of the project. Several documents focus on the extra costs that would come with preserving and rehabilitating the buildings as separate entities, as the Waterside Centre’s opponents would prefer, rather than gutting the interior and keeping only the exteriors as originally proposed.

Andy Lynch, a Halifax architect who looked at reports from structural and electrical engineers and building code experts, concluded in one submission that the cost of preserving the buildings as separate entities would outweigh their ability to generate revenue from rent.

He said the renovations would cost millions of dollars and the amount of space that could be leased would be diminished by the installation of stairs, ramps and elevators.

"In our opinion, the preservation and rehabilitation of the four heritage buildings as separate buildings is not a viable option — costs are prohibitive," Mr. Lynch wrote.

Brian Toole, a principal with Partners Global, a corporate real estate company, looked at the rents that could be expected under the two options. He reported that there would be 85,000 square feet available in the original configuration that could be rented at $17 to $18 per square foot. In the alternative model, the square footage would be considerably less and could only be expected to command $10 to $12 a square foot.

Kirk MacCulloch of Fairwyn Developments said the originally proposed Waterside Centre project was marginal "and would not normally be pursued by a developer unless all the other alternatives were even more unattractive."

In his summary, Mr. McCrea said the Waterside Centre development has been recognized as high-risk from the start and that "except for Armour’s desire to preserve heritage buildings, would not be approved to proceed."

He said the development would not only advance downtown Halifax as a business centre but would increase the viability of the Historic Properties complex. At present, small-business operators in the Harbourside Market and retail mall cannot cover their overhead for four to six months of the year because their sales are so low, he said.

"Without some enhancement of economic viability, Armour believes that Historic Properties (Privateers Wharf) may be forced to go dark for four to six months of the year," Mr. McCrea wrote.

Premier Rodney MacDonald initially said regional council’s rejection of the Waterside Centre project was wrong and that the government would seek intervener status at the appeal hearing. But now the province plans only to make a presentation at the appeal’s public hearing on Jan. 20.

The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia is the lone intervener in the appeal and has not yet filed any documents with the review board. President Philip Pacey could not be reached Wednesday.

sdm · #**626** Posted **Jan 10, 2009, 11:35 AM**

Heritage Trust builds its argument
Architects’ evidence used to bolster case against Waterside Centre
By STEVE PROCTOR Business Editor
Sat. Jan 10 - 6:25 AM
A heritage lobby group says its opposition to a $16-million Halifax office tower development will be straightforward — it will tell a regulatory hearing later this month that the development does not comply with existing municipal legislation.

Philip Pacey, head of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, said Thursday two local architects will testify during an eight-day hearing before the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board that the Waterside Centre proposed by Armour Group violates the city’s heritage strategy.

Heritage Trust believes the additions to the building will not be subordinate to the heritage structures.

Armour wants to build an 80,000-square-foot office tower across from Historic Properties that incorporates the facade of four heritage buildings. It argues that the insides of the building cannot reasonably be maintained and reused in a way that will generate enough rent to make a development financially viable.

The developer has made that point in a dozen technical reports filed with the board, but Mr. Pacey said that evidence looks at a single expensive alternative option for the building and others should be considered.

In evidence filed with the board on behalf of Heritage Trust, architect William Hockey says Armour Group is in violation of city policies because the project diminishes the heritage character of the streetscape and overpowers the remaining historical elements of the neighbourhood.

"It is an overpowering, inappropriate approach that subordinates the heritage properties by reducing them to components of a much larger development," he writes.

"Combining parts of four small individual buildings into one large single-purpose structure approximately four to five times the size leads to a development that is very intrusive and has a strong adverse effect on heritage character."

Architect Malcolm MacKay agrees the scale of the project is inappropriate, and proposed changes to roof lines and facade trimmings would diminish the integrity of entire area.

Both architects say they have toured the buildings and believe the interiors can be restored to created office space. No technical evidence to support the view is provided in the documents.

Regional council rejected Armour’s original proposal in October.

Armour has appealed that decision to the provincial regulator, contending that the decision was inconsistent with the city’s municipal planning strategy and that council failed to follow its own heritage conservation policies.

Takeo · #**627** Posted **Jan 10, 2009, 2:14 PM**

I have no doubt that Armor will demolish these buildings if it loses this appeal.

Haliguy · #**628** Posted **Jan 10, 2009, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeo

I have no doubt that Armor will demolish these buildings if it loses this appeal.

Agreed if they lose the buildings will gone.

sdm · #**629** Posted **Jan 19, 2009, 1:50 PM**

To build or not to build?
Armour Group hearings will pit heritage groups against businesses
By JOHN GILLIS Health Reporter
Mon. Jan 19 - 5:27 AM
Opponents and supporters of a controversial downtown Halifax development will have their say, starting this morning.

The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board will consider Armour Group’s request to overturn Halifax regional council’s rejection of the $16-million Waterside Centre project during six days of hearings that begin today.

Armour, led by Ben McCrea, wants to build an 80,000-square-foot office tower across from Historic Properties that incorporates the facade of four heritage buildings. It argues that the insides of the building cannot reasonably be maintained and reused in a way that will generate enough rent to make a development financially viable.

Regional council rejected Armour’s original proposal in October.

Armour has appealed that decision to the provincial regulator, contending that the decision was inconsistent with the city’s municipal planning strategy and that council failed to follow its own heritage conservation policies.

Those who have already made written submissions to the three-member panel argue that the development could either ruin or save the city’s downtown.

Jean Chard of Dartmouth asked the board not to allow the development to proceed. "For a number of reasons, I feel that this would be a disaster for such an important district of Halifax," she wrote.

She suggested the city should expropriate the existing buildings rather than allow Armour Group to demolish them if its office building proposal is rejected.

The developer has already torn down one of the structures on the property.

Doris Maley of Halifax said allowing the project to proceed would put the value of downtown land ahead of the value of the heritage buildings standing on that land.

"The repercussions of allowing this appeal will mean that all heritage buildings in the downtown will be endangered," she wrote.

But members of the Historic Properties Merchants’ Association said by bringing hundreds of workers downtown, a new office building could provide a real boost for struggling businesses in the area.

Bernie Schelew, writing on behalf of the group, said those small businesses have seen sales fall 20 per cent.

"Armour Group will erect a first-class office building, while keeping the heritage value of these buildings intact," he wrote.

Stephen Lund, the president of Nova Scotia Business Inc., said his organization has projected that within five years there will be a need for 2,200 new financial services and information technology employees in the downtown area and 430,000 square feet of office space to accommodate them.

Those figures have been scaled back from earlier projections due to the faltering economy.

Among those slated to speak at a Tuesday evening hearing is Economic Development Minister Angus MacIsaac.

( jgillis@herald.ca)

sdm · #**630** Posted **Jan 19, 2009, 1:51 PM**

Appeal of Waterside Centre begins today
January 19, 2009 - 5:29 am
By: News 95.7 Staff

The Armour Group will appear before the Utility and Review Board today, hoping to breathe new life into a $16 million project for the downtown core.

Regional Council rejected the proposal for a six-storey, 80,000 square foot glass office tower on Lower Water Street last October. The tower would incorporate the facades of four heritage buildings that the developers say can't be maintained or rented.

Heritage proponents opposed the project, and have written to the UARB, saying that allowing the tower to be built will endanger all heritage buildings in the downtown core.

Jean Chard wrote to the board suggesting expropriating the buildings, rather than letting Armour Group demolish them if the project is rejected.

On the other side, the Herald reports Bernie Schelew of the Historic Properties Merchants' Association has written to the board saying the new office building would help small businesses in the area. Schelew adds that Armour Group will build a first-class office building while preserving the heritage value of the buildings.

sdm · #**631** Posted **Jan 20, 2009, 1:33 PM**

Office tower appeal
Armour Group asks utility and review board to allow project to go ahead
By BILL POWER Business Reporter
Tue. Jan 20 - 7:32 AM

Waterside Centre would include a nine-storey office tower that incorporates the facades of four historic buildings in downtown Halifax.

Development geeks know the hottest show in Halifax for the next few weeks will be the battle by Ben McCrea’s Armour Group over the survival of the $16-million Waterside Centre proposal.

Ringside seats for the development drama are available at the offices of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, at Summit Place on Lower Water Street. The review board may have the final say in the future of the proposed project, on a site across from Historic Properties.

The developer is squaring off against Halifax Regional Municipality and Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia. The developer wants the board to overrule city hall, which quashed the proposal Oct. 21, and allow the project to proceed.

"We paid particular attention to how the project serves as a neighbour to existing heritage buildings in the area," architect Andrew Lynch testified Monday as the appeal proceedings began.

During the architect’s testimony, a slick 3D animation was presented on a big screen to show how the completed project will blend into the surrounding streetscape.

"The design maintains the essential form and integrity of the existing heritage properties," said the architect of a proposal first presented to city hall for approval in January 2008.

Amour Group says it is preserving heritage by incorporating the front facades of four historic buildings into the design of a nine-storey office tower that uses mostly glass on its upper levels.

In a written submission to the board, Mr. McCrea said the design, by architects Lydon Lynch, is the only economically feasible way to redevelop the site. The developer is expected to testify before the board today.

Heritage Trust insists the project violates the city’s heritage strategy.

Lawyer Ron Pink suggested, while cross-examining Mr. Lynch, that preservation of heritage goes beyond attaching facades of old buildings to the sides of entirely new structures.

Heritage Trust is expected to argue that the Armour Group proposal diminishes the heritage character of the streetscape and overpowers the remaining historical elements of the neighbourhood.

A number of experts are expected to testify at the proceedings today, beginning at 9 a.m. The public will have a chance to participate in a special evening session, scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m.

The board has reserved eight days for the appeal. Testimony may also be heard Jan. 26, 27, and 28, and Feb 2, 3, and 4. People interested in the proceedings should check with the board about any schedule changes.

The list of speakers expected for the evening session today includes Deputy Premier Angus MacIsaac and Stephen Lund, president and CEO of Nova Scotia Business Inc.

( bpower@herald.ca)

sdm · #**632** Posted **Jan 20, 2009, 1:37 PM**

Appeal begins for Waterside development
JENNIFER TAPLIN, METRO HALIFAX
January 20, 2009 12:10

The Waterside development is down, but definitely not out.

The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board began hearing the matter yesterday. The Waterside development proposes a six-storey glass office building perched on three storeys of heritage buildings on Lower Water Street. It was voted down by city council in the fall, and the premier threatened to veto council’s decision.

Developer Armour Group took the matter to the UARB for appeal. A lawyer for Armour said council’s disapproval of the project doesn’t fit in with their Municipal Planning Strategy.

The first witness on the stand was Andy Lynch, the architect hired by Armour. He said his firm has been involved in $200-million worth of downtown buildings and the Waterside development is no different from any other. He used One Government Place as an example of a modern structure mixed with heritage buildings.

“That kind of streetscape is part of the urban fabric of Halifax that you walk by now and don’t take notice of,” he said.

“It was appealed to this board and it was won. We just walk by it now and consider it part of downtown Halifax. It doesn’t sweep people away from the sidewalk.”

Outside the hearing room, Philip Pacey, with the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, said heritage activists believe the law is on their side. Pacey says the project doesn’t follow a 2006 municipal policy that the new building must be subordinate to the heritage property, and must keep original architectural features.

All but the facades of the heritage buildings will be stripped.

“We wished that it wasn’t here (at the UARB),” he said in an interview.

“We feel that the sensible resolution to this is for a land exchange to occur between either the city or the province and Armour because there is all kinds of vacant land in downtown Halifax which would be very suitable for an office building. We don’t have to destroy a block of heritage buildings in order to have an office development.”

The hearing continues today.

Dmajackson · #**633** Posted **Jan 20, 2009, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm

Development geeks know the hottest show in Halifax for the next few weeks will be the battle by Ben McCrea’s Armour Group over the survival of the $16-million Waterside Centre proposal.

So I guess I'm classified as a geek now.

While not a important as HRM by Design the outcome of this "battle" could determine the future of some historice blocks owned by other developers.

worldlyhaligonian · #**634** Posted **Jan 20, 2009, 9:28 PM**

I think a land swap is a good idea, we could see a taller tower on another piece of land.

It would have to have as a clause "HT cannot object to any new development on the new land." Because, lets face it, they object to everything and it wouldn't be fair for them to screw Armour again.

pnightingale · #**635** Posted **Jan 20, 2009, 10:31 PM**

I have such mixed feelings on this development. I would love to see more tall buildings in Halifax, but at the same time, I don't want to lose our heritage properties either.

When I first saw this proposal I was definitely against it. But on a recent trip to Toronto, I saw a similar project downtown, somewhere on Bay St. I believe, and I must say it looked alright. It was an older building that they had built a tower around and on top of, and I don't think it looked out of place at all.

I think I would rather see these buildings left completely intact and restored, but if Armour has their way, they will be demolished completely, and that would be a damn shame. I would much rather see the tower go up with the facades left intact than have them torn down completely.

I'm not a fan of the tactics they are using to get people on their side. If you've driven past there lately, you'll notice all of the windows are boarded up, and the buildings just look completely shabby. And I think tearing down Sweet Basil (an unremarkable building in my opinion) was to draw people's attention to the site and see how bad it looks now.

As much as the Heritage Trust annoys the hell out of me, I think they serve a valid purpose. Sure they oppose everything, but on occasion there is a project that really does need to be opposed... I just wish that the process was such that they couldn't put good projects on hold for years. Hopefully HRM By Design will help in this department.

pnightingale · #**636** Posted **Jan 20, 2009, 10:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdm

“We feel that the sensible resolution to this is for a land exchange to occur between either the city or the province and Armour because there is all kinds of vacant land in downtown Halifax which would be very suitable for an office building.

I wouldn't hold my breath for a landswap with the province, seeing as the Premier wants to see the project go ahead...

someone123 · #**637** Posted **Jan 20, 2009, 10:47 PM**

The problem with a land swap is that it is way too late now. The developer is already heavily invested in the current plan and even in the best case it takes the government years to do anything (it's not even clear that they should be getting involved directly, but then again they probably shouldn't be sitting on a bunch of empty sites either).

The whole process is very slow, messy, and adversarial.

Halifax already has a number of developments similar to this one - Founders Square is the biggest, but a lot of what look like fully preserved buildings downtown are actually just facades (e.g. west side of Granville Mall). To say that preserving the facades amounts to "destroying" the buildings is a huge exaggeration, particularly when the interiors have been altered and may not have been anything special to begin with. I also believe that this development is "subordinate" in the sense that it is set back behind the historic building facades and, in practice, the lower facades will dominate the appearance of the development much more than the top addition will. Another factor is that other nearby heritage buildings like Morse's Teas, the one with the Bluenose Restaurant, etc. are five and six storeys.

My biggest concerns about the building have been design issues that have never been raised specifically by the Heritage Trust as far as I can tell. I agree that there should be some kind of questioning of developers and pressure to improve proposals but I don't think the Heritage Trust is performing this function very well, if at all.

pnightingale · #**638** Posted **Jan 20, 2009, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

My biggest concerns about the building have been design issues that have never been raised specifically by the Heritage Trust as far as I can tell.

Whether or not the project should be allowed to go forward has dominated everyone's attention to the project, it's a shame that no one has had a chance to address specifics of the design. Personally, I like the look of the project (except for those trees on the roof...) but who knows if the project will end up looking like the original rendering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree that there should be some kind of questioning of developers and pressure to improve proposals but I don't think the Heritage Trust is performing this function very well, if at all.

I think if the process could be sped up so that they aren't able to bog down a proposal that they really have no business opposing, then I would have no problem with them. If they want to waste their time flapping their gums about a project, then that's fine by me, as long as it doesn't waste the developers time and end up giving us a vacant lot for 2 years, or worse yet causing the developer to give up, and then we have a vacant lot for who knows how long.

Keith P. · #**639** Posted **Jan 20, 2009, 11:41 PM**

I read somewhere (allnovascotia.com maybe) about Bruce Keith's testimony at the hearing. Bruce owns O'Carroll's which is currently closed due to 4 feet of floodwater in the basement. He made a nice comment about the HT saying that the buildings are in such fine shape...

sdm · #**640** Posted **Jan 21, 2009, 2:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I read somewhere (allnovascotia.com maybe) about Bruce Keith's testimony at the hearing. Bruce owns O'Carroll's which is currently closed due to 4 feet of floodwater in the basement. He made a nice comment about the HT saying that the buildings are in such fine shape...

Yeah was in allnovascotia, however keith wasn;t at the hearings because he was dealing with the flood(s)