[Halifax] 22nd Commerce Square | 85 & 85 M | 24 & 20 fl | On Hold

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The Heritage Trust (HTNS) has dropped their appeal of this project. Theil is now clear to proceed with the development permit and any other requirements prior to construction.

Source : The Chronicle Herald

I wonder if the Ant-Development Trust has also heard this development might be delayed; so they're withdrawing the suit, and trying to get new rules impose that'll make a challenge easier later?

[RoshanMcG]

Any chance someone could post the update drawings of the building without the accordion section? I could've sworn it was here before but I can't find it.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The Heritage Trust (HTNS) has dropped their appeal of this project. Theil is now clear to proceed with the development permit and any other requirements prior to construction.

Source : The Chronicle Herald

Umm.. HTNS, this is the project with actual heritage issues...

this project modifies heritage buildings, it removes floors and features and interacts with them. if HTNS is going to litigate anything, this is the one to do it on..

[q12]

Originally Posted by RoshanMcG

Any chance someone could post the update drawings of the building without the accordion section? I could've sworn it was here before but I can't find it.

Source (Higher Resolution Image)


Source (Higher Resolution Image)

Found these images here: http://www.lydonlynch.ca/wp-content/...-lynch/images/

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Umm.. HTNS, this is the project with actual heritage issues...

this project modifies heritage buildings, it removes floors and features and interacts with them. if HTNS is going to litigate anything, this is the one to do it on..

Sorry, the Nova Scotia Anti-Development Trust is pooling its money and resources for the big fight-- to defeat the greatest threat to heritage in the history of this province-- the Nova Centre!

[halifaxboyns]

While it's good to hear the HT backed down - is there any statute of limitation on applying for judicial review? I know in Alberta if you are applying for leave to appeal after our appeal board has heard an item; you have 30 days from the date the written decision of the appeal board is issued. After that - tough.

I ask because I wonder if they are waiting to see the building code changes they talked about and then apply for judicial review again? That would be a tough one on the developer and much like what they've done in the Nova Centre case.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

While it's good to hear the HT backed down - is there any statute of limitation on applying for judicial review? I know in Alberta if you are applying for leave to appeal after our appeal board has heard an item; you have 30 days from the date the written decision of the appeal board is issued. After that - tough.

I ask because I wonder if they are waiting to see the building code changes they talked about and then apply for judicial review again? That would be a tough one on the developer and much like what they've done in the Nova Centre case.

Yes. I suspect something seedy like this is afoot.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Umm.. HTNS, this is the project with actual heritage issues...

this project modifies heritage buildings, it removes floors and features and interacts with them. if HTNS is going to litigate anything, this is the one to do it on..

I know!!

I hate the HT and wish they wouldn't protest or litigate this or any other development for a change - but at least this one actually involved heritage properties.

And they drop their protest??

this just reinforces how completely off their mandate they have become.

In any case, I am still glad they dropped it. Onward!

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by q12

Found these images here: http://www.lydonlynch.ca/wp-content/...-lynch/images/

Anybody else actually like the accordion?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Anybody else actually like the accordion?

I think it's vastly better in the new (accordion-less) iteration. That thing was just a big, looming, inelegant dump on the street. The tower looks a bit more streamlined as well in the new rendering.

Overall, I still think it treats the heritage buildings very shabbily, and the different design elements of the towers clash in a way that's more jarring than pleasingly contrasting. (I think a bit more tweaking could smooth out this problem, because individually I like a lot of the tower facades.)

But yeah, without the accordion it's way better. IMO.

[xanaxanax]

The accordion design looked a hell of a lot better and flowed better naturally into the the rest of the design, the flat surface looks really stupid to lead up into the overhang

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by portapetey

I know!!

I hate the HT and wish they wouldn't protest or litigate this or any other development for a change - but at least this one actually involved heritage properties.

And they drop their protest??

this just reinforces how completely off their mandate they have become.

In any case, I am still glad they dropped it. Onward!

my point exactly. fight for actual heritage. i may not agree with the methods, but it is actual heritage.. and they drop it. Ugh,.

[Drybrain]

The take-away restaurant that operated out of the Flinn Building at 1820 Granville closed last month, which I assumed meant preparations for gutting/facading.

But I walked past today and noticed a brand-new Chinese food restaurant has taken the space, which corroborates the delay rumours, I guess...

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The take-away restaurant that operated out of the Flinn Building at 1820 Granville closed last month, which I assumed meant preparations for gutting/facading.

But I walked past today and noticed a brand-new Chinese food restaurant has taken the space, which corroborates the delay rumours, I guess...

Might be only to get their foot in the door, starts off small and then expand somewhere shortly after into another location. I am curious where some of these places like the bluenoseII restaurant and the antique would even move to. I don't think the antique would be possible to find another location downtown

[Grav]

The accordion was a bit too 80's compared to the rest of the building. If the whole thing looked 80's I wouldnt mind as much. As sad as I am to see the modernist 1960's tower fall, I like the massing and intimidation of the new building. Living in a city it is what I expect to see downtown. Impressive clean lined buildings that make you feel small and the city large and exciting. Too many buildings in this city wear the masks of the buildings that have come before them or masks of buildings they are not (im talking facades). It's dishonest anti-utopian architecture that is happening all over. An attempt to make buildings nicer than they actually are. And to what end? How are small fake old fashioned humble facades supposed to inspire people? To make us think big and to think into the future? They are a misleading comfort that stagnates us. If you ask me, the old elephant and castle building should be put out of it's misery as well. It's forced the architect to build over and out above it.

The pedway is a great addition! Kicking people out into the rain and getting rid of internal pedestrian networks is a fad that will quickly go out of style. Networks of skyways, tunnels, malls and marble clad lobbies connection work, home, pleasure and play is how to do a city right!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Grav

I like the massing and intimidation of the new building. Living in a city it is what I expect to see downtown. Impressive clean lined buildings that make you feel small and the city large and exciting. Too many buildings in this city wear the masks of the buildings that have come before them or masks of buildings they are not (im talking facades). It's dishonest anti-utopian architecture that is happening all over. An attempt to make buildings nicer than they actually are. And to what end? How are small fake old fashioned humble facades supposed to inspire people? To make us think big and to think into the future? They are a misleading comfort that stagnates us.

Oh look, Ayn Rand has joined us!

[Aya_Akai]

Originally Posted by Grav

The accordion was a bit too 80's compared to the rest of the building. If the whole thing looked 80's I wouldnt mind as much. As sad as I am to see the modernist 1960's tower fall, I like the massing and intimidation of the new building. Living in a city it is what I expect to see downtown. Impressive clean lined buildings that make you feel small and the city large and exciting. Too many buildings in this city wear the masks of the buildings that have come before them or masks of buildings they are not (im talking facades). It's dishonest anti-utopian architecture that is happening all over. An attempt to make buildings nicer than they actually are. And to what end? How are small fake old fashioned humble facades supposed to inspire people? To make us think big and to think into the future? They are a misleading comfort that stagnates us. If you ask me, the old elephant and castle building should be put out of it's misery as well. It's forced the architect to build over and out above it.

The pedway is a great addition! Kicking people out into the rain and getting rid of internal pedestrian networks is a fad that will quickly go out of style. Networks of skyways, tunnels, malls and marble clad lobbies connection work, home, pleasure and play is how to do a city right!

I like the way you think.

[alps]

Originally Posted by Grav

The pedway is a great addition! Kicking people out into the rain and getting rid of internal pedestrian networks is a fad that will quickly go out of style. Networks of skyways, tunnels, malls and marble clad lobbies connection work, home, pleasure and play is how to do a city right!

Hong Kong is one city which has really latched on to building pedestrian pedway and tunnel systems for the past few decades. It completely deadens the streets and eliminates all the funny informal uses of public space which makes many Asian cities so lively. It tends to make navigation very confusing. It's boring, because you end up walking through long indoor corridors rather than shop-lined streets. It's more difficult for disabled or elderly people and to make things accessible you end up relying on tons of elevators or ramps, especially in a hilly city like Halifax.

Most people in Hong Kong prefer at-grade crossings and the government is even reinstating some crosswalks where previously the only option for pedestrians was to use certain much-hated pedways. London has done the same with many underpasses built in the 1960s.

There are a few places where a grade-separated pedestrian networks work okay, and seem to complement the normal streetscapes below. But those places are all extremely dense. Downtown Halifax isn't. The streets aren't overflowing with pedestrians. So where is the need?

Originally Posted by Grav

The accordion was a bit too 80's compared to the rest of the building. If the whole thing looked 80's I wouldnt mind as much. As sad as I am to see the modernist 1960's tower fall, I like the massing and intimidation of the new building. Living in a city it is what I expect to see downtown. Impressive clean lined buildings that make you feel small and the city large and exciting. Too many buildings in this city wear the masks of the buildings that have come before them or masks of buildings they are not (im talking facades). It's dishonest anti-utopian architecture that is happening all over. An attempt to make buildings nicer than they actually are. And to what end? How are small fake old fashioned humble facades supposed to inspire people? To make us think big and to think into the future? They are a misleading comfort that stagnates us. If you ask me, the old elephant and castle building should be put out of it's misery as well. It's forced the architect to build over and out above it.

I am always in favour of increased density, but it is also important to retain "traditional" streetscapes made up of smaller shopfronts and human-scaled facades. "Small fake old fashioned humble facades" are really essential if you want interesting, animated places where people go for fun and where small businesses can flourish. The storefronts and entrances don't need to be of a corny faux-heritage design, but they do need to be there.

Otherwise you end up with completely sterilised, boring streetscapes like this:


(source)


(source)


(source)


(source)



Developers like this because it drives people into their shopping malls. It's pretty amazing actually, that the population density can be so high but the streets so devoid of people.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by alps

Otherwise you end up with completely sterilised, boring streetscapes like this:




(source)

Touche. This is an amazingly illustrative picture, where are all the people? I mean, its Hong Kong for Pete's sake, yet it looks like Saint John on a Sunday morning!

But really, where is everyone? I see one person and two cars. I can't make out anyone in the pedway between the buildings, and no cars on what appears to be a main boulevard. The shadows would indicate it is mid-morning perhaps. I would expect the streets to be teeming with people or at least traffic. Is it a holiday?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Grav

I like the massing and intimidation of the new building. Living in a city it is what I expect to see downtown. Impressive clean lined buildings that make you feel small and the city large and exciting.

I respect your opinion, however to me what you're describing makes a city feel colder and less inviting to people. Seems more like the sixties car-based culture that cities are moving away from - big, forboding, sterile of human activity - jump in your car and careen down the expressway as quickly as possible to get through the mess and not actually experience it on a more human basis. To me it's more of a turnoff than exciting, but of course it's a matter of opinion and preference.

Too many buildings in this city wear the masks of the buildings that have come before them or masks of buildings they are not (im talking facades). It's dishonest anti-utopian architecture that is happening all over.

While I prefer to keep original buildings intact, and incorporate the new construction around them to give a nice contrast of old and new (which in many cases makes the new building seem even more impressive), façadism serves to give the new buildings a more human scale, in my opinion - to create an inviting entrance that could serve to separate it from the business next door. In the case of retail or restaurants, it helps give them a unique identity that would tend to be lost in a series of identical glass-and-plastic new construction.

An attempt to make buildings nicer than they actually are.

An interesting comment indeed. It seems that you are conceding that the older buildings are much nicer that the new buildings being put up behind the façade, which I would tend to agree with - style and design-wise anyway.

And to what end? How are small fake old fashioned humble facades supposed to inspire people? To make us think big and to think into the future? They are a misleading comfort that stagnates us.

In my opinion, a vibrant downtown should be many things to many people:
- large towering gleaming skyscrapers to accommodate business and act as flagships for large successful corporations;
- residential buildings to give people the option of living near their work or living in an exciting and interesting area;
- retail and restaurants to serve the downtown residents and draw others in from the suburban areas to enjoy the unique downtown experience;
- arts and cultural centres;
- parks and recreational areas for the locals to enjoy and help promote a positive experience for tourism;
- etc.

To move towards a scenario where our downtown is comprised of all large, intimidating buildings with little concession to the human experience would tend to make a less functional, more sterile downtown rather than a place where people want to be, in my opinion.

If you ask me, the old elephant and castle building should be put out of it's misery as well. It's forced the architect to build over and out above it.

I couldn't disagree more. If you've ever been inside this building, you might realize that it is an architectural treasure that is an asset to the community. Tearing it down so as to not inconvenience a developer would be criminal, IMHO.

We all have different opinions, and I respect yours, but I just can't agree with them. Sorry.