[Halifax] 1488 Birmingham - 5504 Spring Garden | 22 m | 7 fl | Completed

[Dmajackson]

Rendering:


Source: thechronicleherald.ca

Name: 5504 Spring Garden Road
Height: ?m
Floors: 7 floors
Status: Proposed
Location: 5504 Spring Garden Road (at Birmingham Street)
Approval Date: N/A
Developer(s): Westwood Properties
Architect(s): Unknown
Uses: Residential + Ground Floor Commercial
Timeline:

2012.12.18 - Project Unveiled
2013.01.10 - Public Information Meeting
2013.??.?? - Projected Construction Date

---

$12-million condo-retail project planned
December 18, 2012 - 7:40pm BY REMO ZACCAGNA BUSINESS REPORTER

If approved, Westwood would break ground at Spring Garden Road site in 2013

A new mixed-use development is set to sprout on Spring Garden Road in Halifax over the coming year.

Plans are being finalized for a $12-million, seven-storey retail and residential building at 5504 Spring Garden Rd.

Westwood Developments Ltd., headed by Danny Chedrawe, is creating the project.

...

(rzaccagna@herald.ca)

Read More: thechronicleherald.ca

[someone123]

Looks like a huge improvement for the street. When you factor in the Sister Sites, CCA, and TD building, it will be like night and day on this corner. The buildings will be nicer, there will be better retail spaces, and the population density will be much higher. The Sovereign Building next door will still give the block some character and this new building has some of its own architectural interest.

[Phalanx]

Am I miscounting, or are there only 5/6 stories in the rendering?

[ScovaNotian]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Am I miscounting, or are there only 5/6 stories in the rendering?

The rendering seems to want to give the impression that the building won't be (visually) taller than the Sovereign one next door, which is only four stories. I hope we won't end up with sunken floors and other tricks to squeeze as many floors as possible into the vertical space available.

[Nifta]

Oh great, another anonymous cube. Looks cheap and will start to look drab as soon as the materials start to weather.

[coolmillion]

The architect is DRSA, same as the TD building across the street and the new residence at Dal on LeMarchant Street.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Nifta

Oh great, another anonymous cube. Looks cheap and will start to look drab as soon as the materials start to weather.

Much of it is glass.

Do you at least think it's an improvement over what's currently there? I think this proposal is decent.

And as far as this being a cube: This is to be excepted, since the viewplane under which this site exists means the developer hasn't much room, and will attempt to fill most of the available envelope in order to make this investment worthwhile.

It is an imperfect cube; the first floor and the roof add a bit of dimensional differences.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nifta

Oh great, another anonymous cube. Looks cheap and will start to look drab as soon as the materials start to weather.

I was REALLY skeptical about this project, since Westwood/Chedrawe have a really poor portfolio (I don't really like the TD building, and I've piped up a lot about how super-awful it'd be if the BMO building, with Rogue's Roost, etc, was to be torn down for another of his planned projects, along with the Victorian storefronts on that block.)

But this is way better than I thought it'd be. As far as cubes go, it's got some interest (really, the Sovereign Building is just a cube too, with detailing). I think I'd prefer if the (wood? brick? whatever's on the top three floors) extended down to the second floor, and the long horizontal windows up top are a bit odd, but I was imagining something much worse. Materials and maybe a design review will make or break it, but the starting point is decent, at least.

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by Nifta

Oh great, another anonymous cube. Looks cheap and will start to look drab as soon as the materials start to weather.

I have to agree. It looks cold. Like a government building.

[cormiermax]

Originally Posted by Nifta

Oh great, another anonymous cube. Looks cheap and will start to look drab as soon as the materials start to weather.

Its an interesting design and good infill, the materials look high quality. I don't understand what your talking about.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by cormiermax

Its an interesting design and good infill, the materials look high quality. I don't understand what your talking about.

It's all about opinions and taste, and in this case I have to agree with Nifta and opine that to me it appears to be an unimaginative design, a cube with a combination of glass and textured surfaces, but no real visual interest.

Sure it will be new, and will look at least as good as what it is replacing. I am just disappointed that for a prominent street such as Spring Garden Rd, a little more effort should have been exerted to give the streetscape some variety.

For my tastes, I think that a general cube shape doesn't have to boring and I'd like to see something more along the lines of this house design:

http://www.topboxdesign.com/new-hous...am-architects/



There are probably a million-and-one reasons to not do something this way (with cost probably topping the list), but it is presented to illustrate that there are ways to fill a cube that can be so much more interesting from a visual standpoint.

Just my opinion, of course.

[cormiermax]

Looks like you want faux heritage, which almost always turns out horrible specially in Halifax.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by cormiermax

Looks like you want faux heritage, which almost always turns out horrible specially in Halifax.

It almost always turns out terribly everywhere, really (though a look through this architect's portfolio IS pretty impressive. He seems to be the master of this stuff.)

If we want a city full of neo-classical, Victorian, and Georgian buildings, well, we still have a decent stock of that stuff. Let's just not demolish any more of it. As for new structures, we just need to demand excellence from contemporary designs.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by cormiermax

Looks like you want faux heritage, which almost always turns out horrible specially in Halifax.

I find it interesting that a design such as this would be considered faux anything.

Good design is good design regardless of the era. Using design cues of the past should be as valid as anything current with attractiveness being the major goal (subjective, yes). To me, "faux" indicates that it is trying to imitate or be passed off as an original, which it wouldn't be.

The point of my post was that there are many ways to fill a cube without looking like a cube, and the example I gave was just one of them. The submitted design leaves so much to be desired (IMHO) that just about anything else with a little bit of character to the design would surpass it.

How about:
http://www.thestar.com/travel/northa...es-to-new-york

[alps]

Main problem with the TD building, and probably this one too, is how impermeable and boring it is at street level.

I've always liked the older building next door because of all the little storefronts it provides. Same with Cornwallis House next to TD. Hopefully this proposal isn't just another wall of glass.

[Phalanx]

Count me in the 'bland design' camp, for what it's worth. As others have pointed out, creative =/= expensive. You can have visual appeal without breaking the bank. This... is just another box. Better than what's there? Sure. Better than what could be there? Not a chance.

[Nifta]

I'd like to see what a restoration to the existing building could look like. It looks fugly right now but it's clad in vinyl I think, right? At least it has a *few* features of note, like the windows. The cheap and cheerful reno to the Atlantic Photo Supply across the road, in advance of it becoming a Roots, has made an ugly frontage become almost attractive.

I worry that if this new building goes up then in 15 years we'll be calling for it to be demolished in favor of something with more character and the Heritage society will dig out pictures of the current site from the 1940s showing 'what we used to have'.

[someone123]

I agree that this proposal is a little bland, but I'm not sure what the criticisms are meant to accomplish. Is the suggestion that this shouldn't be built?

The reality is that this is a private development and this is the design presented. There might be some room for improvement, but nobody's proposing a showcase architectural project along the lines of multimillion dollar New York condos. And it's not really up to the public to demand exactly what should be done on this site.

My take on this is that cities improve gradually over time, and architecture evolves based on what's already been built. As long as nothing major is torn down and nothing terrible is built, it is better to encourage lots of construction to increase density and to create a more vibrant ecosystem of architecture and urban design that is likely to produce better designs in the future. The quality of new proposals in Halifax has already gone up dramatically since 2000 and it is likely to be better still in the next few years. Had we had a "perfect buildings or nothing" attitude in 2000, the downtown would likely just have a lot more parking lots. Criticism does not by itself cause better buildings to materialize.

Something else to keep in mind is that there really hasn't been much demolition along Spring Garden Road. This project will mark the second plain boxy wooden structure (sorry, but standard windows are not really exceptional architectural features) to be knocked down recently, but there are another half a dozen or so projects that have gone up on parking lots or on top of existing buildings. On balance this part of town is dramatically more successful now than it was back before the new construction. I remember when Spring Garden Road had a bunch of fast food places and developments like City Centre Atlantic were mostly vacant. In a few years it will be on a completely different level from all of that.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree that this proposal is a little bland, but I'm not sure what the criticisms are meant to accomplish. Is the suggestion that this shouldn't be built?

The reality is that this is a private development and this is the design presented. There might be some room for improvement, but nobody's proposing a showcase architectural project along the lines of multimillion dollar New York condos. And it's not really up to the public to demand exactly what should be done on this site.

- Yep, it's bland.
- Not meaning to accomplish anything, just express my opinion and hope that future proposals will be better.
- Not up to me to suggest whether it be built or not.
- Don't think anybody's expecting a showcase development, only hoping for a higher general standard of design.
- Nobody's demanding anything, again just expressing opinion and hoping for better.

architecture evolves based on what's already been built

- Exactly. Create better designs and it will help improve the standards for future projects.

[halifaxboyns]

This is where I hope the design review committee will look at this and have a similar stance...that it could be way better and make them try again (by refusing the permit). This is where I rather enjoy the discretionary process for permits here in Calgary; because ultimately if it's something that requires the Calgary Planning Commission to approve it - architects get scared of dealing with the commission and work hard to make things really good (but that's not always the case).