[Halifax] Armoury Villa l ? m l 5 fl l Completed

[fenwick16]

Yes, this one certainly needs a makeover (prior to even being complete). One thing that might improve it, would be to remove the brick at the bottom and replace it with tinted glass to give it a more modern appearance.

[dartmouthian]

the best makeover for this building would be done with a wrecking ball.

[Dmajackson]

This thread should really be titiled;

Armoury Villa | ?m | 5fl | Completed

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

This thread should really be titiled;

Armoury Villa | ?m | 5fl | Completed

This is the site I was telling you the story about while you were here in Calgary - about the small mistake that was made by HRM lol.

[worldlyhaligonian]

lol, I still can't believe that guy called me "jealous" and "one of the architects that couldn't come up with something for this site"

Its unfortunate that I am not an architect because I would have designed something Trillium esque for that corner and taken a couple of the houses out on either side.

[alps]

Ugliest new building in Halifax.

wait, no, in Canada.

(edit: wait, I forgot about that duplex on North Street)

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by alps

Ugliest new building in Halifax.

wait, no, in Canada.

(edit: wait, I forgot about that duplex on North Street)

Lol so I'm not the only one who noticed that building ... Who in their right mind would build a house with a double garage on the most congested street in Halifax? All I can say is good luck backing out ...

[macgregor]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Lol so I'm not the only one who noticed that building ... Who in their right mind would build a house with a double garage on the most congested street in Halifax? All I can say is good luck backing out ...

I cringe everytime I pass by that gar(b)age. It's hideous! The only thing that makes me feel better is watching it sit on MLS, still for sale. I think they've had to drop the price.

[alps]

http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetail...ey=-1260839180

Here's the newly-built abomination we're referring to, in case any out-of-towners are wondering. Ugly as all hell and it sticks out badly along that stretch.

[someone123]

Absolutely brutal looking house. I wish I could say it were hard to believe that something like that would be permitted...

[Keith P.]

In their defense, what was there previously was a typical old and unremarkable wood-frame structure that was falling down and a complete slum. What replaced it was a duplex, not a single-family house, that tried to provide parking (which the previous slum did not have). They could have deleted the garages and made it a driveway only, but that would have made the value of the new property lower, so why not? Providing no parking whatsoever would not have been an option. I agree that it is not the most attractive structure but they had very limited options on the site and it was a chance to increase density. I suspect the street itself is the reason for the lack of sale rather than the place itself, as it is very well-priced. North St is hugely problematic from a traffic standpoint in general and there seems no viable solution for it.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In their defense, what was there previously was a typical old and unremarkable wood-frame structure that was falling down and a complete slum. What replaced it was a duplex, not a single-family house, that tried to provide parking (which the previous slum did not have). They could have deleted the garages and made it a driveway only, but that would have made the value of the new property lower, so why not? Providing no parking whatsoever would not have been an option. I agree that it is not the most attractive structure but they had very limited options on the site and it was a chance to increase density. I suspect the street itself is the reason for the lack of sale rather than the place itself, as it is very well-priced. North St is hugely problematic from a traffic standpoint in general and there seems no viable solution for it.

While the building that it replaced was not in good shape, it wasn't that bad, similar to the renovated one nearby. Above Agricola on the same side of North there was a rooming house that was in TERRIBLE shape. It's been renovated, nicely, and looks good. The new garage is just a disgrace, there should be laws against such things where there are older buildings. JET

[Dmajackson]

Cunard Street Project

I found this. It's an old rendering for this site. To say the least the idea for the building changed dramatically.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Cunard Street Project

I found this. It's an old rendering for this site. To say the least the idea for the building changed dramatically.

Funny, I've seen that rendering before and I always assumed it was for the lot right next to the Armories on the corner of North Park and Cornwallis.

[someone123]

Yeah, that one was a previous proposal for the Armoury Villa site. It was turned down because it was (get ready for it) too tall for something located next to the Armouries.

I don't think it was the greatest design but then again look at what followed it...

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yeah, that one was a previous proposal for the Armoury Villa site. It was turned down because it was (get ready for it) too tall for something located next to the Armouries.

I don't think it was the greatest design but then again look at what followed it...

That site has a 50' height precinct on it. So if they were trying to go over that; they can't do it through the as of right process. They'd have to do a development agreement, which of course is subject to public imput.

I honestly have to agree with the staff on this one, I'd want to keep something on that corner to rougly the same height as the armoury building. It keeps things in proportion - but that's just me. But further down Agricola; just open it up and giver. That's why the NSLC site will have to get a DA - I think all of Agricola is either a 40' or 50' height precinct.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I honestly have to agree with the staff on this one, I'd want to keep something on that corner to rougly the same height as the armoury building. It keeps things in proportion - but that's just me. But further down Agricola; just open it up and giver. That's why the NSLC site will have to get a DA - I think all of Agricola is either a 40' or 50' height precinct.

My issue with the process is that it permits short, ugly buildings. Actually the height limit tends to promote ugly buildings because it encourages developers to stuff lots of floors in. In some cases the ground floor ends up sitting below grade and the top of the level looks like it's 6-7 feet above street level, giving buildings a very low-slung and unattractive appearance.

In the case of Armoury Villa I would argue that, despite the fact that it is short, it is no less visually incongruous in its setting, and arguably much worse than a taller building could have been. I don't believe that height is nearly as important as building design.

HbD helps with this downtown somewhat, but in most of the city development is evaluated purely quantitatively unless councillors get involved with DAs, in which case the results are still random since none of them have architectural expertise.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by someone123

My issue with the process is that it permits short, ugly buildings. Actually the height limit tends to promote ugly buildings because it encourages developers to stuff lots of floors in. In some cases the ground floor ends up sitting below grade and the top of the level looks like it's 6-7 feet above street level, giving buildings a very low-slung and unattractive appearance.

In the case of Armoury Villa I would argue that, despite the fact that it is short, it is no less visually incongruous in its setting, and arguably much worse than a taller building could have been. I don't believe that height is nearly as important as building design.

HbD helps with this downtown somewhat, but in most of the city development is evaluated purely quantitatively unless councillors get involved with DAs, in which case the results are still random since none of them have architectural expertise.

A design review committee was formed with HbD, but I think it only applies to anything that HbD covers.

In Alberta, many towns and cities have a planning commission. For us here in Calgary, we have CPC (Calgary Planning Commission) which has developers, architects, alderman and staff on it. It's chaired by the head of the Planning Department, Transportion also has a rep on the commission. Now when they get an application, they give it a good run through from design to street interaction - you name it. Perhaps an opportunity to broaden the mandate of this design committee would be to make it review additional things - such as how we do here in Calgary? Any multi-res building over 50 units goes to CPC; that could be a good starting point. Or any building over a height precinct?

The height precincts really work to give people an indication of their ability to develop through the as-of-right process. I don't disagree that it creates more negative buildings; but most developers don't want to go through the DA process.

I think the way to correct that is to have some visioning exercises done (much like HbD) in places where redevelopment is occuring. I've said it before, but Agricola and Quinpool are good candidates, as is the Hydrostone. They are doing visioning exercises for parts of Dartmouth and Bedford, the Peninsula areas might be a good next step. That creates a council approved vision, based on majority. So for example, if you did a Hydrostone Redevelopment Plan (that's how we'd call it out here); you'd have a council approved policy that could stipulate the maximum height of buildings by block, design criteria, uses, parkland setup, etc. So this way, if all of the majority of regional council voted to set the maximum height around the area as 15 stories - then people like Blumenthal could vote against it all he wanted; but the'd be going against council approved policy.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

A design review committee was formed with HbD, but I think it only applies to anything that HbD covers.
...

HbD's original scope did not include the guidelines for downtown. Partway through the process, the Consultants approached council to say that downtown had particular pressures, and that they recommended that the scope be increased to do a more detailed plan for downtown now. The detailed plans for the rest of the study area (within the circumferential highway) are meant to follow and be guided by the work already done. Council still has to make a decision on what areas get priority for the next steps...

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

HbD's original scope did not include the guidelines for downtown. Partway through the process, the Consultants approached council to say that downtown had particular pressures, and that they recommended that the scope be increased to do a more detailed plan for downtown now. The detailed plans for the rest of the study area (within the circumferential highway) are meant to follow and be guided by the work already done. Council still has to make a decision on what areas get priority for the next steps...

That's what I figured.
But still the more council approved policy you have to support your decisions, the easier it is to deal with groups like Save the View, Heritage Nuts (I mean trust) and the rest.