[Halifax] The Olympic (1140 Barrington) | 26 m | 8 fl | U/C

[IanWatson]

A heritage conservation district isn't just about protecting individual buildings, but the overall heritage integrity of the area. That (along with increased powers to implement demolition controls) is what makes it different from just registering individual heritage buildings. Yes, the buildings are now gone (they weren't registered heritage buildings), but the intent of the heritage conservation district isn't just to prevent demolitions, but to guide new construction. So the developers will still be able to put something there, but it's going to have to fit within the heritage conservation district. Ironically, I do believe they get more in terms of volume of development under the new district, but the form of that volume is going to be different.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense, but it's not clear to me how a different design of a new building will make it fit within the heritage conservation district (e.g. does it mean 'faux heritage' elements on the new building?).

[someone123]

There's a bit of info here: https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/old-south-suburb

This document has some massing diagrams for potential projects: https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...1128hac121.pdf

It's good that the city is moving past registering individual buildings. This area is special (nationally significant), and has the potential to be great with some carefully coordinated development. Those renderings of sites like the parking lot next to Bearly's show what the potential is. They also show how little height matters compared to the quality of construction of the bottom few floors at street level, particularly when there are setbacks on upper floors. There have already been some good infill projects sympathetic to the style of the area like the Waterford, and hopefully Governor's Plaza will be a new and improved iteration of that.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Very interesting - thanks for that!

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense, but it's not clear to me how a different design of a new building will make it fit within the heritage conservation district (e.g. does it mean 'faux heritage' elements on the new building?).

My casual understanding is that the requirements for new buildings are not typically for faux heritage elements but might require certain dimensions for street-facing bays, specific proportions of glass vs. solid, awnings/overhangs, etc. I'm actually not entirely sure what the requirements of the Barrington St. Historic District are... so will be checking that out on my lunch break today!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense, but it's not clear to me how a different design of a new building will make it fit within the heritage conservation district (e.g. does it mean 'faux heritage' elements on the new building?).

It definitely doesn't mean faux-heritage; the city's design manual discourages faux-heritage designs. As far as I understand it's about sympathetic massing and building form, not overwhelming existing building stock, etc.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Thanks for the good info.

My impression is that it is possible to build structures that are really good imitations of older building techniques, but that can be expensive and thus is more often a failure than not. Massing, etc., seems like the best way to fit into that kind of neighborhood without looking cheap and ridiculous.

Of course, IMHO, the best way would have been to not have torn down those particular buildings, as they looked quite nice and appeared to be in good condition. Hopefully the heritage district will prevent that from happening in the future.

[IanWatson]

Barrington e-Space is a building I often hear staff cite as good heritage integration. The new floors are modern and distinct from, but complement, the heritage building, and don't overwhelm the heritage portion of the building.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Yes, Espace was well done. I think the building that replaced the old Tip Top building was well done also, from the perspective of being an entirely new structure that blends well with the massing of the street.

https://goo.gl/maps/uNSnic92VKUM4EPw7

[Drybrain]

I think the building that replaced the Tip Top building is exactly what the design guidelines are aiming for. It's completely contemporary (and quite attractive) yet is complementary to context. Its massing is very similar to the Tramway next door, and although it's very different from the Khyber on the other side, it has a little transition with a modern interpretation of the brick facade and Khyber's roofline.

I really don't like the ubiquity of that unfinished-looking facade material it uses (a crisp black-brick veneer would be nice instead, and convey a more permanent and substantial appearance) but it's overall pretty good.

[Keith P.]

Sadly, the derelict Khyber continues to be, well, derelict. It has been a drain on that block for years, much like the NFB building, which hopefully be finished in another decade or so.

[FuzzyWuz]

I'm starting to think for anything under 10 stories all you have to do is give a floor number and we pretty much already know what it will look like.

[IanWatson]

This one has a new design proposal. I’m having trouble finding a rendering that can be linked though.

The new design is to comply with the heritage conservation district and is larger than the proposal that was turned down in 2019.

[Dmajackson]

^Do you mean This Rendering? It appears to be a 8-storey building now.

[Saul Goode]

Wow. To my eye, that eight-storey section is really ugly - especially that sort of faux-mansard effect on the top two floors. Ugly, ugly. ugly.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Wow. To my eye, that eight-storey section is really ugly - especially that sort of faux-mansard effect on the top two floors. Ugly, ugly. ugly.

It sticks out in a bad way. I would prefer a forgettable little modern tower. I don’t love the entryway with pillars either.

[Keith P.]

It looks like a City of Halifax cheap faux-Victorian development proposal from about 1980. Just awful.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by atbw

It sticks out in a bad way. I would prefer a forgettable little modern tower. I don’t love the entryway with pillars either.

They actually made me start thinking the original design isn't so bad after all with this one. And that says a lot.

[Drybrain]

Yeah, good scale; bad building. That horrible little mansard-imitating hat especially.

It's also funny that of the four Victorian buildings on the site now, only the most architecturally compromised of them will be preserved.

If the building is to have a setback to accommodate a more fine-grained series of series of storefronts (the one good element of this proposal) I feel like they should either A: preserve at least a portion of the existing, highly detailed Victorian houses, or B: use a contemporary design.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

If the building is to have a setback to accommodate a more fine-grained series of series of storefronts (the one good element of this proposal) I feel like they should either A: preserve at least a portion of the existing, highly detailed Victorian houses, or B: use a contemporary design.

If I remember correctly the heritage conservation districts include some language around designing buildings in heritage or compatible style which seems to translate into this type of architecture. But the other 98% of the conservation district benefit comes down to protecting historic buildings which was a big fail in this area over the past decade. This part of town is maybe the worst for the combo of demolitions and ugly faux historic rebuilds that are only marginally larger than what they replaced.

I don't know exactly what is going on but I always felt like this part of town had tons of potential yet needed a mixture of engaged architects, developers, and city planners to fix all of the finer-grained issues. Many of the preserved buildings are in shabby condition, there are a lot of small holes from demolition of small buildings, and many small fenced in or garden-like areas have been converted to pavement or just weedy empty spaces. For example if you look at the yellow apartment building at Barrington and South in streetview it has a semi-dirt lawn around it with cars parked there, then a big unused gravel driveway next to it and the blank wall of the newer development next door. That development could have been built in behind with the old townhouses remaining in front (preserved and/or rebuilt) and it would have looked much better. It's all pretty sad. The little streetscape from the Taj Mahal across that brick row terminating in the hotel was probably one of the more memorable urban vistas in the city.