[Halifax] The Roy Halifax | 71 m | 22 fl | Completed

[someone123]

The PDF with the elevations describes the materials they'll use. It calls for partly new brick on the Barrington side, with precast concrete lintels above the windows and cut stone for lower parts of the facade. Looks like they're going to recreate period storefronts with awnings. They're also reducing the reconstruction to 5 storeys.

Truth be told I am not the greatest fan of the current Roy Building facade to begin with. It was built in stages out of just brick and is very messy looking. It's large but is noticeably lower in quality than a bunch of other buildings on Barrington and over the years has deteriorated. On the other end of that block, for example, the Johnston Building is obviously much nicer. For this reason I think the Roy Building is the perfect candidate for this sort of redevelopment. If it's done according to these plans Barrington will just be better off. I hope they can move forward with this quickly.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I like everything about this development. The new look and the incorporation of the original structure. I have really been hoping that this one would go ahead.

The original structure isn't being incorporated. It is being demolished and replaced with a replica. Depending on the care taken, it could either be another plus like Granville Mall or just another piece of terrible faux history.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by spaustin

The original structure isn't being incorporated. It is being demolished and replaced with a replica. Depending on the care taken, it could either be another plus like Granville Mall or just another piece of terrible faux history.

I really like structures that combine old and new even if it is just a recreation; at least it will help make the structure fit into the streetscape since it was already that general shape before. It isn't being torn down and replaced with a CIBC type building (I really dislike that one, I wish Templeton Properties could do a new Fenwick-type recreation of it).

Here's hoping for a Granville Mall type result.

[someone123]

The biggest problem with CIBC is the street-level design, which is definitely better in this proposal. I guess the brick could be ugly but the fenestration is also nicer (discrete windows at moderate intervals instead of giant strips) I think and the ugly brown glass has gone out of style since the 80s, thankfully.

This project looks slightly nicer than the Waterford, which is not quite on par with an original masonry building but looks pretty good.

[ScovaNotian]

Does anyone still have the previous renderings? The tower has certainly improved, but I think I liked the Granville side of the lower floors better before.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

The PDF with the elevations describes the materials they'll use. It calls for partly new brick on the Barrington side, with precast concrete lintels above the windows and cut stone for lower parts of the facade. Looks like they're going to recreate period storefronts with awnings. They're also reducing the reconstruction to 5 storeys.

Truth be told I am not the greatest fan of the current Roy Building facade to begin with. It was built in stages out of just brick and is very messy looking. It's large but is noticeably lower in quality than a bunch of other buildings on Barrington and over the years has deteriorated. On the other end of that block, for example, the Johnston Building is obviously much nicer. For this reason I think the Roy Building is the perfect candidate for this sort of redevelopment. If it's done according to these plans Barrington will just be better off. I hope they can move forward with this quickly.

There are small properties on either side of the Barrington facade that are not included in this development. Is one of these the Johnston Building? Do you know when these buildings were constructed and what condition they are in?

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

There are small properties on either side of the Barrington facade that are not included in this development. Is one of these the Johnston Building? Do you know when these buildings were constructed and what condition they are in?

According to the Catalogue of Buildings for the Barrington Street Hertiage District the small neighbours are as follows

To the left:
The Colwell Building (Certainly Cinnamon and the Sushi place) built 1871.
Buckley's Building (United Bookstore) built 1897.
Johnson Building (Little Mysteries) built 1890
To the right:
D'Allaird Building (Vogue Optical) built circa 1950.

The Johnston Building is the provincial government office building at the corner of Prince and Barrington (kind of confusing since there is a Johnston and Johnson in the same block!). It use to be an Eatons department store. It's several doors down on Barrington, but is actually right next to the Roy on the Granville side because both the Roy and Johnston Building are bigger at the back then at the front (they're on L shaped lots). As far as I know, everything on the block except the Roy is in pretty good shape. The Johnston Building has been taken care of by the provincial government and Certainly Cinnamon has had work done on it recently. The Vogue has that ugly modern addition slapped on the top and its upper floors are in use so I would be surprised to hear it has problems.

[fenwick16]

Thanks for all the information. At least these buildings will continue to be intact.

[Jonovision]

I think it looks pretty good myself. Much better than the previous version.
I don't quite understand the red bits on the sackville and granville side. But aside from those I really like the Granville side. I think it looks great.





Here are the old renderings to compare.

[Phalanx]

Re: The red bits
I don't know... a last ditch attempt to incorporate some wavy glass, maybe? The colour doesn't bother me - I kind of like the look of it - but it doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the design at all. It's almost like someone was playing with some concepts and just forgot to remove them from the final rendering. Seems kind of random.

[fenwick16]

The new proposal is a huge improvement over the first set of renderings.

[someone123]

I kind of liked the old wavy glass panels but I don't think they worked very well with this project and the Barrington side left a lot to be desired.

The red is a little strange but I could see it being kind of cool once completed. The planning document seems to suggest that would be an aluminum curtain wall covered in red glass.

I could also see it working nicely with the United Gulf buildings, if those are ever built. With a third new tower on this corner it would look great.

[Dmajackson]

Here's the preliminary Development Agreement going to be presented to the District 12 PAC and HAC;

Case 01172: Development Agreement

Basically it addresses all the points and it appears this will be a good quality building when done.

It mentions the Barrington Street Heritage District and its compatibility and the dismisses the HRM by Design since it can;t technically be use to debate this one (but of course we all know Sloane will bring it up somehow).

[worldlyhaligonian]

This development fixes the eyesore metal cladding, on the south-east corner of the lot, where exposed brick originally was.

I like it now, good stuff given the way waterside is doing their thing. Overall this does a better job in combining the floors with the base.

If we get IP then the mix of new, retrofitted, and original will really be quite chic. Nova Centre (although many hate its look) actually has a pretty good form, and the atrium would be spectacular.

[Keith P.]

According to allnovascotia.com, this was turned down last night by the Heritage Advisory Committee by a 6-2 vote. To the surprise of nobody, Jennifer Watts opposed it.

[Keith P.]

According to allnovascotia.com, this was turned down last night by the Heritage Advisory Committee by a 6-2 vote. To the surprise of nobody, Jennifer Watts opposed it.

[Takeo]

In their defence... I can't imagine any Heritage Advisory Committee signing up for this. I'm not saying I agree with them. I don't. I'm just saying, from their point of view, there's no way you could vote for this. They're proposing to demolish a heritage building and build a 'disney' look-a-like. Again... I think it's the right thing to do. The Roy is ugly anyway and falling apart. The project should go through. But their mandate is to protect Heritage. So it's an open and shut case from their point of view. I don't blame them for voting against it.

[beyeas]

To be honest... I am not a fan of this.
I have basically supported it, but more so because I don't want to see Barrington fall into disrepair. But the more I think about it, the less I feel I can support this project, because I don't think this project is the best way to achieve that goal. The design seems to be middle-of-the-road, and although it isn't a bad design it really is not anything spectacular. Although it attempts to incorporate elements of the surrounding buildings, it is in fact a complete demo (not that the Roy Building is anything amazing, but still).

I guess if this were some spectacular new building, I would be in favour. Instead I feel like we would be better off putting more energy (and meagre financial resources) as a city into getting some of the really high quality in-fill projects done (UG, Salter, Farmer's Market condos). I would rather put great buildings on a parking lots as a way of getting more people downtown, than knock down existing streetscapes in the hopes that this saves the street. I think that if the above 3 developments went ahead successfully, we would have many more people living downtown and that in and of itself would recesitate Barrington, and make the street-front business (and the rents for them that would be required to upkeep the buildings) more viable.

I won't be upset if this project dies... whereas I will be very upset if in-fill projects like UG and Salter don't go ahead. This just is not a high enough quality project to make me think that it, and the consequent demo of part of the existing street-scape, should happen instead of one of the very high quality projects that would be built on empty lots (and let's be realistic, it is an "instead" situation, given the limited financial markets and condo demand). I don't want this building to simply fall over one day, but equally I just don't think this is the way to save it (or at least this design isn't the way).

[DigitalNinja]

Not everything can be high quality, you have to start somewhere, and every city needs a mix of high and medium quality buildings.
This would be a step up from the current Roy building which was built between the late 1800's up to 1949
Anyway it's a decrepit piece of crap. It wouldn't be worth it to renovate and starfish thought they were doing a favor by re creating it. Which would probably look better than what is there now.

[Takeo]

I don't understand the point of the re-do to be honest. If you're going to demo the building anyway... design something brand new. Sure... it can be a three story masonry base of some kind to fit in with the scale and character of the streetscape... but just start over. Make it new and modern. Sure it might HINT at the original building. But do something new. Don't make a disney version of the old building. What is the point of that? You're not saving it. You're demolishing it. And you're not creating something new either. I just don't get it. A re-creation seems pointless and dishonest. Save it... for real. Or do something NEW... for real. Just make it real. Real is the key word here. Not "quality". Quality is about thoughtfulness. Not price.