[Halifax] Moxy Hotel & The Trinity (5415 Cogswell) | 64 m | 21 fl | U/C

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by atbw

...the bright pink signage and lettering on top of the Vuze makes it look more like a hotel or a casino than someplace someone would call home.

Couldn't agree more. It just looks silly. The first time I saw it, I thought (or hoped) it was just some temporary promotional sign. No such luck.

On this, the main mass is huge and the complicated shape makes it look unrefined and hard to define. There's no rhyme or reason to it - every side looks like it could be a picture of a different building.

Yes, it looks like a building that can't make up its mind what it wants to be.

And what's with the trend to grey/dark grey/black finishes on recent buildings around here? We spend a lot of time through the year under overcast skies and in the wet. Dark finishes don't help; they only exaggerate the effect, especially on massive structures like this.

Sorry to say it, but this is one depressingly ugly building. It's sad to think it could occupy that prominent a site for the next century or so. What a wasted opportunity.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Couldn't agree more. It just looks silly. The first time I saw it, I thought (or hoped) it was just some temporary promotional sign. No such luck.



Yes, it looks like a building that can't make up its mind what it wants to be.

And what's with the trend to grey/dark grey/black finishes on recent buildings around here? We spend a lot of time through the year under overcast skies and in the wet. Dark finishes don't help; they only exaggerate the effect, especially on massive structures like this.

Sorry to say it, but this is one depressingly ugly building. It's sad to think it could occupy that prominent a site for the next century or so. What a wasted opportunity.

Judging by their “south village” project there must have been a sale on black and grey cladding.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I have to say that I am not a fan of the massing and finishes of the building depicted in the renderings, considering its prominent location within the Cogswell district, which will soon undergo a complete transformation and has potential to be the showcase development district for DT Halifax.

I am also disappointed that the developer would choose to participate in this forum in such an unprofessional manner, as it could have been a great opportunity for a constructive exchange in which he could explain the rationale behind the choices that were made for this particular project. I think a good discussion could have been educational for us all.

Regardless, a rendering and a finished building are two different animals... here's hoping for the best.

[someone123]

Moved the non-project stuff to the "meta" thread: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...=245324&page=2

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by HRMjoe

Planning rules tie developers and architects hands behind their backs. But putting realities of design restrictions aside, we are very proud of the quality the building will be designed to, and I’m confident it will be a excellent addition to the area.

You have what is essentially an 18-storey streetwall here. This isn't permitted under Centre Plan regs, so I assume you pulled a permit just before the rules changed. So you had options here and you chose to max out the envelope. Just like Tony did behind you. Which is fine, but it's not the regs that result in this in this case.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by planarchy

You have what is essentially an 18-storey streetwall here. This isn't permitted under Centre Plan regs, so I assume you pulled a permit just before the rules changed. So you had options here and you chose to max out the envelope. Just like Tony did behind you. Which is fine, but it's not the regs that result in this in this case.

This property was never subject to the Downtown LUB or the Centreplan rules. It had an old grandfathered as of right ability to build a building of this size. I think it dates back to the 80s or 90s. Was not subject to a development agreement either. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only constraints on the property that I was aware of were the viewplanes.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

This property was never subject to the Downtown LUB or the Centreplan rules. It had an old grandfathered as of right ability to build a building of this size. I think it dates back to the 80s or 90s. Was not subject to a development agreement either. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only constraints on the property that I was aware of were the viewplanes.

All of which only makes planarchy's point more strongly: the developer essentially had virtually free rein to be creative with this very prominent site - and this nonsense was the best he could come up with?

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Regardless, a rendering and a finished building are two different animals... here's hoping for the best.

Normally that's true, but given their latest development is the Aya, I expect that even the depressing renderings shown above (since deleted off Templeton Facebook) don't begin to show what's going to be built. I hope this development company uses this project as a way to restore their reputation. In the end, I just want Halifax to look as good as it should.

The Aya (finished vs. rendering):

Originally Posted by atbw

Cladding is wrapping up on the Aya, looking a little different from the renderings.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

The Aya (finished vs. rendering):

Eccchhh!

So much for hoping for the best...

[teddifax]

How can they dumb down the design like that? This is just bad!

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

This property was never subject to the Downtown LUB or the Centreplan rules. It had an old grandfathered as of right ability to build a building of this size. I think it dates back to the 80s or 90s. Was not subject to a development agreement either. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only constraints on the property that I was aware of were the viewplanes.

After sitting on the site for nearly 10 years, they pulled a permit for a 198 unit building in June 2019 under the old C-2 zone (IIRC), 3 months before the centre plan was approved. The Centre Plan still gave them an FAR of 7.5, one of the highest in the city and a 90m height limit. So they could have built a taller building under the new centre plan rules, but would have had to meet some design controls and a smaller floor plate. Also, building under the C-2 meant not having to pay a density bonus. Again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this and it makes sense financially, but to blame the rules for the poor quality/form of the building is misleading at best.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by HRMjoe

Sorry you don’t approve of the design. We have made it as good as possible given all the city planning requirements, setbacks, view planes etc.

If permitted We would have preferred to set the tower deeper into the site, but the rules require buildings located as designed.

Planning rules tie developers and architects hands behind their backs. But putting realities of design restrictions aside, we are very proud of the quality the building will be designed to, and I’m confident it will be a excellent addition to the area.

We have added cornice details along the Brunswick face to break up the wind effects, and will ensure a pleasant experience inside and around the site.

“The rules are so restrictive this is the best we could do” is both absurd on its face, and belied by the fact that other developers are putting up, if not world-class structures, certainly much better buildings around the city.

The quality of new building in this city really escalated over the past few years, but has recently plateaued and maybe even declined a little. We should be capable of building a more beautiful city, one that is sensitive to its past while pushing into the future. Instead we're mostly just throwing up boxes for living in.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

“The rules are so restrictive this is the best we could do” is both absurd on its face, and belied by the fact that other developers are putting up, if not world-class structures, certainly much better buildings around the city.

The quality of new building in this city really escalated over the past few years, but has recently plateaued and maybe even declined a little. We should be capable of building a more beautiful city, one that is sensitive to its past while pushing into the future. Instead we're mostly just throwing up boxes for living in.

Well said.

In this case, using the phrase "throwing up" may have been a happy coincidence, but is appropriate IMHO...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The quality of new building in this city really escalated over the past few years, but has recently plateaued and maybe even declined a little. We should be capable of building a more beautiful city, one that is sensitive to its past while pushing into the future. Instead we're mostly just throwing up boxes for living in.

That is an interesting point. One thing that has changed is that the quantity of new construction has gone way up. I think the nicest new projects like Queen's Marque would have stacked up well quality-wise against any private projects of the preceding 1-2 decades. Also, construction has spread to more affordable parts of town that in the past might have had no buildings at all. I think a good basis for comparison of recent construction in the North End is buildings like those 1980's Highfield Park specials or early 2000's buildings like the one at the corner of Falkland and Gottingen, not the central library or TD tower.

I've always thought of these old approvals as plans from another era that could have been inherited either in building or in approval form. I would guess that this is nicer than what would have been built in the past on that site given that approval. There's a fixed supply of these pre-approved sites but I have no idea how many exist. I think it's unrealistic to expect developers to go through with the new site plan approval process when it would add to costs and maybe reduce revenues. Maybe that would create better buildings but I don't think they will do it. They will use up the old approvals and land will be priced according to the approvals in place.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

That is an interesting point. One thing that has changed is that the quantity of new construction has gone way up. I think the nicest new projects like Queen's Marque would have stacked up well quality-wise against any private projects of the preceding 1-2 decades. Also, construction has spread to more affordable parts of town that in the past might have had no buildings at all. I think a good basis for comparison of recent construction in the North End is buildings like those 1980's Highfield Park specials or early 2000's buildings like the one at the corner of Falkland and Gottingen, not the central library or TD tower.

Yeah, and as much as I think we need to push for better development, we also have to take a moment to recognize that the city has come a long way. In 1995's Halifax, Queen's Marque or the library would never have been built, the Green Lantern would probably have been torn down, and the abundance of new condo/apartment buildings--though I'm starting to find the ubiquity of bare panelling and corrugated steel tiresome--would all look like the aforementioned Highfield Park specials, which would be infinitely worse. We wouldn't have quality small-scale infill like this (though we could use a lot more) and the rapid redevelopment along Gottingen Street, for example, would probably be a lot less sensitive to the existing urban scale, and we'd probably get a more blockbusters.

[Good Baklava]

Sorry but I’m going to have to call baloney on both of these.

Originally Posted by someone123

That is an interesting point. One thing that has changed is that the quantity of new construction has gone way up. I think the nicest new projects like Queen's Marque would have stacked up well quality-wise against any private projects of the preceding 1-2 decades. Also, construction has spread to more affordable parts of town that in the past might have had no buildings at all. I think a good basis for comparison of recent construction in the North End is buildings like those 1980's Highfield Park specials or early 2000's buildings like the one at the corner of Falkland and Gottingen, not the central library or TD tower.

The North End does see a more motley mix of buildings compared to the downtown, but that doesn’t condemn the area to bad buildings. That 2000s building on Falkland/Gottingen actually has some rhythm and style compared to this site. Saying the north End should expect recent construction to resemble Highland Park specials is ridiculous considering new constructions in Fairview and Clayton Park outshine these old buildings by a mile.

Isleville, Maynard and the Hydrostone area have seen plenty of better thought out buildings than this. Yes, those are smaller, yet even POINT NORTH compares favourably to the trinity site if we consider the podium and consistency of the design. Gladstone ridge offers no pedestrian experience but at least the buildings look nicer. 1920 Across the street from this site offers something nicer in all regards. The Vuze and Margaretta are glaring examples of how the South End and Spring Garden aren’t immune to horrible design either despite being a short walk to the library.

Originally Posted by someone123

I've always thought of these old approvals as plans from another era that could have been inherited either in building or in approval form. I would guess that this is nicer than what would have been built in the past on that site given that approval. There's a fixed supply of these pre-approved sites but I have no idea how many exist. I think it's unrealistic to expect developers to go through with the new site plan approval process when it would add to costs and maybe reduce revenues. Maybe that would create better buildings but I don't think they will do it. They will use up the old approvals and land will be priced according to the approvals in place.

As others pointed out, they had options under the old process and made their choice. They chose “Maritime Centre: Residential Edition”. Who knows, maybe some urban romantics will appreciate this unconventional aesthetic and come from all over to visit the “Great Wall of Cogswell”.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

As others pointed out, they had options under the old process and made their choice. They chose “Maritime Centre: Residential Edition”. Who knows, maybe some urban romantics will appreciate this unconventional aesthetic and come from all over to visit the “Great Wall of Cogswell”.

There's "what should developers do?" and "what will developers do?". By and large developers will follow incentives and build the most profitable building. And competition tends to force them down particular paths. The developer that has a plan to cram in more units or build more cheaply will be able to pay more for a plot of land. And the more pressures get added with rules like viewplanes the less wiggle room they have.

We can shake our fists and curse the names of every last developer but if the economic incentives are not aligned to produce desired buildings they don't happen. So the fix probably has to come at the planning level. It seems like what most posters want already has been implemented somewhat but there are still some specific sites with old approvals.

I'm not denying that design matters and some architects or developers make nicer buildings than others under similar constraints but basically the layer at which to fix problems, if they are in fact serious, is municipal planning.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not denying that design matters and some architects or developers make nicer buildings than others under similar constraints but basically the layer at which to fix problems, if they are in fact serious, is municipal planning.

Quite true, I believe. It's just such a damn shame that it's too late for as prominent a site as this one - it's the very definition of a sore thumb, and it's going to be sticking in our eyes for a long damn time.

[Hali87]

It's not necessarily out of character with its surroundings - there are the other wide flat towers along Brunswick and I wouldn't really say this is any better or worse than those. Being a prominent site I think a lot of people expect it to be more of a landmark whereas now it just continues the wide flat plain theme of Brunswick. Refining the shape of the tower and improving the way it addresses the corner could go a long way. On the other hand there's a housing shortage and ultimately maxing out the total floorspace might ultimately be "better" for the city in the long run than having something fancy but with fewer and marginally more expensive units.

The Gladstone Ridge towers are also very wide and are not particularly affordable in North End terms - they're "Clayton Park/Bedford-priced" while the Brunswick/Cogswell area has typically been closer to Highfield Park or Spryfield-priced - Fairview is probably the closest analogue.

I don't expect this development to be absolutely bottom-of-the barrel pricing but likely around the same level as its neighbours (adjusting for amenities included). Consider the number of people used to renting at less than $1.5K for a 2-bedroom (or equivalent) - and that a lot of this market has disappeared over the last few years, isn't really being replaced, and a lot of students (who almost all fall into that category) will be moving back after the pandemic to no supply. So all that said I would tend to favour maxing out the number of units and pushing rental prices down rather than up, until the housing crisis is sorted. But on the other hand this building will eventually be a gateway to the redeveloped Cogswell area so a bit of creativity in the design could really go a long way.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's "what should developers do?" and "what will developers do?". By and large developers will follow incentives and build the most profitable building. And competition tends to force them down particular paths. The developer that has a plan to cram in more units or build more cheaply will be able to pay more for a plot of land. And the more pressures get added with rules like viewplanes the less wiggle room they have.

We can shake our fists and curse the names of every last developer but if the economic incentives are not aligned to produce desired buildings they don't happen. So the fix probably has to come at the planning level. It seems like what most posters want already has been implemented somewhat but there are still some specific sites with old approvals.

I'm not denying that design matters and some architects or developers make nicer buildings than others under similar constraints but basically the layer at which to fix problems, if they are in fact serious, is municipal planning.

The reality of developers having to maximise returns on a development is a non-argument. I’m sure everyone on here is well aware of what a developer’s goals are.

Most developers have contributed something positive to the city. Fares and the Ghosns have fairly solid track records despite the occasional criticism. Praise is justified for most of their work. However if something so obnoxious is being proposed, it’s almost more absurd to try and rationalise such a disgusting design than to be revolted by it. It’s perfectly reasonable to shake fists since this has been a trend with the same developer. No one here is shaking fists at every developer, that message obfuscates the fact that most of the fist-shaking is being directed at a repeated offender.

I largely blame the choice of architect (probably the same who represented the Vuze surrounded by palm trees) since this site had nearly free reign compared to its contemporaries. The planning department may have created the environment for Jono developments to work with, but let’s say the developer had plenty of room to play and did so very amateurishly.