[Halifax] RBC Waterside Centre | 37 m | 9 fl | Completed

[hfx_chris]

2 council meetings and they're still not done. Something must be wrong when regional council can grind to a halt for 2+ weeks for a single hearing about a single development.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by hfx_chris

2 council meetings and they're still not done. Something must be wrong when regional council can grind to a halt for 2+ weeks for a single hearing about a single development.

We can hardly fault regional council when 67 people get up and speak at 5 minutes each. There is no quick way to get through that. They could have finished this last night, however, if they had bumped the other three public hearings to next week since it takes time for staff to present but there was really no to little public interest in any of them.

[hfx_chris]

I'm not faulting council, or at least I don't mean to. I'm faulting the process. I'm all for the public getting to have their say, but to delay other business for 2 weeks so 80% of the people who get up can repeat the exact same thing the last person said gets ridiculous. They should have these public hearings at a different time and date, maybe the second Wednesday of every month can be public hearing day... although with some of these proposals, they would have to go from 9am to 11pm...

[someone123]

Yes, the problem is that they devolve into a kind of public voting situation where people think they all need to get up and talk, even if they have nothing to add, just so that their side can have the most speakers.

5 minutes is also way too long for most speakers and encourages rambling.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes, the problem is that they devolve into a kind of public voting situation where people think they all need to get up and talk, even if they have nothing to add, just so that their side can have the most speakers.

5 minutes is also way too long for most speakers and encourages rambling.

Best part is the propoent only gets 10 mins at the begining and 5 mins at the end. Hardly enough time to discuss the project.

[sdm]

Waterside Centre: for the record

By A.M. (BEN) McCREA
Thu. Sep 18 - 6:26 AM



Armour Group chairman A.M. (Ben) McCrea discusses plans for a downtown Halifax development during an interview with The Chronicle Herald earlier this year. (Ted Pritchard / Staff)





In response to Phil Pacey’s Sept. 13 opinion article titled "Historic Properties project out of bounds," I submit the following facts.

The very small wood building at 1810-12 Upper Water St. is not a heritage building. It cannot be incorporated in our development and is not a matter before Halifax regional council. A demolition permit for this building has been issued by HRM.

The Imperial Oil building (O’Carrols) is shown in the original 1925 drawings to be entirely built on piles, which appear to be wood. The pile tops are eight feet below sidewalk elevations on Upper Water and are in the tidal zone.

Pile foundation technology available in the 1920s, whether wood or steel, does not compare with modern engineering design and materials, and we and our structural engineers expect deterioration. The extent of the deterioration cannot be determined without complete excavation.

While we are confident a technically feasible and viable solution can be implemented to upgrade and strengthen this foundation, there is always a risk that the building would have to be rebuilt with a new foundation.

To facilitate this remote possibility, we must meet the legal technical requirements of the Heritage Property Act and a demolition application is part of the contract application.

Those opposed to this project repeatedly cite Policy CH-1 (f), which says "additions thereto shall respect and be subordinate to any municipally registered heritage property on the site." But of all who have repeated this line, not one has completed the sentence, which includes the word "BY," and all have ignored the fact that the policy has four specific requirements to address. The policy says "shall respect and be subordinate to … by …".

One of the clauses following the "by" relates to architectural issues requiring additions to have materials which are "subordinate to and distinguishable from" the historic building materials.

Our architect, Andy Lynch, has strongly recommended a very light-tint glass. HRM staff have fully supported this and have advised Armour they could not support a brick cladding as it would NOT meet the requirements of the policy. HRMByDesign, based on the current document, will go further in support of rooftops and the use of glass.

Another of the "by" clauses relates specifically to rooftop additions, requiring them to be set back. Waterside Centre is set back a minimum of 7.5 feet. Waterside Centre represents a rooftop addition, as did Founders Square. HRM’s policy clearly contemplates this type of development.

Rooftop additions would require a new structure to be built inside the heritage building and new foundations. Removal of the bulk of the interior would be necessary, with new construction replacing existing floors. These interior walls and floors, etc., are not covered by the Heritage Property Act.

In 1973, Historic Properties construction work was well underway both on Granville Street and the waterfront. The issue that gave rise to the Halifax City Council’s resolution in the spring of 1973 related only to the potential demolition of a large number of the buildings on the west side of Granville by Halifax Developments to create a new highrise office building. Historic Properties and NSCAD were seeking to preserve the unique streetscape.

The Halifax City Council’s resolution, which included the west side of Granville, simply expressed a "wish" that the area be preserved "as much as possible." It was this expressed wish of that council that paved the way for a four-party agreement that saved the Granville Street streetscape.

Halifax Developments agreed to reasonably maintain the west side of the street, and the city sold it the "triangle" lands at the north of Granville and granted Halifax Developments development rights for a 20-plus storey office building. It was a transfer of development rights.

Halifax Developments demolished all of the buildings and, using the removed stone, rebuilt the facades of three and in-filled the remainder with compatible designs. The necessary space for the hotel was thus provided with only a storey rooftop addition.

These historic facades are very much part of the Granville streetscape and the fact they were rebuilt or have a metal clad rooftop was not then, nor is it now, an issue in the community.

We firmly believe we are respecting the "wish" of the previous council with our Waterside Centre project. For more information, visit our website: www.hpwatersidecentre.ca.

Armour M. (Ben) McCrea is chairman, The Armour Group Limited.

[someone123]

It does annoy me how this debate can sometimes be dishonest. Pacey tends to quote the MPS very selectively.

The Waterside Centre website (http://www.hpwatersidecentre.ca/) has some photos of the Founders Square site before it was redeveloped, e.g.:



No question that what we have today is an improvement, even though there have been some alterations to the building on the corner for example.

I think their argument about the west side of Granville is pretty compelling. Many of the waterfront buildings nearby have also been similarly overhauled and reconstructed using salvaged material.

Ultimately I would still prefer to see some similarly scaled office proposal on an empty site like the Herald lands rather than at this location, but I think that the development nevertheless should be approved more or less in its current form.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

It does annoy me how this debate can sometimes be dishonest. Pacey tends to quote the MPS very selectively.


I think their argument about the west side of Granville is pretty compelling. Many of the waterfront buildings nearby have also been similarly overhauled and reconstructed using salvaged material.

Yeah Pacey's group all said the same thing in the letter during the public hearing, all stating just a few words of the policy.

During the developers final response he went on to state the head of the Canadain heritage foundation recommended adding an additional floor to the collins bank building in Privateers wharf area in order to spread out more cost due to restoring the building.

I find that and the granville street mall statement very intersting as well.

[Jonovision]

They are both very compelling arguments. But I still have to stick with a no on this one.

[sdm]

Historic indecision: Waterside Centre
The proposed Waterside Centre development is the "hardest decision" they'll ever have to make, say Halifax councillors.

by Tim Bousquet Coast Halifax.


The controversial Waterside Centre development proposed for the heart of downtown Halifax's historic district remains in limbo.

A public hearing spread over two weeks heard spirited arguments from 59 people on the project, leaving little time for Halifax councillors to discuss the matter among themselves at Tuesday's meeting, so council moved back its vote on the matter until September 30. That vote, said several councillors, will be "the hardest decision I'll ever make."

The Waterside project deals with five buildings on a block bound by Upper Water, Hollis and Duke Streets and by the distinctive Morse's Tea building. Like Morse's, four of the buildings---the Imperial Oil building on Upper Water, the Shaw and Fishwick buildings on Hollis and the Harrington building, which spans the block---are registered historic buildings. The fifth building is a younger building that until recently housed Sweet Basil Bistro.

The Historic Properties, immediately to the east of the Waterside site, and Granville Mall, immediately to the west, are joined by a pedestrian walkway through the project site.

Developer Ben McCrea proposes to raze the Sweet Basil building and all but the street-side facades of the four historic buildings and build a nine-storey office complex behind and above the facades. The new building would also occupy the space presently devoted to the pedestrian walkway and a new facade in the style of the historic buildings would front the lower storeys of the building in that area, except on the Hollis Street side, where there would be an entrance ramp to an underground parking garage. McCrea's proposal does, however, include an interior pedestrian walkway across the new building.

Detractors of the project say it will destroy an irreplaceable and important piece of Halifax's history. But McCrea and his supporters say Waterside will actually preserve the historic character of the area.

Much depends on interpretation of legal restrictions concerning registered historic sites. Provincial heritage regulation applies only to the facades of registered buildings and not at all to the interior portions of the buildings. The Halifax planning code, however, insists that new construction around historically registered buildings meet undefined standards for scale and compatibility. Ultimately, these interpretations are up to council.

Most of the public input---44 of the 59 speakers---was in opposition to the project. Many condemned the project and said nothing of worth would be achieved by saving only the shell of a historic building. Waterside is "the most egregious example of historic destruction since the proposal to tear down the Historic Properties" and "deplorable Disneyfication," said Michael Goodyear, who owns a historic house on Morris Street. The new structure will be a "bland, poorly designed, no-named wall of glass," said Lori Olmstead, a NSCAD instructor.

Judith Cabrita, former president of the Nova Scotia Tourism Industry, pointed out that tourism brings $600 million to the province annually, and is the largest industry in Nova Scotia. Tourism depends on maintaining an "authentic" cityscape, she said.

McCrea was visibly agitated by criticism of his project. "For the best part of 40 years I've been an avid supporter of historic preservation," he said, referring to his work on restoring Historic Properties and on the nearby Founders Square development. "I find it very difficult to keep on the high road. I have difficulty in understanding Heritage Trust," which leads opposition to Waterside.

As McCrea tells it, no historic structure is "pristine"---the entire west side of Granville Mall was demolished and reconstructed with an additional storey and Historic Properties was reconfigured for commercial viability.

The historic buildings are falling apart, costing him "tens of millions of dollars" in potential rents, he says, and restoring the historic facades will consume 10 percent of the project's cost. Moreover, the new structure will be set back from the facades and constructed of glass, the most inconspicuous building material, thereby maintaining the historic feel of the area.

Those councillors who gave an indication of their views are divided, with councillors Sloane, Hensbee, Hum, Murphy and Harvery appearing to be opposed and Streatch, Uteck, Rankin and Karsten appearing to be in favour.

Waterside will need the approval of 14 of the 23 councillors to move forward.

[sdm]

Professor calls demolition proposal 'an assault on the history of Halifax'
JON TATTRIE, METRO HALIFAX
September 17, 2008 05:00




Dozens of speakers blasted a proposal to demolish the interiors of two historic properties at city hall last night.


The plans by the Armour Group would see the facades of the buildings currently housing O’Carroll’s and Sweet Basil preserved, but with a nine-story concrete-and-glass office building in their place. The developer says the buildings are dilapidated and that it would be too expensive to renovate them.


Twenty-four members of the public spoke at the council meeting, which was a continuation from last week. All opposed the plans, arguing the proposed office doesn’t follow the rules for preserving heritage buildings.


Dr Michael Goodyear called it “the most egregious assault on the history of Halifax I have witnessed.” The Dalhousie professor said he thought the issue had been put to rest in 1973, when Halifax city council decided to protect the Historic Properties. “We are rapidly becoming a city of memories, best viewed in a museum,” he said.


Tom Creighton, a member of the Heritage Advisory Committee but speaking as a private citizen, called on council to follow the advice of the committee and reject the proposal.


“It’s not an integrated building and it violates the rules,” he argued.


"The status quo is not an option," said Ben McCrae, chairman of the Armour Group, adding that the buildings aren’t economically viable.

After more than five hours of debate, council voted to adjourn the matter for two weeks, when it will likely vote one way or the other.

[Takeo]

I think the big scary question is... what is the alternative? What happens if this proposal is rejected?

[reddog794]

Then Armour doesn't build it, and O'Carroll's collapses, and the HT will be painted as the idiots who let it go down. Either way we loose a nice building, in our DT.

[phrenic]

Originally Posted by Takeo

I think the big scary question is... what is the alternative? What happens if this proposal is rejected?

I'm not a huge fan of this proposal. That said, if the alternative is that these buildings sit there and rot (further) in the name of "historical value" with no renovations or updates, then I say put the tower on top.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by phrenic

I'm not a huge fan of this proposal. That said, if the alternative is that these buildings sit there and rot (further) in the name of "historical value" with no renovations or updates, then I say put the tower on top.

Thats my view as well

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by reddog794

Then Armour doesn't build it, and O'Carroll's collapses, and the HT will be painted as the idiots who let it go down. Either way we loose a nice building, in our DT.

I personally don't believe O'Carroll's is in any danger and that Armour has hyped that (there is more than enough hyperbole on the extremes on both sides of this one). Take a look at it. There are absolutely no exterior signs of anything wrong with it. No crumbling stone no broken brick no cracks no sign of any trouble at all. Nothing. I would venture that O'Carroll's structural "problems" are only problems if you want to build on top of it. I looked at the Shaw Building (admittedly not as closely) and I didn't sign anything wrong with it either.

In some ways accepting the proposal is the safe decision. Ben McCrea made some very thinly veild threats in his last 5 minutes and again during council's clarification questions that if this isn't approved he'll demolish them all. Would he really do it though? Tough to say. I think a redesign of this one is needed, but I don't think it is impossible to build on top of these buildings. Just what's proposed stinks.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Yeah, the design does suck. I would actually just prefer to have this historic block ended with International Place without a funky hybrid in between it and 1801. Waterside could be good if it was a taller, better designed tower that respected the heritage facades better.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by spaustin

In some ways accepting the proposal is the safe decision. Ben McCrea made some very thinly veild threats in his last 5 minutes and again during council's clarification questions that if this isn't approved he'll demolish them all. Would he really do it though? Tough to say. I think a redesign of this one is needed, but I don't think it is impossible to build on top of these buildings. Just what's proposed stinks.

I'm not a huge fan of the design either, but is anything other than a full resto with no alteration acceptable to the Heritage Trust and their supporters? It doesn't sound like they would accept anything else. If you look at Historic Properties and the other areas that McCrea has developed, they too would be unacceptable to the heritage types under their current mindset since they had significant alterations and used new materials. Is there an economic case to justify restoring the buildings as-is? I doubt it.

On another note, is anyone surprised that Sloane is opposed? I think she has opposed every development proposal except the taxpayer-subsidized housing development she lives in. What a disaster she is.

[someone123]

The problem is that "economic case" means different things to different people. A lot of heritage restoration projects are viable in the sense that they can be done without a loss but they do not necessarily make sense from a profit maximization perspective. Halifax has limited land and growing demand for office space from prospective tenants that would not be willing to pay large premiums for heritage space.

I am guessing that it would be possible to renovate these buildings and lease them at a small profit, but that building a new office building would generate a lot more money. The mitigating factors are the preserved facades and the fact that more space will bring in new business etc.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by spaustin

I personally don't believe O'Carroll's is in any danger and that Armour has hyped that (there is more than enough hyperbole on the extremes on both sides of this one). Take a look at it. There are absolutely no exterior signs of anything wrong with it. No crumbling stone no broken brick no cracks no sign of any trouble at all. Nothing. I would venture that O'Carroll's structural "problems" are only problems if you want to build on top of it. I looked at the Shaw Building (admittedly not as closely) and I didn't sign anything wrong with it either.

In some ways accepting the proposal is the safe decision. Ben McCrea made some very thinly veild threats in his last 5 minutes and again during council's clarification questions that if this isn't approved he'll demolish them all. Would he really do it though? Tough to say. I think a redesign of this one is needed, but I don't think it is impossible to build on top of these buildings. Just what's proposed stinks.

I will do my best to explain as i know a little bit about building construction.

First the heritage buildings would not support addition as is. Their structural bearing capacity would not have been design to such.

Reviewing the plans the new building (tower) is set 7.5 feet inside the current buildings at the base. The tower will be built with a new foundation. The facades are then attached to the new building by transfering the load to the new structure.

Regarding the structural issue i see no reason for the company to lie about the condition. That and considering developer is a Master Civil engineer i doubt very much he would put his reputation in jepordy over one project.

Besides, it is very difficult, if not impossible to determine structural issues from the exterior.