someone123
Nov 27, 2007, 5:08 PM
From the Chronicle Herald:
No more short, ugly buildings downtown, please
By ROGER TAYLOR Business Columnists
I USED to believe that most Halifax residents thought the squat, red-brick buildings that have been popping up in the downtown with startling regularity were ugly and unappealing.
And I thought that kind of development is not part of that group’s vision of downtown Halifax.
But that was before I spoke recently to representatives of heritage groups and others who told me that short is in, and the ubiquitous red brick structure actually fits their vision.
This vision, or lack of it, is disconcerting, although I admit it might be partly my fault since I was going on the assumption that the mail I have been receiving — suggesting that Halifax’s fascination with low-rise, red-brick buildings was something the writers opposed — was an indicator of how most people felt.
If short and ugly is the consensus, I disagree with it, even though I now realize Halifax is in danger of becoming known for its red-brick buildings no higher than seven storeys.
Members of the public are expected to be given another chance this week to express their opinions about what the downtown should look like. There will be a public presentation on the downtown plan at 6 p.m. Wednesday in the World Trade and Convention Centre. That is when the HRM by Design task force’s "preferred scenario" will be presented for the first time.
City staff have indicated to me that they support "modern architecture" but for the most part, they back the height restriction proposed for the bulk of Area 2. Area 2 runs from Brunswick Street to the waterfront and George Street to Spring Garden Road and will be designated a heritage conservation district.
That means the bulk of the area will be subject to the low-rise development restrictions with the exception of two newly designated high-rise sites, owned by the province and the Waterfront Development Corp. Buildings of up to 16 storeys would be allowed on those sites.
While there are no current rules about the type of materials used for construction in the downtown, the feeling is that low-rise will mean that developers will be forced to use less expensive designs and materials.
The rules are being established to protect what remains of the heritage properties in the downtown. The assumption is that buildings higher than seven storeys will put pressure on what remains of heritage structures.
HRM by Design’s recommendations, which are supposed to be influenced by feedback from various public presentations, are expected to become policy sometime next year. City staff say the new plan for the downtown will provide as-of-right rules for developers, which will support their economic needs.
But developers I have spoken with suggest the proposed height restrictions are out of touch with the modern reality of building in the downtown core. Downtown real estate is expensive, construction costs are increasing and the amenities demanded by discerning tenants are escalating, they say.
While there is support for HRM by Design making the development process easier to navigate, developers are concerned it might simply kill construction of any high-rise building without considering how the buildings look or what they do for the downtown.
In the meantime, there are financial services companies eager to locate in downtown Halifax, specifically in new buildings large enough to accommodate their whole operations.
While other parts of the plan allow for high rises to be built, such as in the Cogswell interchange area, those plans are many years from becoming reality. Area 2 developers also argue that eventually, when those high rises are built, people will choose to work and shop in that area, far removed from the traditional downtown Barrington Street business district, thus leading to the further decline of the downtown business area.
The fear is that the financial services companies, which would employ thousands of young Nova Scotians and offer them good salaries, will choose to locate in another city if they aren’t able to find the right fit for their company in Halifax. Halifax is competing with Singapore and Toronto for the financial services business, I’ve been told, mainly because development in those cities is easier.
Halifax heritage groups say the potential of losing business to another city is always thrown up as a possibility during planning discussions but they consider it fear-mongering. But, to be honest, the heritage groups also use other cities as examples to help their case.
Quebec City and Savannah, Ga., are the latest I’ve heard about, but others have pointed to the heritage preservation in Venice and Rome and other very large cities around the globe as examples for Halifax to emulate.
This is an important issue for Halifax, not only for this generation but also for generations to come. Downtown Halifax is not what it once was and it will continue to decline without an infusion of energy, which would come from a well-thought-out project located in the city centre.
( rtaylor@herald.ca)
Roger Taylor’s column appears Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.
No more short, ugly buildings downtown, please
By ROGER TAYLOR Business Columnists
I USED to believe that most Halifax residents thought the squat, red-brick buildings that have been popping up in the downtown with startling regularity were ugly and unappealing.
And I thought that kind of development is not part of that group’s vision of downtown Halifax.
But that was before I spoke recently to representatives of heritage groups and others who told me that short is in, and the ubiquitous red brick structure actually fits their vision.
This vision, or lack of it, is disconcerting, although I admit it might be partly my fault since I was going on the assumption that the mail I have been receiving — suggesting that Halifax’s fascination with low-rise, red-brick buildings was something the writers opposed — was an indicator of how most people felt.
If short and ugly is the consensus, I disagree with it, even though I now realize Halifax is in danger of becoming known for its red-brick buildings no higher than seven storeys.
Members of the public are expected to be given another chance this week to express their opinions about what the downtown should look like. There will be a public presentation on the downtown plan at 6 p.m. Wednesday in the World Trade and Convention Centre. That is when the HRM by Design task force’s "preferred scenario" will be presented for the first time.
City staff have indicated to me that they support "modern architecture" but for the most part, they back the height restriction proposed for the bulk of Area 2. Area 2 runs from Brunswick Street to the waterfront and George Street to Spring Garden Road and will be designated a heritage conservation district.
That means the bulk of the area will be subject to the low-rise development restrictions with the exception of two newly designated high-rise sites, owned by the province and the Waterfront Development Corp. Buildings of up to 16 storeys would be allowed on those sites.
While there are no current rules about the type of materials used for construction in the downtown, the feeling is that low-rise will mean that developers will be forced to use less expensive designs and materials.
The rules are being established to protect what remains of the heritage properties in the downtown. The assumption is that buildings higher than seven storeys will put pressure on what remains of heritage structures.
HRM by Design’s recommendations, which are supposed to be influenced by feedback from various public presentations, are expected to become policy sometime next year. City staff say the new plan for the downtown will provide as-of-right rules for developers, which will support their economic needs.
But developers I have spoken with suggest the proposed height restrictions are out of touch with the modern reality of building in the downtown core. Downtown real estate is expensive, construction costs are increasing and the amenities demanded by discerning tenants are escalating, they say.
While there is support for HRM by Design making the development process easier to navigate, developers are concerned it might simply kill construction of any high-rise building without considering how the buildings look or what they do for the downtown.
In the meantime, there are financial services companies eager to locate in downtown Halifax, specifically in new buildings large enough to accommodate their whole operations.
While other parts of the plan allow for high rises to be built, such as in the Cogswell interchange area, those plans are many years from becoming reality. Area 2 developers also argue that eventually, when those high rises are built, people will choose to work and shop in that area, far removed from the traditional downtown Barrington Street business district, thus leading to the further decline of the downtown business area.
The fear is that the financial services companies, which would employ thousands of young Nova Scotians and offer them good salaries, will choose to locate in another city if they aren’t able to find the right fit for their company in Halifax. Halifax is competing with Singapore and Toronto for the financial services business, I’ve been told, mainly because development in those cities is easier.
Halifax heritage groups say the potential of losing business to another city is always thrown up as a possibility during planning discussions but they consider it fear-mongering. But, to be honest, the heritage groups also use other cities as examples to help their case.
Quebec City and Savannah, Ga., are the latest I’ve heard about, but others have pointed to the heritage preservation in Venice and Rome and other very large cities around the globe as examples for Halifax to emulate.
This is an important issue for Halifax, not only for this generation but also for generations to come. Downtown Halifax is not what it once was and it will continue to decline without an infusion of energy, which would come from a well-thought-out project located in the city centre.
( rtaylor@herald.ca)
Roger Taylor’s column appears Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.