[someone123]

The NSUARB has ruled in favour of an eight-storey assisted living complex for College and Martello (formerly Tower Road).

Presumably we'll see renderings sometime soon.

[halifaxboyns]

The NSUARB has ruled in favour of an eight-storey assisted living complex for College and Martello (formerly Tower Road).

Presumably we'll see renderings sometime soon.

Good - I didn't believe the decision made was sound from a planning perspective. Is there a link to the decision?

[-Harlington-]

here is the article for it:

Church gets OK for seniors complex

By BILL POWER Business Reporter
Wed. May 5 - 4:53 AM
It appears the way has been cleared for the Anglican Church in Halifax to build an eight-storey seniors care facility in downtown Halifax.


In a decision released Tuesday, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal quashed efforts by the city to block the project, slated for the corner of Martello and College streets.


The city initially denied the church’s building permit application to construct a 150-unit complex in April 2009 because its development officer felt the project would be too residential and therefore not allowed in an institutional zone.

The church appealed the decision to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, arguing that the residential component of the project would be dedicated to the institutionalized care of its residents.

The board, in a decision released last October, sided with the church and rejected the city’s position, saying the project met the requirements of an institutional zone. It ordered the municipality to issue a permit.

The city appealed the board’s decision because it felt the board had made a reviewable error by ordering the issuance of a building permit.

Writing on behalf of the Appeal Court, Justice Joel Fichaud rejected the city’s position. He said the Utility and Review Board’s decision did not misinterpret the city’s land use bylaw and "involved no reviewable error."

( bpower@herald.ca)

[halifaxboyns]

I spent the better part of my lunch hour trying to find the appeal court decision - I found the original URB decision, but not the one from the court. I always like to read the legal stuff; it's very interesting.

[someone123]

It was actually kind of a dumb story because it all came down (the first time) to arguing over whether or not an old folks' home is an "institution" (how depressing). The second time was about a procedural error that didn't exist (way to go HRM! I love how on the other hand they complain about deficits and being overworked and on the other hand they always seem ready for a legal battle).

I personally think that HRM zoning regulations should be overhauled. There is no point to having institutional zones, for example. If the city needs public space, great, buy some land and put a park on it. Fighting over a property with houses on it where the owner wants to build an apartment building next to another apartment building is not productive. A seniors' complex is about the most innocuous thing somebody could build.

The same thing goes for a lot of zoning distinctions between residential and office or even light industrial - not necessary. Separating uses makes sense when talking about pork rendering plants or something but there are virtually none of those in HRM and, sadly, many of those sorts of places are *not* separated from residents. Tufts Cove is right next to residential, as are all kinds of port facilities and breweries.

[Dmajackson]

Just some before photos.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4588762929_96324cd2e1_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4588765709_0c842a2cdc_b.jpg

[fenwick16]

I can see the opposition to this. It would be too bad to see these houses torn down. Unfortunately, that is progress. Hopefully the new building will contain some interesting architectural features.

[Keith P.]

I wish I could pick up that garage and drop it on my property.

The two houses on Tower Road (or whatever it's called now) are very nice architecturally. I wonder if they would be candidates for relocation? Certainly they are more worth saving than the one from the Hollis/Morris development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I can see the opposition to this. It would be too bad to see these houses torn down. Unfortunately, that is progress. Hopefully the new building will contain some interesting architectural features.

Yeah, I wish that I could just take one of these houses and put it on a piece of land outside the city.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I can see the opposition to this. It would be too bad to see these houses torn down. Unfortunately, that is progress. Hopefully the new building will contain some interesting architectural features.

Yeah, I wish that I could just take one of these houses and put it on a piece of land outside the city.

Specifically the one on the corner... I'm actually happy to see the other two go.

[halifaxboyns]

I personally think that HRM zoning regulations should be overhauled. There is no point to having institutional zones, for example. A seniors' complex is about the most innocuous thing somebody could build.

The same thing goes for a lot of zoning distinctions between residential and office or even light industrial - not necessary.

I agree and disagree with you on this one. I agree that the regulations should be overhauled. If you look - I believe there currently stands 23 zoning bylaws for HRM - all the various districts. Halifax has the old peninsula and mainland Bylaws, while Dartmouth has one for the downtown and then one for overwhere else, then one for Eastern Passage/Cowbay I believe. So certainly an overhaul and consolidation would be helpful; as I suspect the rural ones match up quite well (since they would've come from the Halifax County prior to immalgimation).

As to eliminating instiutional zones and distinctions between residential and say office or light industrial - I disagree. The problem here lies in the fact many of these bylaws are old and lack definitions for things - in this case, institutional use is allowed but not defined. So I'm not surprised they had some issue with this - because they probably thought 'what the heck does this use mean?'.

The age of many of these bylaws causes problems with modern day working concepts such as mixed use - but to remove seperations between industrial and residential is probably not going to happen. But it could be done much like Calgary's I-E (Industrial - Edge) district - which typically is on the edge of older industrial areas, which buffers industrial uses from low density residential. It's typically more commercial or non-obnoxious uses that wouldn't create odur or vibrations, etc.

[JET]

I can see the opposition to this. It would be too bad to see these houses torn down. Unfortunately, that is progress. Hopefully the new building will contain some interesting architectural features.

"They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

In a truly progressive city, these houses would be maintained and cherished. They look perfect across from the Trillium. JET

[fenwick16]

"They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

In a truly progressive city, these houses would be maintained and cherished. They look perfect across from the Trillium. JET

These are just buildings they will eventually be gone one way or another. Wooden buildings don't last forever. However, If they were planning to tear them down and put up a parking lot then I would object also.

However, new architecture is not evil; it is just newer than what it is replacing. Should we live in sprawling cities just to save everything that is old? At what point do we draw a line and say what buildings should be saved and what should be replaced. Much of the old architecture in Halifax and many other larger cities are old and neglected and add nothing to a city. A good example of this - if you take the train from O'Hara airport in Chicago to downtown Chicago; you will travel past mile after mile of old run down buildings that look like ghettos.

In this case, in order to tear down these beautiful old homes, the developer should be forced to replace them with something that is even better. Replacing them with a bland featureless building should not be allowed.

[Nouvellecosse]

Yeah, I wish that I could just take one of these houses and put it on a piece of land outside the city.

Specifically the one on the corner... I'm actually happy to see the other two go.
Same. I don't consider the others to be great treasures.

[beyeas]

"They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

In a truly progressive city, these houses would be maintained and cherished. They look perfect across from the Trillium. JET

yeah I have to agree... I actually like the contrast of these older homes across from a modern tower. Makes the street more interesting to have the diversity.

[JET]

These are just buildings they will eventually be gone one way or another. Wooden buildings don't last forever. However, If they were planning to tear them down and put up a parking lot then I would object also.

However, new architecture is not evil; it is just newer than what it is replacing. Should we live in sprawling cities just to save everything that is old? At what point do we draw a line and say what buildings should be saved and what should be replaced. Much of the old architecture in Halifax and many other larger cities are old and neglected and add nothing to a city. A good example of this - if you take the train from O'Hara airport in Chicago to downtown Chicago; you will travel past mile after mile of old run down buildings that look like ghettos.

In this case, in order to tear down these beautiful old homes, the developer should be forced to replace them with something that is even better. Replacing them with a bland featureless building should not be allowed.

My point is that tearing down 'beautiful old homes' should never be an option. They are not derelict or run down; just need a little TLC, and they will last longer than most newly built buildings.

[someone123]

The age of many of these bylaws causes problems with modern day working concepts such as mixed use - but to remove seperations between industrial and residential is probably not going to happen. But it could be done much like Calgary's I-E (Industrial - Edge) district - which typically is on the edge of older industrial areas, which buffers industrial uses from low density residential. It's typically more commercial or non-obnoxious uses that wouldn't create odur or vibrations, etc.

The term "industrial" is very loaded and conjures up images that are inconsistent with what most office park businesses actually do in a city like Halifax. There are software companies in places like Burnside, for example (most of them are there because it's cheap - most workers hate it because there's nothing out there). Bayers Lake is even newer, even less industrial, and even more of a planning disaster. The same mistakes have been repeated across North America.

The institutional zoning in Halifax makes even less sense. A lot of it is based on anachronisms like keeping the full original extent of the Commons "public". The only reason why they were public originally was that they were marshland on the edge of a small town in the 1700s (originally for grazing cattle and so on).

[halifaxboyns]

The term "industrial" is very loaded and conjures up images that are inconsistent with what most office park businesses actually do in a city like Halifax. There are software companies in places like Burnside, for example (most of them are there because it's cheap - most workers hate it because there's nothing out there). Bayers Lake is even newer, even less industrial, and even more of a planning disaster. The same mistakes have been repeated across North America.

The institutional zoning in Halifax makes even less sense. A lot of it is based on anachronisms like keeping the full original extent of the Commons "public". The only reason why they were public originally was that they were marshland on the edge of a small town in the 1700s (originally for grazing cattle and so on).

One thing that I like about how the Land Use Bylaw's typically work in Alberta is that each district (zone) has a purpose statement. So each district has a set of guidelines on how it should be applied. One thing that is unique with Calgary's LUB (1P2007) is that instead of having institutional districts, it has what are called 'Special Purpose Districts' - which is the same idea, but each one is different. Here are some examples of what this style of district works:

The S-R (Special Purpose - Recreation District) has purpose statements like:
To: accommodate a range of indoor and outdoor recreation uses; provide for complementary uses located within buildings occupied by indoor and outdoor recreation uses...

Then there is the S-CI (Special Purpose - Community Institution District) which is to: provide for large scale culture, worship, education, health and treatement facilities; provide for a wide variety of building forms located throughout the city...etc.

S-CRI (Special Purpose - City and Regional Infrastructure) has statements like: to provide for - infrastructure and utility facilities; vehicle maintenance, work depots and training centres related to infrastructure development and maintenance; facilities and systems for public transit and uses operated by Federal, Provicincial and Municipal levels of government.

It's an interesting and different way of regulating these types of uses. So typically a 'seniors home' or a church would end up S-CI, whereas DND facilities or the Airport would end up S-CRI.

[someone123]

The zoning still mostly seems like pointless bureaucracy. Zoning alone does not change the actual state of a property. If a city wants a recreational district, for example, it needs to build things. Once these are built they are a de facto recreational area, just as All Saints is a de facto church site and would be a de facto residential area if replaced by an apartment. Neither of those options seems particularly terrible. Zoning often precludes perfectly acceptable buildings while never on its own directly encouraging development.

Another downside of zoning is that it often pushes development away when in many cases a better alternative would be to improve the quality of the development; having major polluters on the fringe of a city is not better than having better-regulated operations near residential areas. On balance, it is far from self-evident that zoning contributes positively to planning in modern cities.

I find in general that there is a problem with abstract planning, which is too easily driven by sentiment rather than practicality. Planning in Halifax is often dominated by bumper sticker ideas like "save our views!" rather than rational consideration of concrete ideas. Zoning often contributes to this by presenting people with straw man caricatures of possible future development.

[worldlyhaligonian]

The zoning still mostly seems like pointless bureaucracy. Zoning alone does not change the actual state of a property. If a city wants a recreational district, for example, it needs to build things. Once these are built they are a de facto recreational area, just as All Saints is a de facto church site and would be a de facto residential area if replaced by an apartment. Neither of those options seems particularly terrible. Zoning often precludes perfectly acceptable buildings while never on its own directly encouraging development.

Another downside of zoning is that it often pushes development away when in many cases a better alternative would be to improve the quality of the development; having major polluters on the fringe of a city is not better than having better-regulated operations near residential areas. On balance, it is far from self-evident that zoning contributes positively to planning in modern cities.

I find in general that there is a problem with abstract planning, which is too easily driven by sentiment rather than practicality. Planning in Halifax is often dominated by bumper sticker ideas like "save our views!" rather than rational consideration of concrete ideas. Zoning often contributes to this by presenting people with straw man caricatures of possible future development.

100% correct!

[worldlyhaligonian]

They better keep that stone wall though... they don't build them with that quality anymore... they use "cheap" looking stone. Except for on Coburg, they put in a nice new stone wall across from Dal near the tower at the corner of Oxford and Coburg.

[POLYCORP-Pete Polley]

I spent the better part of my lunch hour trying to find the appeal court decision - I found the original URB decision, but not the one from the court. I always like to read the legal stuff; it's very interesting.


Peter Polley (Spice and Jazz Condos) here... didn't know there was a thread on this project...

I have copies of both the UARB decision and the Court of Appeal ... if anyone wants copies, send me an email and I will send them to you ... pp@polycorp.ca

I have skimmed them...it's not exactly light reading... but it gives you a better feeling for what the builders and developers in this City put up with on a daily basis. Unbelievable !!!!!!! The local legal community is busting a gut at the tone of the decisions... both UARB and Court of Appeal obviously have no time for what transpired on these ... I may be jaded, but this stuff doesn't look good on anyone at HRM - from the lowest levels to the highest...

Peter Polley
POLYCORP

[JET]

My point is that tearing down 'beautiful old homes' should never be an option. They are not derelict or run down; just need a little TLC, and they will last longer than most newly built buildings.

timely article about new construction
http://realestate.msn.com/blogs/listed.aspx?feat=1753651&Gt1=35000

[fenwick16]

timely article about new construction
http://realestate.msn.com/blogs/listed.aspx?feat=1753651&Gt1=35000
That is an interesting article. However, what it indicates is shoddy construction of a 9 year old apartment tower, not that new construction is not as good as it used to be. I am sure that a lot of wooden buildings have been poorly built also.

Just make tall buildings interesting like the new Trillium Tower. If they were all as nice as the Trillium Tower then you could put a couple of hundred on the peninsula and I would be happy.

Jet, this is a skyscraper forum, so most of us like tall buildings. I for one have always been very biased in favour of tall buildings and massive bridges (Halifax could use one like the Golden Gate Bridge). However, I would also like to see Halifax get a subway, stadium, new Metro Centre, convention centre, library, etc., etc., etc. For me, every time an interesting building is proposed in the HRM it is a great day.

[JET]

That is an interesting article. However, what it indicates is shoddy construction of a 9 year old apartment tower, not that new construction is not as good as it used to be. I am sure that a lot of wooden buildings have been poorly built also.

We need more of these in Halifax. :skyscraper: :skyscraper:

Just make tall buildings interesting like the new Trillium Tower. If they were all as nice as the Trillium Tower then you could put a couple of hundred on the peninsula and I would be happy.

Jet, this is a skyscraper forum, so most of us like tall buildings. I for one have always been very biased in favour of tall buildings and massive bridges (Halifax could use one like the Golden Gate Bridge). However, I would also like to see Halifax get a subway, stadium, new Metro Centre, convention centre, library, etc., etc., etc. For me, every time an interesting building is proposed in the HRM it is a great day.

Poorly built wood buildings have a tendency to fall apart. If a house has been around for 100 years, it has a good chance of being around for a couple hundred more. I too like tall buildings. The triliium will be excellent, as will the spire at kings Wharf (my neighborhood). What they are proposing for All Saints is neither tall or interesting, it's a box. What they propose to demolish is solid, interesting, and a nice complement to places like the trillium. People who like tall buildings can also decry what is lost. A good discussion forum should welcome divergent views. If we all agreed, how would that be interesting? JET
ps, nice graphic

[fenwick16]

Poorly built wood buildings have a tendency to fall apart. If a house has been around for 100 years, it has a good chance of being around for a couple hundred more. I too like tall buildings. The triliium will be excellent, as will the spire at kings Wharf (my neighborhood). What they are proposing for All Saints is neither tall or interesting, it's a box. What they propose to demolish is solid, interesting, and a nice complement to places like the trillium. People who like tall buildings can also decry what is lost. A good discussion forum should welcome divergent views. If we all agreed, how would that be interesting? JET
ps, nice graphic

I took out the skyscraper graphic since I didn't want to incite anyone (it is one of the skyscraperpage ones). (You quoted me before I had a chance to remove it).

I haven't seen a rendering of the proposal - do you have a link? I will also be disappointed if it turns out to be a featureless tower. It should be worthy of replacing the architecture that it replaces.

[JET]

I took out the skyscraper graphic since I didn't want to incite anyone (it is one of the skyscraperpage ones). (You quoted me before I had a chance to remove it).

I haven't seen a rendering of the proposal - do you have a link? I will also be disappointed if it turns out to be a featureless tower. It should be worthy of replacing the architecture that it replaces.

I saw something early on, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/10/13/ns-anglican-church-seniors.html
but it wasn't a tower, just a short (8 story) box, not very interesting, I expect. Too bad you took out the graphic, I liked it. JET

[worldlyhaligonian]

Renderings?

[hfxtradesman]

Just got an update on this project. The diocesen centre and the three houses that belong to the church, will be torn down within the next month so that this project can start. I know that some of you like those old homes but I do the work in these and they have been let go on the inside for many years,and it would take alot of TLC for these to look new on the inside again.

[JustinMacD]

I have no problem with these buildings being torn down.. but a retirement home?

This should be high density residential. It would've been amazing to see another fancy building go in across from the Trilllium.

The design of this thing better be nice. That is prime real estate.

[JET]

Just got an update on this project. The diocesen centre and the three houses that belong to the church, will be torn down within the next month so that this project can start. I know that some of you like those old homes but I do the work in these and they have been let go on the inside for many years,and it would take alot of TLC for these to look new on the inside again.

It would take TLC, but they have good bones; if there is a will..
They are fine buildings. It will be a terrible loss. JET

[Dmajackson]

No demolition yet but the construction trailer is on site so keep your eyes out over the next two weeks.

[hfxtradesman]

There still clearing the buildings out and moving their office to Quinnpool, the next few days everything should be done.

[JET]

There still clearing the buildings out and moving their office to Quinnpool, the next few days everything should be done.

The houses on Tower have all the windows boarded up, demolition will no doubt be soon.:(

[Empire]

The houses on Tower have all the windows boarded up, demolition will no doubt be soon.:(
If there are no renderings yet it may be because the Shannex group plan to build a cookie-cutter box of the new Mother House that they built at Mount St. Vincent. That would be a great loss.


Cheap design & materials
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.669309,-63.648133&spn=0,0.023324&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=44.669233,-63.648231&panoid=wr0VAWTaz1AEijwybqxhsQ&cbp=12,293.76,,1,-10

[halifaxboyns]

If there are no renderings yet it may be because the Shannex group plan to build a cookie-cutter box of the new Mother House that they built at Mount St. Vincent. That would be a great loss.


Cheap design & materials
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.669309,-63.648133&spn=0,0.023324&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=44.669233,-63.648231&panoid=wr0VAWTaz1AEijwybqxhsQ&cbp=12,293.76,,1,-10

It's not so bad - i mean, face it - it could be MUCH worse!

[Empire]

It's not so bad - i mean, face it - it could be MUCH worse!


Yes indeed it could be worse. Like this mess stuck on the Convent of the Sacred Heart....

Cheap design
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.641441,-63.58283&panoid=VJz4GBzn6ihkU51vXxRNSA&cbp=12,128.92,,0,15.35&ll=44.641475,-63.582709&spn=0,0.011662&z=17

[halifaxboyns]

Yes indeed it could be worse. Like this mess stuck on the Convent of the Sacred Heart....

Cheap design
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.641441,-63.58283&panoid=VJz4GBzn6ihkU51vXxRNSA&cbp=12,128.92,,0,15.35&ll=44.641475,-63.582709&spn=0,0.011662&z=17

It may not look like it will fit in; but give it time for the colour of the bricks to wear with being there and I suspect it will fit in better. Although the roof won't work well.

[Empire]

It may not look like it will fit in; but give it time for the colour of the bricks to wear with being there and I suspect it will fit in better. Although the roof won't work well.

The brick may gain some character but the brown tin sided upper level will fade and the lower concrete block veneer (faux granite) will leach and stain. It will be then that people notice what a mistake this building is.

[halifaxboyns]

The brick may gain some character but the brown tin sided upper level will fade and the lower concrete block veneer (faux granite) will leach and stain. It will be then that people notice what a mistake this building is.

Part of the benefit of having a planning commission here in Calgary is that applications like this (since it would be considered downtown) would go through CPC for a review (if it were here in Calgary). Part of the make up of CPC is that there are 2 designers and one of the alderman has a passion for good design. I suspect if we had tried to get this through there would've been changes made.

This is where the design committee that HbD talked about becomes so much more important and I actually think it should grow to focus beyond downtown. So many urban developments could be improved by simple or even complex changes to design.

CPC here looks at apartment buildings over 60 units, all downtown applications, places of whorship over a certain size and a bunch of other things - I'd like to see the design committee do something similar. Ultimately it comes down to the Development Officer's decision though and perhaps it should be important for HRM to have people in the role who have design experience? If that's the case - nothing wrong with sending existing staff for some urban design courses to help them either.

[Empire]

Part of the benefit of having a planning commission here in Calgary is that applications like this (since it would be considered downtown) would go through CPC for a review (if it were here in Calgary). Part of the make up of CPC is that there are 2 designers and one of the alderman has a passion for good design. I suspect if we had tried to get this through there would've been changes made.

This is where the design committee that HbD talked about becomes so much more important and I actually think it should grow to focus beyond downtown. So many urban developments could be improved by simple or even complex changes to design.

CPC here looks at apartment buildings over 60 units, all downtown applications, places of whorship over a certain size and a bunch of other things - I'd like to see the design committee do something similar. Ultimately it comes down to the Development Officer's decision though and perhaps it should be important for HRM to have people in the role who have design experience? If that's the case - nothing wrong with sending existing staff for some urban design courses to help them either.

Unfortunately HbD doesn't have a mandate to comment on design.

[Keith P.]

What are you guys going on about? Those are both fine examples of Halifax architecture. Low rise (because anything higher is TOO TALL!!) and red-brick disease on the outside. Are there any other kinds of buildings possible? ;)

[Empire]

What are you guys going on about? Those are both fine examples of Halifax architecture. Low rise (because anything higher is TOO TALL!!) and red-brick disease on the outside. Are there any other kinds of buildings possible? ;)

Sorry, I forgot to mention the Prince George, Cambridge Suites and the Marriott Suites Inn as possible candidates for mediocrity disease.

[worldlyhaligonian]

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Halifax,+Nova+Scotia&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=27.611305,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&ll=44.642632,-63.569593&spn=0,0.004801&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.642052,-63.570011&panoid=pMOWUtX8lLOftel1wQaq0g&cbp=12,299.64,,0,-10.59

ugh...

[planarchy]

Some of the blame should also be given to Shaw Brick. As the nearly sole supplier of all brick, they are ridiculously expensive and often unwilling to create anything other than what they have been making for decades. Even if other brick is suggested, often all that builders can get at a reasonable price is what is shown in these google earth shots. Some competition for them would be good for them, for the province, and certainly for the character and quality of peninsular Halifax.

[eastcoastal]

Unfortunately HbD doesn't have a mandate to comment on design.

It does.... or rather, it's supposed to... was intended to?

Seriously though, HbD is supposed to set the quantitative parts of proposals (massing, setbacks, height, etc.) clearly, and the review board, composed of design professionals and some representatives of the general public, is supposed to deal with the qualitative aspects.

This has only been enacted for downtown so far, but the intent is to 1) identify sub-areas within the HbD study area that have unique and identifiable character (read: neighbourhoods), 2) and then set the guidelines for these.

Probably taking an eternity

[Empire]

It does.... or rather, it's supposed to... was intended to?

Seriously though, HbD is supposed to set the quantitative parts of proposals (massing, setbacks, height, etc.) clearly, and the review board, composed of design professionals and some representatives of the general public, is supposed to deal with the qualitative aspects.

This has only been enacted for downtown so far, but the intent is to 1) identify sub-areas within the HbD study area that have unique and identifiable character (read: neighbourhoods), 2) and then set the guidelines for these.

Probably taking an eternity

The Mother House and Sacred Heart buildings would meet all of the massing, setback & height requirements. The "design would be the same under HbD"

[worldlyhaligonian]

I really want to see renders now...

The whole area will feel much more urban with those houses gone... I always thought they were out of place.

[halifaxboyns]

The problem in looking at design is that it's always one person's taste versus another. I'm a huge fan of brickwork, so for me - the old proposal of International Place really appealed to me. That being said; I also like modern architecture - so I'm fine with the new proposal as well.

Thr brickwork examples of the addition to Sacred Heart and the motherhouse I don't see as being awful; they are just average. There are elements I'd change if I had been involved; but I wasn't, so I just accept it. Same with the homburg building on Morris/Hollis - the green I don't like; but the brick I do.

I completely agree about the comment on shaw brick. It would be worth it to find out how much it would cost to import brickwork - because if it was cheaper than what shaw cost; I'd be suggesting to developers to go that route.

[worldlyhaligonian]

The problem in looking at design is that it's always one person's taste versus another. I'm a huge fan of brickwork, so for me - the old proposal of International Place really appealed to me. That being said; I also like modern architecture - so I'm fine with the new proposal as well.

Thr brickwork examples of the addition to Sacred Heart and the motherhouse I don't see as being awful; they are just average. There are elements I'd change if I had been involved; but I wasn't, so I just accept it. Same with the homburg building on Morris/Hollis - the green I don't like; but the brick I do.

I completely agree about the comment on shaw brick. It would be worth it to find out how much it would cost to import brickwork - because if it was cheaper than what shaw cost; I'd be suggesting to developers to go that route.

I agree with you, but the problem is the little details. The Homburg design isn't terrible, but that roof ruins any merit in the brickwork. I would love to see them cover the roofing in copper and let it patina for real.

The thing that concerns me about this old folks home is that it will end up having these annoying last touch details. If they build an 8 story box with the quality of Trillium brickwork and no stupid frills or fake accents I will be more than happy.

[eastcoastal]

The Mother House and Sacred Heart buildings would meet all of the massing, setback & height requirements. The "design would be the same under HbD"

but they did not have to pass in front of a design review panel... who knows if that would have made a difference?

[halifaxboyns]

but they did not have to pass in front of a design review panel... who knows if that would have made a difference?

My experience out here in Calgary with design pannels is that usually you have a couple different designers who do projects in the city on them. So when anything they have designed comes up; they must step out and not even be in the room or contribute to the discussion (conflict of interest). So usually when you get into issues of design, you have some people who have experience and knowledge.

The problem though is that changes are voted on by majority and in the Calgary system - if Calgary Planning Commission is acting in the manner of a development officer and is the approving authority and changes are made; they can be appealed. I haven't seen it too often, but it's possible.

In HRM's system though - I would think the design committee would be a recommendation; not having any power to make changes. So it would be up to the DO to make the call as to whether to recommend changes or ignore them. I think - not sure?

[Empire]

Thr brickwork examples of the addition to Sacred Heart and the motherhouse I don't see as being awful; they are just average. There are elements I'd change if I had been involved; but I wasn't, so I just accept it. Same with the homburg building on Morris/Hollis - the green I don't like; but the brick I do.

I completely agree about the comment on shaw brick. It would be worth it to find out how much it would cost to import brickwork - because if it was cheaper than what shaw cost; I'd be suggesting to developers to go that route.

The Mother House is not brick. It is cheap precast concrete panels.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.669233,-63.648231&panoid=wr0VAWTaz1AEijwybqxhsQ&cbp=12,293.76,,1,-10&ll=44.675489,-63.640323&spn=0,0.023324&z=16

In my opinion the brick is the only feature worthwhile in the Sacred Heart addition and then the tint should have matched the main building....something like the VG with its additions. (VG now being covered in plastic) The upper and lower level of the Sacred Heart are cheap and ugly in my opinion.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=44.641441,-63.58283&panoid=VJz4GBzn6ihkU51vXxRNSA&cbp=12,128.92,,0,15.35&ll=44.644567,-63.578804&spn=0,0.011662&z=17

[eastcoastal]

My experience out here in Calgary with design pannels is that usually you have a couple different designers who do projects in the city on them. So when anything they have designed comes up; they must step out and not even be in the room or contribute to the discussion (conflict of interest). So usually when you get into issues of design, you have some people who have experience and knowledge.

The problem though is that changes are voted on by majority and in the Calgary system - if Calgary Planning Commission is acting in the manner of a development officer and is the approving authority and changes are made; they can be appealed. I haven't seen it too often, but it's possible.

In HRM's system though - I would think the design committee would be a recommendation; not having any power to make changes. So it would be up to the DO to make the call as to whether to recommend changes or ignore them. I think - not sure?

The Design Review Panel for downtown Halifax has the power to approve. Their decisions are appealable to council. The panel is supposed to be stocked with enough "design professionals" to allow people to step out in cases of potential conflict of interest. I would say that there haven't been enough proposals go before the panel yet to know if it does any good

[Dmajackson]

Anyday now;

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/4927584007_23133e0f66_z.jpg

[worldlyhaligonian]

Anyday now;

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/4927584007_23133e0f66_z.jpg

Thanks for the update D!

They should really underground those power lines on Victoria Park...

[Dmajackson]

Anglican facility to hold 150 units for seniors
By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter
Sun, Sep 12 - 4:52 AM

Construction is set to begin on a new Anglican diocesan centre and seniors facility in south-end Halifax.

The site will include an eight-storey, 150-unit seniors’ care facility and a new administrative centre for the church on the first floor. A link with a great hall and other amenities will connect the facility to All Saints Cathedral, which is on College Street.

The diocese looked at a number of options and concluded that "the cost of renovations and bringing the existing buildings up to code was excessive," Bishop Sue Moxley said in a news release Friday.

"At the end of the day, we would still have buildings that did not meet the church’s missions or needs."

The church has partnered with Shannex, a provider of seniors’ care, to build and operate the facility on the church property.

"We are very pleased that the design and look of the new facility will blend nicely with the area and the cathedral next door," Moxley said in the release.

The contents of the former diocesan centre and three other church-owned buildings have been removed and all items of value will be reused. The remaining building frames will be removed, the news release states.

Shannex spokeswoman Helen Patriquin said in an interview Friday that the multimillion-dollar project isn’t a nursing home but will provide accommodations, meals, laundry, housekeeping and other amenities and care services to its senior residents depending on their needs.

In April 2009, Halifax Regional Municipality denied the church’s building application because it felt the project was too residential for an industrial zone.

The church appealed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, which ordered the city to issue the permit. The city took its case to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which upheld the review board’s decision in May.

The details have yet to be finalized in terms of costs, but Patriquin estimates that rents could range from $4,000 to $5,000 a month depending on services required and the size of the rental suites.

The complex is expected to open in the summer of 2012.

( pbrooks@herald.ca)

[someone123]

By industrial she means institutional.

And the whole things seems absurd to me given the fact that there are presently houses on that site. Leave it to the HRM to waste its money in a futile fight against an old folks' home.

It is too bad however that those houses aren't being moved, although I guess they might be way too large.

[alps]

"We are very pleased that the design and look of the new facility will blend nicely with the area and the cathedral next door," Moxley said in the release.


Uh oh, I hope that doesn't mean it'll look anything like the building on the other side of the cathedral (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tower+rd,+ns&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=44.043469,75.849609&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Tower+Rd,+Halifax,+Nova+Scotia&ll=44.639781,-63.579619&spn=0.005901,0.009259&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.63957,-63.579841&panoid=90qclrAUVxdTb8qqIGlJ0A&cbp=12,325.93,,0,-12.62). Bland, cheap...overgrown-Disneyland-crapitecture :(

[JustinMacD]

Uh oh, I hope that doesn't mean it'll look anything like the building on the other side of the cathedral (http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tower+rd,+ns&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=44.043469,75.849609&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Tower+Rd,+Halifax,+Nova+Scotia&ll=44.639781,-63.579619&spn=0.005901,0.009259&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=44.63957,-63.579841&panoid=90qclrAUVxdTb8qqIGlJ0A&cbp=12,325.93,,0,-12.62). Bland, cheap...overgrown-Disneyland-crapitecture :(

That building isn't THAT bad.

[worldlyhaligonian]

That building isn't THAT bad.

I think it will look better as it ages.

Have the houses started to be demoed yet?

[Jonovision]

I think it will look better as it ages.

Have the houses started to be demoed yet?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/jonovision/S7300903.jpg?t=1284465886

[JustinMacD]

Everything is demolished now. The whole block looks completely different.

[JET]

Everything is demolished now. The whole block looks completely different.

and we still don't know what the replacement will look like :(

[worldlyhaligonian]

and we still don't know what the replacement will look like :(

I know... I'm just scared it will have stupid faux heritage accents and low quality cladding materials.

[DigitalNinja]

Now they are demolishing the stone building behind the houses.

[spaustin]

Really sad to lose those old houses. Too much focus has been put on heritage battles Downtown and not enough attention is paid to the dwindling number of old wooden houses elsewhere on the Peninsula.

[JET]

Really sad to lose those old houses. Too much focus has been put on heritage battles Downtown and not enough attention is paid to the dwindling number of old wooden houses elsewhere on the Peninsula.

I couldn't agree more; it is terrible to lose those houses., and for what gain? It's getting hard to find houses that are 100 plus years.

[halifaxboyns]

One area that I'd like to see a blanket protection of the older homes in the residential streets between Cogswell and Cornwalls; North Park and GOttingen. That area has undergone a lot of rejuvenation over the years and is a very lovely area.

[fenwick16]

Although I can understand the concern for losing older homes, a blanket protection of older homes seems extreme - who will maintain these homes? Maybe the architecturally significant homes could receive subsidies to help maintain them but will residents be willing to pay higher taxes to do so? If not, then some of these protected homes will become derelict.

[JET]

If not, then some of these protected homes will become derelict.

Not necessarily. In the area mentioned there were a lot of very derelict buildings that were painstakingly restored. If people don't want old houses sell them to someone who wants to care for them. If we only had bylaws where upkeep is expected/required we wouldn't have situations where owners let a property decline and then put in for demolition, wait a year, and then tear it down. The lack of bylaws means that the only incentive is to let properties decline, so that someting can replace it. For example that duplex eyesore on North near Agricola.

[halifaxboyns]

I need to kick myself to not type before I have coffee, this is really becoming a problem lol.

Protection is the wrong word. Let's face it; if a home isn't registered and someone wants to gut it or tear it down - then bye bye house. I think you could do a number of things:


Encourage registration of the homes and provide tax incentives and grants to help keep the homes in good repair.
Create Bylaw rules or policy that would goven any new infill houses or additional to keep them in character in terms of design (cornaces, woodwork, etc), materials...etc.
Register the entire streetscape (it's been done on Tower Road and another which I can't think of).


Or any combination of these. I think I mentioned in the Trillium thread in terms of the NSLC in Schmidtville, that one way to try to compromise with the residents is to enact rules and policy to kept the predominantly low rise residential in that area in the same character, while allowing the Trillium block to fill out - that could be a good compromise.

One other thing that could also be an option is to identify in the various secondary planning stategies an inventory of existing and potential heritage assets (or do it as a stand alone project). Then have council accept the list and update it from time to time.

One last note about your comment JET: most cities have a bylaw about upkeep of the property in terms of keeping lawns mowed, the property clean, the building in a good state of repair. Most places call them community standards bylaws and I believe HRM actually already has one. It's just that the only way to get anything to occur is that there would have to be a complaint and there are typically resource issues with most bylaw enforcement departments Canada wide (although I don't know about HRM).

[JET]

I need to kick myself to not type before I have coffee, this is really becoming a problem lol.

Protection is the wrong word. Let's face it; if a home isn't registered and someone wants to gut it or tear it down - then bye bye house. I think you could do a number of things:


Encourage registration of the homes and provide tax incentives and grants to help keep the homes in good repair.
Create Bylaw rules or policy that would goven any new infill houses or additional to keep them in character in terms of design (cornaces, woodwork, etc), materials...etc.
Register the entire streetscape (it's been done on Tower Road and another which I can't think of).


Or any combination of these. I think I mentioned in the Trillium thread in terms of the NSLC in Schmidtville, that one way to try to compromise with the residents is to enact rules and policy to kept the predominantly low rise residential in that area in the same character, while allowing the Trillium block to fill out - that could be a good compromise.

One other thing that could also be an option is to identify in the various secondary planning stategies an inventory of existing and potential heritage assets (or do it as a stand alone project). Then have council accept the list and update it from time to time.

One last note about your comment JET: most cities have a bylaw about upkeep of the property in terms of keeping lawns mowed, the property clean, the building in a good state of repair. Most places call them community standards bylaws and I believe HRM actually already has one. It's just that the only way to get anything to occur is that there would have to be a complaint and there are typically resource issues with most bylaw enforcement departments Canada wide (although I don't know about HRM).

I agree with your comments, and i wish that HRM would go in that direction. For your item #3: Carlton and Smith St are both registered streetscapes.
Re bylaws, HRM has them, and officers to enforce them, but they are minimal, properties have to be fairly derelict. Bylaws with teeth, and incentives to maintain properties would be great.

[hfxtradesman]

Being someone that has been inside working on these places I do know that it would cost more to get these houses up to code then the actual value that the property is worth. Plus each house had two to three rental units and that would increase the price to fix them. What would you do? Invest into something that you're not going to get your money back on or build something that you will!

[JET]

Being someone that has been inside working on these places I do know that it would cost more to get these houses up to code then the actual value that the property is worth. Plus each house had two to three rental units and that would increase the price to fix them. What would you do? Invest into something that you're not going to get your money back on or build something that you will!

With all due respect, I've maintained my 100 years plus hosue for twenty years, and I have no trades background, did most of the work myself.
Restoration is often a labour of love, but doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg; it can, but doesn't have to. Most old houses are structurally sound, and most don't have to be brought up to code. Present day building methods seem to result in houses that don't last as long as they used to.
My old house is the only one on our block with the original exterior detail. Lots of work to maintain, but at least it's not covered in vinyl and devoid of any character.

[pchipman]

Where is the HT outrage at this?? Wasn't there some hoopla about the houses across the street on South park being torn down for the Trillium to go up? I haven't heard anything about the demolition of these houses which were substantially more attractive. Could it have something to do with the church being involved?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Where is the HT outrage at this?? Wasn't there some hoopla about the houses across the street on South park being torn down for the Trillium to go up? I haven't heard anything about the demolition of these houses which were substantially more attractive. Could it have something to do with the church being involved?

In short, yes.

Every single church project has faced zero or very little obstructionism.

I don't think that anybody is willing to take on the church projects because they would look pretty bad.

Its all well and good to take on "evil businesses that aren't feasible", but I don't think the heritage folks could justify taking on churches that are in financial trouble and need other revenue sources.

I wouldn't be surpised to hear something regarding that recent proposal though.

[beyeas]

In short, yes.

Every single church project has faced zero or very little obstructionism.

I don't think that anybody is willing to take on the church projects because they would look pretty bad.

Its all well and good to take on "evil businesses that aren't feasible", but I don't think the heritage folks could justify taking on churches that are in financial trouble and need other revenue sources.

I wouldn't be surpised to hear something regarding that recent proposal though.

Which proves the point that it is not about saving heritage, it is about "saving" halifax from the evil corporate greed of filthy rich developers.
(note sarcasm)

[worldlyhaligonian]

Hahaha, if only we had these fictional evil developers like that... we would already have more resdential towers if they actually had deep pockets!

[Dmajackson]

From the weekend;

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5034204475_35531d2a55_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4092/5034832010_e0fa1c6c6c_z.jpg

[worldlyhaligonian]

Excellent lot size... wish this was taller!

[Dmajackson]

From this weekend;

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/5072264440_0b2125805e_z.jpg

[Jonovision]

I still can't believe we have not seen any renderings of this project.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/jonovision/IMG_4863.jpg?t=1289531425

Quite a nice lake has formed in the new hole after this weeks rain.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/jonovision/IMG_4864.jpg?t=1289531432

[fenwick16]

That is quite an impressive church. Thanks for all your pictorial updates.

[Jonovision]

Your welcome. It seems a few of us are like minded. I look forward to everyone else's updates this weekend.

[someone123]

Hopefully they use this large site appropriately. I always worry when institutions have big chunks of land because it is frequently wasted on surface parking or landscaping etc. An 8 storey building with high lot coverage on this site would be massive.

And yes, thanks for doing the photo tour. I love getting the construction updates and I don't think I'll be back in town for a while.

[worldlyhaligonian]

wtf, this site is ridiculously large if the building is 8 stories...

[Northend Guy]

I just had a look at the building footprint vs. property size - the building footprint is about 35-37% of the property. It has a few jogs & offsets that make it appear bigger than that as well. An other interesting thing about this building is that being a nursing home/old folks home, there is a ridiculous standard for ventilation which requires huge mechanical equipment. To conceal this, the architect has shown a huge vaulted attic (think it is also intended to mimick the church). This will add about 20-25 feet of height to the building, essentially turning this into a 10-11 storey building.

I have also heard that the builder (Shannex) is touting this building as their crown jewel, so they are saying they will be sparing no expense. From what I have seen, the exterior is to be mostly masonry & stone. We will see if their resolve to spend on this one is true...

[worldlyhaligonian]

I just had a look at the building footprint vs. property size - the building footprint is about 35-37% of the property. It has a few jogs & offsets that make it appear bigger than that as well. An other interesting thing about this building is that being a nursing home/old folks home, there is a ridiculous standard for ventilation which requires huge mechanical equipment. To conceal this, the architect has shown a huge vaulted attic (think it is also intended to mimick the church). This will add about 20-25 feet of height to the building, essentially turning this into a 10-11 storey building.

I have also heard that the builder (Shannex) is touting this building as their crown jewel, so they are saying they will be sparing no expense. From what I have seen, the exterior is to be mostly masonry & stone. We will see if their resolve to spend on this one is true...

Thanks for the update.

[-Harlington-]

from the other day, nice trillium in there as well:


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5242/5192419676_8894ae340e_z.jpg

[fenwick16]

Park Victoria apartments looks like it has its new balcony railings also. Do you have anything up close of Park Vic?

[-Harlington-]

that one is probly the closest one i have but those are new glass balconies and i think theres only a few more and there done.

[Dmajackson]

The hole is slowly getting larger;

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/5200577566_a8d0b92d26_z.jpg

[Dmajackson]

Foundation edges and what may become the crane base going in;

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5290/5233254320_7fa7d4316d_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5232657343_bdc355c249_b.jpg

[someone123]

I still can't find a rendering for this online. Apparently it is going to be called "Parkland at the Gardens".

[Dmajackson]

No photo since the site isn't lighted right now but the foundation wall has been poured on the west (parking lot) side. The building is going to have a massive set back on College Street for the drop off area. The foundation is continuing right to the back door to the church so the hallway connecting the buildings will be interior and not just a simple exterior path.

[Dmajackson]

Photos from today;

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5008/5286619086_349298a4a7_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5168/5286012655_02987e327c_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5286017577_12037f3ee3_z.jpg

[someone123]

Still no renderings for this one? Nothing up at the site?

[-Harlington-]

The NSUARB has ruled in favour of an eight-storey assisted living complex for College and Martello (formerly Tower Road).

Presumably we'll see renderings sometime soon.


funny, this was the first post and still nothing that i know of, if they hide the renders they are doing a good job at it....

[macgregor]

Not proud of these ones but will have to take credit. Photos by me.
http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af65/macgregor10/IMG_0139.jpg

http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af65/macgregor10/IMG_0140.jpg