General Updates and News

[Querce]

Yeah, that's why I'm more worried about allowing duplexes and triplexes in residential zones than having another very tall building go up (both in terms of environmental impact and in terms of housing availability)

[Keith P.]

The article doesn't really apply to HRM, as it decries skyscrapers in favor of 10-storey buildings instead. Here, a 10-storey building is considered a skyscraper and is felt to be "TOO TALL!!!" by many.

[Citizen_Bane]

The article is an interesting opinion piece which illustrates once again that you can find an 'expert' to say pretty much anything. The article mentions one city with more than 500 tall buildings in the works. Imagine instead the future occupants of these building living in single family homes with yards and garages and driveways all built over farmland. And there's probably not a building style on the planet that couldn't be improved. Big percentages and scary adjectives is what it takes to be published in today's media.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The article doesn't really apply to HRM, as it decries skyscrapers in favor of 10-storey buildings instead. Here, a 10-storey building is considered a skyscraper and is felt to be "TOO TALL!!!" by many.

Yeah, they actually present 10-12 storeys as an alternative to "tall" buildings in that article.

Their argument is that tall buildings cost more to build per square foot of space. This is true both for money and environmental impact. However they also concede that this doesn't account for the transportation costs inherent to spreading development out over more land. Nor does it take the land costs into consideration. I'd also say considerations like the longevity of the building matter a lot; is the embodied energy cost amortized over 30 years? 100 years? A lot of the cheaper construction methods don't last as long, and the longevity of the building matters when you are talking about the trade-off with transportation costs that you are paying every single day.

They don't mention different construction technologies either. It has become possible to build taller and taller with engineered wood, which has a lower carbon footprint than steel and concrete. The environmental costs are particular to the technologies used at the time, not height per se. Even a factor like elevator cost may change in the future (e.g. imagine if we start to use drone deliveries more).

Overall the article just presents a small part of the puzzle and I'd imagine it's something most construction enthusiasts already knew about.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Demolition permits were issued in May for this project. As of this week all of the buildings are still standing. Any actual updates I'll post in the project's thread.

I hope this is happening. This was one of the more interesting projects in the area.

[Dmajackson]

^There is interior demolition going on in the corner unit at least so there's signs of life. The renderings are five years old though so I guess we'll see if they are still accurate.

[Jonovision]

I saw on instagram that 5220 Blowers is coming down. That is the building that housed the offices for the Nova Centre Construction.

[teddifax]

Atlantica Hotel picture after nenovations is in this article. http://canadianlodgingnews.com/openi...lantic-bubble/

[someone123]

The rendering:

[someone123]

South and Harvey development behind Stairs House going through the development process: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...-end-1.5644983

Some good density for the area.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

I saw on instagram that 5220 Blowers is coming down. That is the building that housed the offices for the Nova Centre Construction.

Saw a video of it coming down on Reddit. Any word on what goes in there? It would be really unfortunate to have one end of Argyle be a gravel lot for the foreseeable future.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by atbw

Saw a video of it coming down on Reddit. Any word on what goes in there? It would be really unfortunate to have one end of Argyle be a gravel lot for the foreseeable future.

That's disappointing but it's the fate I expected for that building given the years of neglect. A while ago there was a proposal for this block that incorporated a few different buildings. I'd guess that the old school buildings on Brunswick are at risk of demolition or facadectomy. Not sure if they are registered heritage buildings.

Halifax does a poor job of preserving its smaller character buildings. Eventually I guess the problem will solve itself because there won't be any left that aren't registered already...

[atbw]

Originally Posted by someone123

That's disappointing but it's the fate I expected for that building given the years of neglect. A while ago there was a proposal for this block that incorporated a few different buildings. I'd guess that the old school buildings on Brunswick are at risk of demolition or facadectomy. Not sure if they are registered heritage buildings.

Halifax does a poor job of preserving its smaller character buildings. Eventually I guess the problem will solve itself because there won't be any left that aren't registered already...

I do fear that a lot of that bock might get razed. There's some really mishmashes buildings on Blowers but that's part of its appeal. Hopefully whatever happens is infill and not a block-sized development.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by atbw

I do fear that a lot of that bock might get razed. There's some really mishmashes buildings on Blowers but that's part of its appeal. Hopefully whatever happens is infill and not a block-sized development.

It's hard to emphasize how out of step Halifax is with other similar cities in the developed world that have successful economies. I understand Detroit or Buffalo, although I think they might have a better heritage track record than Halifax. I have a hard time imagining most places that would demolish half of these buildings and then decades later continue to slowly let them waste away. In most cities, these 3 storey masonry structures would be kept in much nicer shape. Argyle could have been a great heritage streetscape fairly recently, and it's still possible, although those possibilities dwindle with each new demolition.

The notion that these buildings aren't economically viable in the sense that nobody can afford to maintain them is absurd on its face. How could a place like Paris exist in a world where Halifax couldn't conceivably maintain its modest stock of heritage buildings? There may be problems with planning and incentives, but not with a lack of overall resources in the city. Halifax could have a gleaming, perfectly-preserved downtown with investment amounting to a tiny portion of the city's $20B economy.

There's an upside to all of the construction in Halifax. The city's more flexible and vibrant than normal. But I think there is a happy medium where lots of new construction is permitted while character is maintained. For this block that means developing the empty space in the interior while restoring the heritage buildings fronting Grafton and Blowers.

I wonder if the viewplanes played some role in dooming these buildings? They are aligned with the Maritime Centre. So it is possible that the logical place for a highrise, a point tower in the middle of the block, would not be permitted. And there is a perverse incentive to demolish buildings now then ask to develop an ugly lot rather than leave the building up and tie the development to the demolition.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's hard to emphasize how out of step Halifax is with other similar cities in the developed world that have successful economies. I understand Detroit or Buffalo, although I think they might have a better heritage track record than Halifax. I have a hard time imagining most places that would demolish half of these buildings and then decades later continue to slowly let them waste away. In most cities, these 3 storey masonry structures would be kept in much nicer shape. Argyle could have been a great heritage streetscape fairly recently, and it's still possible, although those possibilities dwindle with each new demolition.

The notion that these buildings aren't economically viable in the sense that nobody can afford to maintain them is absurd on its face. How could a place like Paris exist in a world where Halifax couldn't conceivably maintain its modest stock of heritage buildings? There may be problems with planning and incentives, but not with a lack of overall resources in the city. Halifax could have a gleaming, perfectly-preserved downtown with investment amounting to a tiny portion of the city's $20B economy.

There's an upside to all of the construction in Halifax. The city's more flexible and vibrant than normal. But I think there is a happy medium where lots of new construction is permitted while character is maintained. For this block that means developing the empty space in the interior while restoring the heritage buildings fronting Grafton and Blowers.

I wonder if the viewplanes played some role in dooming these buildings? They are aligned with the Maritime Centre. So it is possible that the logical place for a highrise, a point tower in the middle of the block, would not be permitted. And there is a perverse incentive to demolish buildings now then ask to develop an ugly lot rather than leave the building up and tie the development to the demolition.

The way these demolitions happen is ghastly too — poor quality maintenance followed by no maintenance at all until it’s “beyond saving.”

As for the view planes, it only takes a couple visits to the hill to appreciate how unique it is that you can see cube harbour, bridge, and George’s island from the citadel. However I think the ramparts bylaw adds too much restriction on top of that.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by atbw

Saw a video of it coming down on Reddit. Any word on what goes in there? It would be really unfortunate to have one end of Argyle be a gravel lot for the foreseeable future.

I read somewhere online (maybe AllNS, but can't remember) that the developer has no specific plans for it currently.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I read somewhere online (maybe AllNS, but can't remember) that the developer has no specific plans for it currently.

So...surface parking? Ir just a vacant lot right in the middle of downtown? Unless a building is actively dangerous, it should be illegal to tear it down without a replacement lined up.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

So...surface parking? Ir just a vacant lot right in the middle of downtown? Unless a building is actively dangerous, it should be illegal to tear it down without a replacement lined up.

Well, that seems a bit much. If a building is hazardous, or derelict enough that is has no reasonable future use and is likely to attract squatters, etc., then demolition is likely preferable. It may take some time for an adjacent property to be acquired to make a development feasible, or for resources to be freed up to allow for a development to occur. I know those who run HRM's planning dept these days would like to dictate much of what property owners and citizens can do, but property rights are not to be trifled with.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, that seems a bit much. If a building is hazardous, or derelict enough that is has no reasonable future use and is likely to attract squatters, etc., then demolition is likely preferable.

Tax assessments often provide an artificial incentive to demolish.

[IanWatson]

Surface parking isn't permitted, so I guess just a vacant lot?