HRM by Design

[Smevo]

As far as Cogswell goes, though I've only read through most of Volume 1, they described the area as a future highrise district (20 or more storeys). If 20 or more storeys meant 21 and no taller, that would be absolutely ridiculous, so I have a feeling they're expecting taller than 21 on the Cogswell lands when they come up for development.

It's a crapload of material to read through.

[Keith P.]

I've read through it all and my feeling now is one of overwhelming disappointment.

I could write a treatise on all the things in it that disappoint, but my overriding thought is that it reads like a planning school exercise. It takes pains to include every feel-good item that seems to be a mandatory part of planning theory, but which in practice makes little sense.

The document basically shunts the issue of tall buildings aside by prohibiting them almost everywhere downtown. The only area that can reach the 65M limit are 2 or 3 parcels that will be created once the Cogswell interchange is demolished. They draw the restoration of the traditional street network in that area, which, as I expected, leaves precious little room for anything much to be built. But then, the whole thing seems mired in the past.

It talks at length of the need to make downtown "pedestrian-friendly". It ignores the fact that the vast majority of downtown already is, at least as much as an area built on the side of a steep hill is likely to get. The only spot that is not is the interchange. Yet they go on about the need for "sidewalk bumpouts" at corners -- something you can see on Portland St in downtown Dartmouth, where they are a hazard to traffic and look just plain stupid -- along with the need to surface crosswalks in a different material. They show in their drawings those as being brick inlays like those that were put in back in the early 80s and were ripped out a decade or so later after being torn up by snowplows and being branded as "ankle-benders" in the press. They conveniently ignore the fact that the narrow streets with buildings built out to the sidewalk leave precious little room for wide sidewalks and bike lanes.

They condemn the automobile, as apparently all planners are trained to do, and forbid virtually any parking in most of the new developments they specify. While nobody wants vast parking lots covering the downtown, their disdain for virtually any parking raises serious questions as to the viability of many of their concepts. But a great many of their proposals are questionable; they call for a 4 or 5 storey condo or apartment development to be built on the Superstore parking lot while retaining the Superstore building behind it. How the hell Loblaws would allow that is not addressed. Similarly they discuss at length the need for bicycling provisions, even to the point of mandating bicycle parking at new developments. I will continue to maintain that bicycling will never be a significant form of commuter transport in a city like this given the hills and foul weather we cope with much of the year. But there it is, straight out of the planners handbook.

Despite the cries of the likes of Phil Pacey, the document reads like it kowtows to the heritage groups. It condemns downtown to a future of low-rise brick buildings for the most part. The design manual is particularly discouraging. It specifies finishes of mostly brick, and decrys attempts to make existing old buildings look like something other than 19th century relics. The disgust in the words of the authors as they describe the building housing Freak Lunchbox must be read to be believed. While it does say that faux-Victorian structures should be discouraged, the narrow parameters they define leave everything pretty much in that genre, perhaps without the ornamentation. Lovely. While leaving many broad questions unanswered, they nevertheless found the time to go into excrutiating detail about things like paint colors and finishes in other sections. Bizarre.

They have also wrapped up Barrington St pretty much as built. Everything from Duke St to SGR is considered historic and therefore untouchable. Good luck with that. They want it to basically be a museum.

As we digest what these documents tell us, one can only be disappointed that the vision of the authors was filtered through such narrow lenses. Despite the "10 Big Moves" they talk about, there really isn't much here to get excited about, and a whole lot to be disdainful of and discouraged by. They really aren't big moves at all. They are a prettifying exercise of what we currently have to work with and not much else. If everything they describe came to reality, we would have a nicer downtown. But would it be memorable or exciting or vibrant? I seriously doubt it. Sadly, though, with the effort, expense, and hype around this exercise, it seems certain that HRM will make it law. And that, in turn, will prevent anything truly big, either in size or in concept, from happening in the downtown for a very, very long time.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I've read through it all and my feeling now is one of overwhelming disappointment.

Actually... I'm very pro-development and most of what you disagree with... I agree with! My main issue is with the ridiculous 65M limit.

Barrington is historic and SHOULD be kept more or less as-is. Restored and revived... yes... but not demolished or built up.

And the street grid should absolutely be restored at Cogswell... otherwise, what is the point of taking it down? The idea is to stitch the city back together again.

And what's wrong with having provisions for biking?

And parking lots, esp. surface parking lots, are downtown killers. Surely though there must be requirements for underground parking no? How can you put up a large building and now provide parking?

I agree that the height limits are far too restrictive. I'm very disappointed with that aspect.

I agree that brick pavers are pretty but completely insane and impractical. Have we learned nothing from those horrible pavers we put in in the 80's? Unless the "technology" has improved... they should be avoided.

I agree that the idea of the building in the Superstore parking lot is also crazy. I've been aware of that idea. When I first heard it I was thinking... what?! How is that gonna work? I can imagine Loblaws wanting to hide their building and lose half their parking lot... not to mention their new gas station. Nice idea... yes... but impractical.

The rest... I agree with.

[someone123]

I was a little put off by the level of detail in the recommendations for signage etc. for Barrington as well. The drawings remind me of bland shops found in suburban "New Urbanist" developments. They're definitely trying to recover a kind of 1950s small town feel that makes little sense on Barrington, where unusual storefronts like Freak Lunchbox and Fireworks are actually highlights on what can otherwise be a pretty dull street.

From an architectural point of view I have no problem with preserving most of the buildings and I think heritage incentives should go towards projects that do a good job of maintaining expensive Victorian ornamentation, etc. I don't even mind height restrictions on Barrington but I dislike the slant towards faux historic infill.

As I've stated before I don't mind brick buildings but the phobia of modern design really makes Halifax look like an unsophisticated, backwards place. I guess it is to some extent, but mostly I think these policies exist because of a few people with apparently a lot of free time.

I agree with the planning dogma comments as well. A lot of the recommendations come off as sacred pronouncements rather than the result of real rationale. This is, of course, because many people want to shape the city based on their own personal tastes.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Takeo

Actually... I'm very pro-development and most of what you disagree with... I agree with! My main issue is with the ridiculous 65M limit.

Barrington is historic and SHOULD be kept more or less as-is. Restored and revived... yes... but not demolished or built up.

I don't argue that SOME of it is historic. But they fail to address the problems that have led to it being in its current state. If the buildings on the street are not economically viable now, how can they be any more viable if they are prettied up and/or restored back to original? They even compliment the provincial governemnt for their use of the Johnston Bldg, for god's sake. That is a black hole on that part of Barrington. But it has been restored and preserved so that is a good thing in their minds, even though it hurts the street's activity level and is dead almost all the time. Where is the sense in that?

And the street grid should absolutely be restored at Cogswell... otherwise, what is the point of taking it down? The idea is to stitch the city back together again.

Never said it shouldn't. But did you notice the small blocks that result from their plan? And did you happen to notice that to make it happen the way they say, the Trade Mart is gone? How's that going to happen? Expropriation? That part of it is totally unrealistic.

And what's wrong with having provisions for biking?

They are seemingly mandating biking provisions more than vehicles. That's simply crazy. If you're living or woirking downtown, odds are there is going to be a car involved for a sizeable percentage of those folks. But this plan not only ignores that; it seems to indicate that vehicles won't be accomodated at all. That's ridiculous.

And parking lots, esp. surface parking lots, are downtown killers. Surely though there must be requirements for underground parking no? How can you put up a large building and now provide parking?

My point exactly. But read the document. How much do you see them discuss parking except where they say "no"?

I agree that the height limits are far too restrictive. I'm very disappointed with that aspect.

I agree that brick pavers are pretty but completely insane and impractical. Have we learned nothing from those horrible pavers we put in in the 80's? Unless the "technology" has improved... they should be avoided.

I agree that the idea of the building in the Superstore parking lot is also crazy. I've been aware of that idea. When I first heard it I was thinking... what?! How is that gonna work? I can imagine Loblaws wanting to hide their building and lose half their parking lot... not to mention their new gas station. Nice idea... yes... but impractical.

The rest... I agree with.

Give it some further consideration.

[Keith P.]

Not that it would ever be practical in Halifax, but imagine... this document, when adopted, will forever prevent something like this from even being thought of for here:



Imagine a scaled-down version of something like this, perhaps down at the waterfront. But that's all you could do with it, because this document entrenches the short, stubby, brick-clad box as Halifax's signature.

Heck, you couldn't even build the building to the right of it in the picture here in this city.

The lack of big-picture vision in the document is simply astounding.

[Takeo]

I don't think the current state of Barrington Street has anything to do with not having new developments on Barrington Street... there are a whole host of reasons.

I agree that, of course, it's horrible that the Johnston Building has ground floor offices. That's a real shame. I read on these forums that HRM by Design mandates that ground floors must have retail. I'm surprised that the document would praise the Johnston Building. The restoration is great, but the fact that is gives nothing to the street is shameful. I used to love that little gallery.

I have not seen the proposed map of the cogswell redevelopment. And re: Trade Mart... I've noticed a number of cases in the public presentations where they are showing things that are completely unrealistic... like the building in the Superstore parking lot, the disappearing Trade Mart and the transformation of the Metro Center wall into a magical pedestrian paradise.

As for bikes (or walking) vs. cars... I can't agree there. We should discourage car use downtown as much as possible. And if you live and work downtown, you wouldn't need a car that much. I live in the Hyrdostone area and I barely use my car now. I walk most places (including downtown to work) and just use my car to get groceries mostly.

Anyway, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet... and I really don't know when I will get the time (eventually... yes). I just know what I know from meetings and from the website, etc... but I'd be surprised if you could build a building downtown and not provide underground parking.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not that it would ever be practical in Halifax, but imagine... this document, when adopted, will forever prevent something like this from even being thought of for here:

Haha Well... I agree with your point but I'm not sure that's the best example. I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

[Takeo]

p.s. I'm gonna grab a print copy of the document on Monday. Good bedtime reading maybe

[someone123]

The building stock on Barrington has a huge impact on its current state for a variety of reasons. The most important are that the current buildings just can't accommodate the kinds of uses that would work best. The upper floors of many of the buildings are underutilized and can't (from what I've heard) have residential units because of fire codes. Furthermore, there's a lack of major spaces available to large new retail tenants and arguably there's not enough retail space to turn the street into a real destination.

I've also heard several times that there are major retailers wanting to move to the Spring Garden area but they can't because there are no major retail spaces. Meanwhile, the Infirmary lands are sitting idle.

Regional developments such as malls also have an impact but controlling that is much more difficult. The fact is that most people have cars and will drive out to big box stores to make many purchases.

[Takeo]

So other than making changes to allow for residential units above, what would you propose? Saving the historic building but building on / around?

Also, there are a few buildings there which are not historic (and damn ugly) which could be demolished... like the building that houses the CD store next to Venus Envy. Wow is that an ugly building.

Also, is the building that houses Tim's and the Mercury exempt from the fire codes?

Anyway... as I say... I haven't had a chance to read the document from cover to cover yet.

Originally Posted by someone123

The building stock on Barrington has a huge impact on its current state for a variety of reasons. The most important are that the current buildings just can't accommodate the kinds of uses that would work best. The upper floors of many of the buildings are underutilized and can't (from what I've heard) have residential units because of fire codes. Furthermore, there's a lack of major spaces available to large new retail tenants and arguably there's not enough retail space to turn the street into a real destination.

I've also heard several times that there are major retailers wanting to move to the Spring Garden area but they can't because there are no major retail spaces. Meanwhile, the Infirmary lands are sitting idle.

Regional developments such as malls also have an impact but controlling that is much more difficult. The fact is that most people have cars and will drive out to big box stores to make many purchases.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Takeo

So other than making changes to allow for residential units above, what would you propose? Saving the historic building but building on / around?

I suppose that is one way, though in my mind those often look bastardized and hokey. The only other way I can think of is massive public subsidies which is never a very good idea.

Also, there are a few buildings there which are not historic (and damn ugly) which could be demolished... like the building that houses the CD store next to Venus Envy. Wow is that an ugly building.

True, though the invertory of buildings in HBD is fairly kind to it, surprise surprise. Not sure what they see in it.

Also, is the building that houses Tim's and the Mercury exempt from the fire codes?

I don't think so. That is the former Canada Permanent building from the late 50s/early 60s and is a landmark building in itself as the first example of that style in Halifax. Of course, the inventory document doesn't like it very much, which is a pretty telling indication of the biases of whomever compiled the thing. I think that its later construction allowed it to be compliant when it was adapted to its present use, which is apartments.

[someone123]

I would have liked to see more height for sites such as Barrington and George. There are also a couple of buildings such as the one with the Discovery Centre at the corner of Sackville that could have a small tower built above. The CD Plus building isn't worth "saving" by any stretch. Other buildings like Carsand Mosher are just really small and could also go, although in that case I think it's under the viewplanes (also the heritage people often think that small, "quaint" buildings are the most important ones). The NFP facade is kind of silly at this point, although maybe we'll see a proposal for it soon. I wish that little stretch of brick institutional buildings could just be picked up and set down on some other more appropriate location. The base of the Maritime Centre could be overhauled.

That's a good half a dozen "opportunity sites" on what is really only a four block stretch. In most cases I think the new construction should be modern architecture with glass cladding. It would in fact detract much less from neighbouring heritage buildings than additions that mimic nearby buildings but just don't have the same level of quality and detailing.

[Keith P.]

Barrington and George is limited to, I believe, 9 floors, which does seem a bit ridiculous when you have the TD Center across the street at 20 or so floors. That site is designated for a provincial govt office building and you just know how ugly and poorly designed that is going to be. So you can pretty much write that corner off.

The Carsand Mosher building is interesting, as it is very nicely designed. It's just too short. Whether anything could be built above it in a compatible style I do not know, but it would seem doubtful. Your point about the Discovery Center building is a good one. That just looks like it could take a tower on top of it, and given the substantial way those old buildings were constructed, it may be so. I don't know what remains inside, but that was a very interesting interior originally, with a design that seemed perfect for a very impressive office building. The main floor was partially open to above, with a large staircase to the right with heavy brass and stainless hardware, with a 2nd-level balcony or gallery of sorts. In my minds eye that would make a fabulous lobby/indoor shopping area.

Between there and Carsand, there really isn't much (despite the glowing words of the author of the inventory in HBD). Would Barrington be much worse off if it lost the building housing the Med or Star Anise or whatever? I doubt it. Same with the Paramount Theater entry, or, for that matter, Sievert's, though it is a truly old building, but really not very impressive.

We discussed previously the block acrioss the street. I think that is one of the most troublesome parts of the whole street. I have never liked the Khyber building, and the NFB facade was in retrospect a waste of money in saving. The old City Club building at least has the advantage of an attractive facade, but it doesn't offer much on the way of attractive options for its use. If all 3 went away it would do wonders for the street.

[someone123]

I really like the architecture of the Khyber and City Club. The NFB building also looked impressive at one point, but the fact is that the empty shell has sat there for 15+ years. It is absolutely terrible looking. The other problem is that these buildings are just not suited to the street. If only Halifax had grown a bit more a bit earlier, they would have been torn down and replaced by some major commercial building.

These factors involved on Barrington partly explain why I have a problem with the height limits. The street needs creative solutions but I just don't think those are going to come from the private sector when all costs have to be offset by selling/leasing 3-5 floors of condos or office space. I don't think they will come from the public sector either because both the municipality and province have been totally clueless when it comes to Barrington and have harmed it more than they have helped.

Personally I think the focus should be on keeping the top buildings in the best possible condition. These are buildings like the one with Peepshow, the former Eaton's, Green Lantern Building, Tramway Building, Wright Building, the Masonic Hall and the white building next door. It is definitely not necessary to keep plain 2-3 storey brick or cinderblock boxes around to maintain the "feel" of the street with these other much more impressive buildings. If anything, some of the buildings like CD Plus detract from the overall feel.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by someone123

Personally I think the focus should be on keeping the top buildings in the best possible condition. These are buildings like the one with Peepshow, the former Eaton's, Green Lantern Building, Tramway Building, Wright Building, the Masonic Hall and the white building next door.

Eaton's? Do you mean Zellers... aka the Misty Moon... aka the Discovery Center? Where was the old Eaton's?

p.s. I remember being in the old Zellers once as a kid and being very impressed. It was a very cool interior space with the large open to below area.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Takeo

Eaton's? Do you mean Zellers... aka the Misty Moon... aka the Discovery Center? Where was the old Eaton's?

In what is now known as the Johnston Bldg. I have a very dim memory of being in there as a small child. I recall the large elevators that had operators.

p.s. I remember being in the old Zellers once as a kid and being very impressed. It was a very cool interior space with the large open to below area.

Yes, that's what I was mentioning earlier. What a cool lobby that would make.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In what is now known as the Johnston Bldg.

Cool. I had no idea that was an Eatons.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Takeo

Cool. I had no idea that was an Eatons.

I think they are all gone now, but until the renovation by the govt a few years ago there were some original brass escutcheons on the lower doors that still retained the "T. Eaton & Co." lettering.

[Wishblade]

Heres an interesting read in the most recent issue of Halifax magazine. Im glad word like this is finally making it out to the public. It's a breath of fresh air:

http://www.halifaxmag.com/features_detail.asp?id=137