[Halifax] City Centre Atlantic | 25 m | 5 fl | Completed

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I guarantee you though, that if Scotia hadn't been built, the area would have seen piecemeal improvement over the years, and would be a far more vital area today. Granville wouldn't be cut off at the north side by a tangle of concrete, which would probably be much better for its street life, and everything would be better integrated. It would be in much better shape for the downtown renaissance that we're (I hope) starting to see take shape.

I'm sure it was psychologically beneficial for the city, but most cities that built huge urban malls and highways regret it now. If Halifax had resisted those trends, we'd probably be seen as enlightened today. I'm not casting blame—we just did the thing that everyone else was doing. Classic case of jumping off a cliff because everyone else did too.

Halifax did resist it. You forget that the Interchange was built not for Scotia Square but instead for Harbour Drive, the beltway that was to connect eventually to an Arm Bridge. Harbour Drive got derailed and instead Historic Properties was built and our current waterfront evolved thereafter. Some say it is better. I am not so sure.

Only here would something like SS, which has been the cornerstone of downtown for over 40 years, be seen as a negative. It is far from perfect, but few things are.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Only here would something like SS, which has been the cornerstone of downtown for over 40 years, be seen as a negative. It is far from perfect, but few things are.

You would prefer an expressway along the harbour to a developed waterfront with, you know, buildings and people and stuff...very relic-y thinking. You're totally entitled to it, just be aware that your opinions are way out of step with virtually every working planner/urban theorist out there today. I know that the prevailing trends in urban thinking sometimes deserve resisting (see also: the thinking that have us the interchange and SS) but in this case, I think the lived experience of North American cities in the past 50 or so years bears out the idea that cities which avoided bulldozing neighbourhoods for malls and expressways are better off for it today. And the prevailing opinion here in Halifax is that the Cogswell, will come down, eventually, and probably be replaced by something more like what was destroyed--streets, shops, residences: a city.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I guarantee you though, that if Scotia hadn't been built, the area would have seen piecemeal improvement over the years, and would be a far more vital area today. Granville wouldn't be cut off at the north side by a tangle of concrete, which would probably be much better for its street life, and everything would be better integrated. It would be in much better shape for the downtown renaissance that we're (I hope) starting to see take shape.

I'm sure it was psychologically beneficial for the city, but most cities that built huge urban malls and highways regret it now. If Halifax had resisted those trends, we'd probably be seen as enlightened today. I'm not casting blame—we just did the thing that everyone else was doing. Classic case of jumping off a cliff because everyone else did too.

It's always popular to criticize actions of the past with our 20/20 hindsight, and to assume that the popular thinking of the current day is the "right way".

I think you are overlooking the fact that growth is a process. We plan, we build, we see the results of our actions, and if we're smart, we learn from it and apply it to future plans. I believe that we are now in the midst of doing just that.

To look back a little, many many big cities became car-focused starting way back in the 1930s. By the time the Harbour Drive plan came about, this was accepted practice that had been carried out in just about every medium to large city in North America. Halifax was just trying to provide infrastructure to plan for increased needs of the future (if you've ever waited in a traffic jam to get to the peninsula during rush hour you can see why they felt there was a need for this), which had been done everywhere else by then.

Had the Harbour Drive plan been carried out there would have been a loss of many historical buildings, which would have been a sad loss (IMHO). However I don't think it would be correct to suggest that the downtown would have suffered negatively from it, other than the loss of heritage buildings. The improved access to the downtown would probably have helped it grow to a different reality than the present one - better or worse, I'm not sure (though I imagine some of the more enlightened posters here could tell us). One could argue that perhaps a better plan would have to build infrastructure for mass transit, such as LRT - I wouldn't argue with that.

But to get back to the point, saying SS was a mistake is not looking at the big picture. It was a downtown-booster for the time that helped it make the step towards becoming a "modern" city. Today it is less vital than it once was, but such is fate of many buildings due to the passing of time. Take away the historical aspects (and in some cases, beauty) of most heritage buildings and you are left with buildings that don't really fit the needs of modern business. Build a brand spanking new building today and 40 years down the road it will not be as functional as what they will be building then. It's just the way it goes, buildings are built on a budget to meet the needs of the day - few developers/architects tend to think forward enough to make a building adaptable to future needs (which are not always apparent at the time anyways).

In my opinion, if you want to really look at what divided the downtown from the north end, I would contend that the public housing projects that eventually led to a neighborhood riddled with drug use and crime was more of a deterrent to people venturing beyond Cogswell than Scotia Square or the interchange ever was.

And, by the way, my Dad grew up in the part of Grafton Street that was razed for Scotia Square and if he were alive today he'd tell you that it was pretty much as Keith described it. Add 50 years to the age of the buildings that were in bad shape back then and you would likely find that they would not have been able to save the majority of them (as with the Imperial Oil building discussed in the Waterside thread).

All that being said, SS/Cogswell is as much a part of our history as City Hall or Historic Properties and deserves to be viewed in the proper perspective. FWIW, I do think we are headed in the right direction now.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It's always popular to criticize actions of the past with our 20/20 hindsight, and to assume that the popular thinking of the current day is the "right way".

I think you are overlooking the fact that growth is a process. We plan, we build, we see the results of our actions, and if we're smart, we learn from it and apply it to future plans. I believe that we are now in the midst of doing just that.

To look back a little, many many big cities became car-focused starting way back in the 1930s. By the time the Harbour Drive plan came about, this was accepted practice that had been carried out in just about every medium to large city in North America. Halifax was just trying to provide infrastructure to plan for increased needs of the future (if you've ever waited in a traffic jam to get to the peninsula during rush hour you can see why they felt there was a need for this), which had been done everywhere else by then.

Had the Harbour Drive plan been carried out there would have been a loss of many historical buildings, which would have been a sad loss (IMHO). However I don't think it would be correct to suggest that the downtown would have suffered negatively from it, other than the loss of heritage buildings. The improved access to the downtown would probably have helped it grow to a different reality than the present one - better or worse, I'm not sure (though I imagine some of the more enlightened posters here could tell us). One could argue that perhaps a better plan would have to build infrastructure for mass transit, such as LRT - I wouldn't argue with that.

But to get back to the point, saying SS was a mistake is not looking at the big picture. It was a downtown-booster for the time that helped it make the step towards becoming a "modern" city. Today it is less vital than it once was, but such is fate of many buildings due to the passing of time. Take away the historical aspects (and in some cases, beauty) of most heritage buildings and you are left with buildings that don't really fit the needs of modern business. Build a brand spanking new building today and 40 years down the road it will not be as functional as what they will be building then. It's just the way it goes, buildings are built on a budget to meet the needs of the day - few developers/architects tend to think forward enough to make a building adaptable to future needs (which are not always apparent at the time anyways).

In my opinion, if you want to really look at what divided the downtown from the north end, I would contend that the public housing projects that eventually led to a neighborhood riddled with drug use and crime was more of a deterrent to people venturing beyond Cogswell than Scotia Square or the interchange ever was.

And, by the way, my Dad grew up in the part of Grafton Street that was razed for Scotia Square and if he were alive today he'd tell you that it was pretty much as Keith described it. Add 50 years to the age of the buildings that were in bad shape back then and you would likely find that they would not have been able to save the majority of them (as with the Imperial Oil building discussed in the Waterside thread).

All that being said, SS/Cogswell is as much a part of our history as City Hall or Historic Properties and deserves to be viewed in the proper perspective. FWIW, I do think we are headed in the right direction now.

Very nicely written.

I find myself somewhat disgusted with the thought by some that because they were able to change the direction from a waterfront highway to restored warehouses, that they now know what is good for all of us in every situation, with every piece of property.

Vancouver, for example has not saved any old structures in their downtown corep; it is practically all new, and yet it is a very vibrant city.

I like our waterfront but let's face it many of the restored warehouses are vacant. Much of Historic Properties is empty stores. Many business' lost a lot of money. So we really cannot claim a great success. Something will have to evolve to make it sustainable.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

V
I find myself somewhat disgusted with the thought by some that because they were able to change the direction from a waterfront highway to restored warehouses, that they now know what is good for all of us in every situation, with every piece of property.

Sorry to disgust you, geez. (Also, I'm far too young to have had anything to do with the movement to stop the waterfront highway). And I don't feel that I know what's best for everybody, but I can say that the experience of cities which built highways through their downtowns has been less positive than cities that resisted that temptation. Here's a nice little slideshow on other cities that built downtown highways and lived to regret it.

Vancouver, for example has not saved any old structures in their downtown corep; it is practically all new, and yet it is a very vibrant city.

Seriously—have you ever been to Vancouver? Vancouver's 19th-century downtown core consists of Gastown and the DTES, which are largely intact. One is a very desirable shopping area, and the other is rundown largely due to city policies which involved concentrating poor people and social services in one place (and it's now gentrifying anyway). The downtown financial district was constructed outside of the old downtown, and the brand-new areas—Yaletown, Coal Harbour—are largely built on former shipping and industrial facilities that contained very few structures until recently. Most of the old city is still there.

Here's an aerial image of Vancouver from the 60s—the old downtown is on the right side, and is almost all intact. The new construction that we think of when we think of Vancouver is on the land on the lower left side, which in this image is occupied mostly by parking lots and small houses. The one street with substantial commercial buildings is Van's Granville Street, and most of those buildings are still there, with the new construction built around them.

I like our waterfront but let's face it many of the restored warehouses are vacant. Much of Historic Properties is empty stores. Many business' lost a lot of money. So we really cannot claim a great success. Something will have to evolve to make it sustainable.

Granville Mall and Historic Properties have tenancy problems due to the general difficulties of all businesses downtown (Barrington does too). Plus, the interchange cuts them off on one side, turning them from a pedestrian thororoughfare into the terminus of the downtown.

Lastly, it doesn't matter that anyone's dad live on such-and-such street in whenever year—neighbourhoods change, and I'm sure someone who lived in NYC's Lower East Side when this picture was taken 30 years ago could never have imagined what the area would look like today.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Lastly, it doesn't matter that anyone's dad live on such-and-such street in whenever year—neighbourhoods change, and I'm sure someone who lived in NYC's Lower East Side when this picture was taken 30 years ago could never have imagined what the area would look like today.

Whoa... chill out a little. I only mentioned that to indicate that the general lack of upkeep on the majority of this neighborhood back in the day would likely have relegated them to being torn down for financial or safety reasons over the past 40+ years. FWIW, most of them were decrepit wooden structures that were long past their prime and not the brick and stone structures you've given in your example. Apples and oranges...

Also, why haven't you mentioned the structures that were torn down in the seventies and eighties to build the Delta Barrington or TD Bank buildings? You seem to be focused on Scotia Square for some reason.

Regardless... this thread has been severely hijacked from the City Centre topic. Sorry, folks!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Whoa... chill out a little. I only mentioned that to indicate that the general lack of upkeep on the majority of this neighborhood back in the day would likely have relegated them to being torn down for financial or safety reasons over the past 40+ years. FWIW, most of them were decrepit wooden structures that were long past their prime and not the brick and stone structures you've given in your example. Apples and oranges...

Also, why haven't you mentioned the structures that were torn down in the seventies and eighties to build the Delta Barrington or TD Bank buildings? You seem to be focused on Scotia Square for some reason.

Regardless... this thread has been severely hijacked from the City Centre topic. Sorry, folks!

Yeah, let's get back on track. (But to your point—I am chilled, but was offended because ILoveHalifax said he/she was "disgusted" with people like me. Anyway, not fixated on SS—Delta Barrington sucks as well on the Barrington side. It was a shame to lose the street level at the TD building, but at least we gained something better than a mall. Last, the wood-frame buildings were no more run-down than much of the north end was a few years ago, before homeowners came in and started sprucing it up, And there were lots of masonry structures in the vicinity. Over and out on this topic.)

[JET]

Originally Posted by Nifta

There was a promo drawing I saw of scotia square the other day; an advert for when it was first constructed. For a while I thought it was an ad for the nova centre! Looked remarkably similar!

when scotia square was built, as with all the old malls, they were built without windows so that you could escape from the outside world, and not have to look upon the grey nasty world. Over the years scotia square has tried to change that by adding windows, although streetlevel on Barrington is still one of the most dismal places that I've experienced.
micmac mall still has few windows, not many, but has a couple skylights
the new Nova centre is different, it looks like there are windows connecting the outside and inside

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah, let's get back on track. (But to your point—I am chilled, but was offended because ILoveHalifax said he/she was "disgusted" with people like me. Anyway, not fixated on SS—Delta Barrington sucks as well on the Barrington side. It was a shame to lose the street level at the TD building, but at least we gained something better than a mall. Last, the wood-frame buildings were no more run-down than much of the north end was a few years ago, before homeowners came in and started sprucing it up, And there were lots of masonry structures in the vicinity. Over and out on this topic.)

Very good, sir, and for the record I don't disagree with all you're saying but was just trying to add a broader perspective on it all.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah, let's get back on track. (But to your point—I am chilled, but was offended because ILoveHalifax said he/she was "disgusted" with people like me. Anyway, not fixated on SS—Delta Barrington sucks as well on the Barrington side. It was a shame to lose the street level at the TD building, but at least we gained something better than a mall. Last, the wood-frame buildings were no more run-down than much of the north end was a few years ago, before homeowners came in and started sprucing it up, And there were lots of masonry structures in the vicinity. Over and out on this topic.)

Hey, I am so sorry if you thought I was referring to you. You were not there to fight the Harbour Drive concept. I have been to meetings where people or person(s) got up and espoused that since they fought the Harbour Drive and won their ideas are now the right approach right across the board for every new proposal that comes along.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Hey, I am so sorry if you thought I was referring to you. You were not there to fight the Harbour Drive concept. I have been to meetings where people or person(s) got up and espoused that since they fought the Harbour Drive and won their ideas are now the right approach right across the board for every new proposal that comes along.

Cool, accepted. I apologize for getting uppity. I definitely know the type you're talking about—in Toronto, many of those who fought the Spadina expressway (correctly, and thankfully, admittedly) are now elderly NIMBYs who think that because they were vindicated on that front, they're automatically correect about everything else, forever-after.

[toones]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah. I've got reservations/concerns over Nova Centre, but I think it could turn out beautifully. And at worst, I don't think it could possibly fail the urban realm as badly as Scotia has. The whole thing seems designed to engage and draw in the street, rather than present a Scotia Square-esque blank wall. At least the renderings indicate as such--renderings tend to present the rosiest possible view of things, but after the public consultations, I have some degree of faith that they're really trying with this.

I also remember when the proposal looked like this so the redesign seems pretty sweet by comparison. I can't even imagine how crap that would've been at Argyle. (Actually, I can--really crap.)

What I don't like about any of these large full block proposals is that they always seems so out of scale with the street. Typical downtown Halifax wa developed (good or bad) with many small buildings along any given block which gives Halifax a human scale that most people seem to enjoy. These large projects reinvent the block and often result in generic looking street level presence. I think thats why people like Bishops Landing so much versus Scotia Square or Maritime Center. IMO the piece meal street level approach can be very appealing when done right and doesnt' have to be just facade preservation. But despite that, anything at the Nova Centre site will be an improvement over the mess thats there now.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by toones

What I don't like about any of these large full block proposals is that they always seems so out of scale with the street. Typical downtown Halifax wa developed (good or bad) with many small buildings along any given block which gives Halifax a human scale that most people seem to enjoy. These large projects reinvent the block and often result in generic looking street level presence. I think thats why people like Bishops Landing so much versus Scotia Square or Maritime Center. IMO the piece meal street level approach can be very appealing when done right and doesnt' have to be just facade preservation. But despite that, anything at the Nova Centre site will be an improvement over the mess thats there now.

Absolutely. Check out these then-and-now lot coverage maps of Halifax. The city as it used to be is a lot more pedestrian-scaled. The "building coverage" column is especially dramatic.

This is a problem in every city in N.A.—since most new development is large-scale, a block or a half-block tower, we're no longer building streets like Barrington or Spring Garden. Just look at any of the new-construction main streets in Toronto, like Bremner Boulevard or Queens Quay. They suck.

I know that some of the more forward-thinking cities out there (NYC, Portland, OR, Boulder, CO) have been thinking of ways to address this problem, sometimes simply legislating smaller storefronts on new developments.

[someone123]

Here's a new shot of the CCA addition. The setback effect created by the shorter buildings along SGR is interesting.


Source

[OldDartmouthMark]

Was there on the weekend and I have to say that it looks quite nice in person!