HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2019, 8:26 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 793
Why? That's basically their bread-and-butter and they do it all across the country. I imagine they're pretty good at that strategy now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 12:06 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,545
A slight diversion, though still relevant to the Ralston Bldg:

- I've observed that the stone cladding on the Ralston had to be secured with external steel bars some years ago, whereas the old Zellers/Discovery Centre building had its stone cladding removed before demolition, and as far as I know has never had any issues with stone cladding falling off.

- The Ralston was built in the 1950s and the Zellers was built in the 1930s.

Does anybody have any information as to the attachment method on both buildings and why the Zellers attachment method was clearly superior?

Just a little curiosity that would appease my appreciation of building methods...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 12:21 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
A slight diversion, though still relevant to the Ralston Bldg:

- I've observed that the stone cladding on the Ralston had to be secured with external steel bars some years ago, whereas the old Zellers/Discovery Centre building had its stone cladding removed before demolition, and as far as I know has never had any issues with stone cladding falling off.

- The Ralston was built in the 1950s and the Zellers was built in the 1930s.

Does anybody have any information as to the attachment method on both buildings and why the Zellers attachment method was clearly superior?

Just a little curiosity that would appease my appreciation of building methods...

Probably a result of low-bid govt construction tenders using cheaper and more corrosion-prone attachment methods. Stone cladding does not usually fall off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 12:24 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
Why? That's basically their bread-and-butter and they do it all across the country. I imagine they're pretty good at that strategy now.
Why would a private contractor/developer agree to have their hands tied when investing many millions of dollars? It is one thing to bid on a Canada Lands construction tender but to then be forced to operate what the bureaucracy has dreamed up at your own risk seems very foolhardy, especially if there are covenants in the agreement dictating ongoing use and limiting revisions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 12:50 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Why would a private contractor/developer agree to have their hands tied when investing many millions of dollars? It is one thing to bid on a Canada Lands construction tender but to then be forced to operate what the bureaucracy has dreamed up at your own risk seems very foolhardy, especially if there are covenants in the agreement dictating ongoing use and limiting revisions.
Presumably the asking price for the land factors in those restrictions. Also, I can see certain developers being happy to have a turn-key package that they know has gone through a pretty thorough process already. Some developers are cowboys who push hard and hope for big margins (at higher risk of not getting what they want), and some developers are happy to get in and get out with lower, but safer, margins.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2019, 5:27 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Probably a result of low-bid govt construction tenders using cheaper and more corrosion-prone attachment methods. Stone cladding does not usually fall off.
Precisely why I'm curious about it. I expect that some sort of steel fastening system was used on the Ralston, and somehow water was able to get behind the stone and cause the fasteners to rust. For an environment like ours, rust is normal, so I'm wondering if somehow water infiltration wasn't considered, or if it was 'cheaped-out' as you are alluding to.

Which extends my curiosity to the Zellers/Discovery building, and what was done back in the thirties that made it so much better...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2019, 5:42 AM
pblaauw pblaauw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Why would a private contractor/developer agree to have their hands tied when investing many millions of dollars? It is one thing to bid on a Canada Lands construction tender but to then be forced to operate what the bureaucracy has dreamed up at your own risk seems very foolhardy, especially if there are covenants in the agreement dictating ongoing use and limiting revisions.
WSP and Architecture49 came up with design possibilities, not Canada Lands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2019, 6:41 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,240
New conceptual renderings are available on the project site (June 6 open house materials): https://en.clc.ca/property/614

__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 11:29 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,909
Looks like the 3 original options were all tossed and we now have a 4th. The tower portion on this one is more interesting but I dunno about the rest of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 3:36 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Looks like the 3 original options were all tossed and we now have a 4th. The tower portion on this one is more interesting but I dunno about the rest of it.
It looks like what you get when you drop 50 high-level design goals into a blender. Maybe it will look more coherent when a more concrete architectural design is developed.

I am not sure why Canada Lands does this instead of just selling off the land to a developer. I guess it is a reason for them to have more staff.

The biggest land use problems in the core are all with publicly-owned sites at this point, half of which have had some kind of government-led planning process that went off the rails. Also, many of them were created by governments moving things out to the suburbs.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 5:29 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 970
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
... I am not sure why Canada Lands does this instead of just selling off the land to a developer. I guess it is a reason for them to have more staff...
Doesn't Canada Lands hire consultants to do this? I thought the development rules for this site were being done by A49 and the development rules for Oxford/Bayers Rd by FBM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 5:47 PM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
Doesn't Canada Lands hire consultants to do this? I thought the development rules for this site were being done by A49 and the development rules for Oxford/Bayers Rd by FBM.
Yes. The local office for Canada Lands is basically one person.

Quote:
I am not sure why Canada Lands does this instead of just selling off the land to a developer.
They do sell it to a developer eventually, but they go through this process first to put parameters on the project so it meets federal government responsibilities and commitments to the public. Realistically, that process probably is not so important in a downtown site with a contemporary planning regime already on it, but you can see how it would be quite important when disposing of something like a large former military site surrounded by residential areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 5:52 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson View Post
They do sell it to a developer eventually, but they go through this process first to put parameters on the project so it meets federal government responsibilities and commitments to the public. Realistically, that process probably is not so important in a downtown site with a contemporary planning regime already on it, but you can see how it would be quite important when disposing of something like a large former military site surrounded by residential areas.
Yes, I was going to say that it seems to make more sense with large parcels. This site is pretty heavily constrained and is just going to end up with a building on it. What the building is used for will depend on the market. Maybe offices if there is a tenant, but failing that residential.

It seems unlikely that they'd net more money from hiring a third party to do the planning when many developers either have lots of experience hiring similar firms or do it in house.

They would want to avoid a United Gulf type scenario where the property becomes an eyesore and the purchaser benefits from rising land prices.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 7:53 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,545
So is the end result of this, that the developer who purchases the land will have to build the agreed-upon design, or is this mostly a conceptual exercise meant to be a guide as to what is built eventually?

All in all, not a particularly inspiring design, but I guess as long as something is built there it's all good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 7:54 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
It looks like what you get when you drop 50 high-level design goals into a blender. Maybe it will look more coherent when a more concrete architectural design is developed.

I am not sure why Canada Lands does this instead of just selling off the land to a developer. I guess it is a reason for them to have more staff.

The biggest land use problems in the core are all with publicly-owned sites at this point, half of which have had some kind of government-led planning process that went off the rails. Also, many of them were created by governments moving things out to the suburbs.
I agree that for the most part this is unnecessary bureaucratic delay. While the local office may not be large, back in the home office the number of bureaucrats involved in creating a vision for every site, selecting a consulting firm, meeting with them umpteen times, going over multiple iterations of what they eventually produce etc etc before you even get close to the property disposal process is undoubtedly huge and costs a lot of money and a lot of time. As I stated upthread, I'm not sure why a developer would want to have their hands tied to this extent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2019, 10:35 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
So is the end result of this, that the developer who purchases the land will have to build the agreed-upon design, or is this mostly a conceptual exercise meant to be a guide as to what is built eventually?

All in all, not a particularly inspiring design, but I guess as long as something is built there it's all good.
This process was meant to flush out design concepts that will be built into the purchase and sale agreement created by Canada Lands when they sell it to a developer. The developer will have to go through the regular downtown approval process as well as meet the criteria of these design concepts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2019, 1:47 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,545
Thanks. That makes sense.

As a government entity, I suppose they want to make sure that they do their due diligence to prevent public backlash if land is sold to a developer who builds something that's not popular. By going through this process first, they can at least say that the public was engaged in the process.

That said, it does seem a little wasteful, but unfortunately that's government (and politics in general).
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:08 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.