HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 2:11 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I assume this pic was taken from the library?

If so, then it's a great illustration for what everybody has been suggesting - maintain the façade and other interesting parts of the building such as the entranceway, etc. (there are some cool elements inside - see this site: http://halifaxbloggers.ca/noticedinn...ites-the-dust/ ). Build low on the Citadel side to preserve that view, build high on the other side where the view is not so important.

Significant part of the building saved, view preserved, interesting and viable building is built - everybody wins.

I'll say it: why? That pic illustrates just how unremarkable and unattractive that building is. I'd much prefer the original proposal by Westwood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 2:59 PM
bluenoser's Avatar
bluenoser bluenoser is offline
hi
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 563
I like the building, and I think it looks much better from street level. Having said that, I can't really argue my opinion objectively except to say that there are very few others like it in Halifax, and it shouldn't be necessary to tear it down completely - especially when that's not even the developer's preference.

I agree with all of Mark's reasons and I would add (as has been mentioned by others before) breaking up the block from being one long building.

I might also add the cultural impact of Haligonians realizing a bit more how these unreasonable height restrictions are having major affects on the city, and what can happen when they are eased a bit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 3:24 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
If someone else wanted to do it that might be good (I've already been all over social media on this thing, so new voices might be more effective!)
Done. It might appear off to the left on the page, or that could just be my browser acting funny.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 3:35 PM
portapetey portapetey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I assume this pic was taken from the library?

If so, then it's a great illustration for what everybody has been suggesting - maintain the façade and other interesting parts of the building such as the entranceway, etc. (there are some cool elements inside - see this site: http://halifaxbloggers.ca/noticedinn...ites-the-dust/ ). Build low on the Citadel side to preserve that view, build high on the other side where the view is not so important.

Significant part of the building saved, view preserved, interesting and viable building is built - everybody


"How dare you suggest blocking the iconic and important view to and from the Nova Centre!!"

- Peggy Cameron, Friends of the Nova Centre Views

Last edited by portapetey; Apr 7, 2016 at 3:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 5:55 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
If I'm reading the downtown land-use by-law correctly, the post-bonus maximums enshrined in HRM by Design would mean that the Westin Nova Scotian, the City Hall clock tower, the spire on St. Mary's cathedral, and the Dominion Public Building would all be illegal if built today in their current locations. (Maybe the AGNS buildings the old Bank of Nova Scotia too, though I can't find online how tall those are).

And of course there's the ridiculous case of the restored NFB facade, which won't get a recreation of the 19th-century the spire because it would intrude on a modern view plane.

Our height restrictions are not about preserving the city's historical character; they're about preserving a mythical idea of the scale of historic Halifax that's not even borne out by our real history. They were born out of (reasonable) fears that cropped up in the 1960s when developers starting erecting big buildings that were threatening to wall off the harbour. But we went overboard, and in the decades since we've allowed them to become sanctified and untouchable godheads, regardless of negative unintended consequences like the Doyle situation.

I don't think they should be eliminated, but they desperately need to be revised.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 7:11 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
Done. It might appear off to the left on the page, or that could just be my browser acting funny.
Thanks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 7:12 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by portapetey View Post
"How dare you suggest blocking the iconic and important view to and from the Nova Centre!!"

- Peggy Cameron, Friends of the Nova Centre Views
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2016, 7:14 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
If I'm reading the downtown land-use by-law correctly, the post-bonus maximums enshrined in HRM by Design would mean that the Westin Nova Scotian, the City Hall clock tower, the spire on St. Mary's cathedral, and the Dominion Public Building would all be illegal if built today in their current locations. (Maybe the AGNS buildings the old Bank of Nova Scotia too, though I can't find online how tall those are).

And of course there's the ridiculous case of the restored NFB facade, which won't get a recreation of the 19th-century the spire because it would intrude on a modern view plane.

Our height restrictions are not about preserving the city's historical character; they're about preserving a mythical idea of the scale of historic Halifax that's not even borne out by our real history. They were born out of (reasonable) fears that cropped up in the 1960s when developers starting erecting big buildings that were threatening to wall off the harbour. But we went overboard, and in the decades since we've allowed them to become sanctified and untouchable godheads, regardless of negative unintended consequences like the Doyle situation.

I don't think they should be eliminated, but they desperately need to be revised.
Revised in the purest sense - torn up and rewritten from scratch. The ideas were well-meaning but perhaps a little misdirected when new, but completely inappropriate and counterproductive now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2016, 4:01 PM
Nor'easter Nor'easter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Halifax
Posts: 29
Still there as of today

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2016, 5:15 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
If I'm reading the downtown land-use by-law correctly, the post-bonus maximums enshrined in HRM by Design would mean that the Westin Nova Scotian, the City Hall clock tower, the spire on St. Mary's cathedral, and the Dominion Public Building would all be illegal if built today in their current locations. (Maybe the AGNS buildings the old Bank of Nova Scotia too, though I can't find online how tall those are).

And of course there's the ridiculous case of the restored NFB facade, which won't get a recreation of the 19th-century the spire because it would intrude on a modern view plane.

Our height restrictions are not about preserving the city's historical character; they're about preserving a mythical idea of the scale of historic Halifax that's not even borne out by our real history. They were born out of (reasonable) fears that cropped up in the 1960s when developers starting erecting big buildings that were threatening to wall off the harbour. But we went overboard, and in the decades since we've allowed them to become sanctified and untouchable godheads, regardless of negative unintended consequences like the Doyle situation.

I don't think they should be eliminated, but they desperately need to be revised.
Pretty much agree 100%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2016, 5:17 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'easter View Post
Still there as of today

I could see a big tower built off this lovely art deco as a podium.

But my dream is destroyed and corrupted by the View Planes Cult.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2016, 1:23 PM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
I could see a big tower built off this lovely art deco as a podium.

But my dream is destroyed and corrupted by the View Planes Cult.
We're trying to convince them a tower on the other side to protect their newest view. I don't think it's going too well...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2016, 2:29 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
We're trying to convince them a tower on the other side to protect their newest view. I don't think it's going too well...
Christ, not even a tower. Two extra storeys. Two little storeys that would permit salvaging both a great building and a permanent visual link between two great public assets (Citadel and Library). But that would mean laying a finger on HRM by Design, which is apparently a sacred document.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2016, 2:39 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
Christ, not even a tower. Two extra storeys. Two little storeys that would permit salvaging both a great building and a permanent visual link between two great public assets (Citadel and Library). But that would mean laying a finger on HRM by Design, which is apparently a sacred document.
You mean, this?




Because, yeah, that's really attractive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2016, 3:39 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
You mean, this?




Because, yeah, that's really attractive.
Ha. No, we're talking about leaving the Maritime Life Building as it is and building something akin to most recent Doyle Block renderings on the rest of the land, but two storeys higher to compensate for the lost square footage resulting from saving the existing building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2016, 6:25 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
We're trying to convince them a tower on the other side to protect their newest view. I don't think it's going too well...
As optimistic as I like to be in my day-to-day life, I really don't hold out much hope for this. I agree it's worth a shot, but...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2016, 3:48 AM
curnhalio's Avatar
curnhalio curnhalio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
As optimistic as I like to be in my day-to-day life, I really don't hold out much hope for this. I agree it's worth a shot, but...
As optimistic as I like to be myself, I only held out enough to post on their page. I saw a CAT up on the third floor of the building this evening. I don't know what to make of that, yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2016, 3:27 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio View Post
As optimistic as I like to be myself, I only held out enough to post on their page. I saw a CAT up on the third floor of the building this evening. I don't know what to make of that, yet.
That doesn't sound good. It's been a tough couple of years to watch what I consider to be Halifax landmarks get knocked down to be replaced by glass and steel.

Tick... tick... time is money. I don't expect this one to be standing much longer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2016, 5:37 PM
kph06's Avatar
kph06 kph06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,661
I drove by last night and a pile of rubble seems to have been built on the east side of the BMO building. I suspect this will be coming down this weekend.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2016, 5:40 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by kph06 View Post
I drove by last night and a pile of rubble seems to have been built on the east side of the BMO building. I suspect this will be coming down this weekend.
Too bad, but no surprise.

Thanks for the update.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 6:47 AM.

     

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