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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2014, 11:17 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Even then, those 3 ugly buildings were a real drag on that part of the street.
The front of the NFB *was* a bit whacky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2014, 12:43 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 360
A Patricia Brooks piece in today's Herald confirms that developer Steve Caryi now has the permits in hand to start work on the five storey, 16 unit building, mostly studios and 3-bedroom apartments.

Brooks quotes architect David Garrett as saying, “It’s been an albatross on Barrington Street for two decades, and it’s going to be good to bring it back.”

I agree. While it's not the original structure, I think the facade is interesting and, restored, will add to the diversity of the street. I think Mr. Caryi deserve credit for his commitment to proceed with what will certainly be a complex and costly project.

The paper says work will start within weeks and should be complete in 16 months, though Caryi admits there could be lots of unknowns hiding behind that crumbling facade. This should be a very interesting project to follow. It would be great to have an insider willing to provide updates to this forum.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...te-to-get-lift

Last edited by ns_kid; Aug 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2014, 2:04 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,111
One can only hope that exploratory work reveals the facade is too far gone to save and that the developers quickly realize that a more attractive streetfront would do their project a world of good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2014, 2:15 PM
Ziobrop's Avatar
Ziobrop Ziobrop is offline
armchairitect
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Halifax
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
This should be a very interesting project to follow. It would be great to have an insider willing to provide updates to this forum.
Agreed - I emailed the architect to see if they would be interested in having me do that for them..
No word yet..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2014, 2:33 PM
mcmcclassic's Avatar
mcmcclassic mcmcclassic is offline
BUILD!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziobrop View Post
Agreed - I emailed the architect to see if they would be interested in having me do that for them..
No word yet..
Your work on the Nova Centre alone should be reason for them to "hire" you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2014, 6:28 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmcclassic View Post
Your work on the Nova Centre alone should be reason for them to "hire" you.
I second the sentiment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2014, 7:09 PM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 360
What is most interesting about the Caryi proposal (I don't think this has been commented on here but I may have overlooked it) is that it is to construct a five storey building within a four-storey facade.

That is to say, the bottom four floors will have lower ceilings than the original structure, meaning that the Barrington Street windows will not align with the interior floors. (The first floor will be retail.) Judging by the architectural drawings the effect will be most pronounced on the third floor. It appears as though apartments on the front of that floor will see less than half of the original third floor windows set into a well high on the wall. It doesn't seem like a particularly attractive prospect to me. Back units on the north side will have small windows on one side while for units on the south side the only access to natural light will be via a "light well". Only the top floor would appear to have "normal" window coverage.

I certainly hope a good HVAC system is part of the plan.

The artist's conception:



North wall cross-section:



Source: http://www.halifax.ca/municipalclerk...reetLocked.pdf

Last edited by ns_kid; Aug 14, 2014 at 8:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2014, 7:37 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,854
Not sure I would like it, but it's one of those trade-offs people frequently have to make when they want downtown apartments. In this case at least the windows are pretty large.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2014, 7:39 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,267
My objection to living facing directly onto Barrington would be street noise, but if the building is sufficiently soundproofed, I'd gladly trade off the window situation for such a cool building. Not everyone would, of course, but I don't think there should be any problem filling a relatively small building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2014, 2:28 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Are they doing anything interesting with the roof? Or is it too close to that ludicrous "view plane" that is skimming the top?

I would have thought the roof could have been one of the coolest things about this building; have a rooftop terrace to overlook Barrington and the city, with some views toward the harbour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2014, 10:59 AM
Ziobrop's Avatar
Ziobrop Ziobrop is offline
armchairitect
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Halifax
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Are they doing anything interesting with the roof? Or is it too close to that ludicrous "view plane" that is skimming the top?

I would have thought the roof could have been one of the coolest things about this building; have a rooftop terrace to overlook Barrington and the city, with some views toward the harbour.
the section posted above shows the a trellis and a railing, so id say there is a patio up there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2014, 11:40 AM
xanaxanax xanaxanax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 244
should have been allowed to be built higher
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2014, 12:57 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
What is most interesting about the Caryi proposal (I don't think this has been commented on here but I may have overlooked it) is that it is to construct a five storey building within a four-storey facade.

That is to say, the bottom four floors will have lower ceilings than the original structure, meaning that the Barrington Street windows will not align with the interior floors. (The first floor will be retail.) Judging by the architectural drawings the effect will be most pronounced on the third floor. It appears as though apartments on the front of that floor will see less than half of the original third floor windows set into a well high on the wall. It doesn't seem like a particularly attractive prospect to me. Back units on the north side will have small windows on one side while for units on the south side the only access to natural light will be via a "light well". Only the top floor would appear to have "normal" window coverage.
That accursed facade is the gift that keeps on giving. What a disaster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2014, 7:17 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanaxanax View Post
should have been allowed to be built higher
Come on, you can't block the view planes there.

It's a matter of national security.

How else would be spot the enemy, dragging cannons and cannon balls up the hill from the harbour?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2014, 7:52 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziobrop View Post
the section posted above shows the a trellis and a railing, so id say there is a patio up there.
Hope you're right.

I actually also agree with xananax, that they should have been allowed to build up several more floors, make this a more of a density development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2014, 8:36 PM
xanaxanax xanaxanax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 244
I can not wait for someone to drive a dump truck threw the forbes building is it called across the street and have something the comparable to the size of the new roy, that one has to be the ugliness building in the city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2014, 9:05 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,104
Which building is the forbes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2014, 9:59 PM
xanaxanax xanaxanax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
Which building is the forbes?
The one with the art gallery and the spot that had the backpacking clothing store, maritime summit shop?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2014, 3:55 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Hope you're right.

I actually also agree with xananax, that they should have been allowed to build up several more floors, make this a more of a density development.
I'm kinda glad they're only recreating the building as it was--just because I wonder how a taller building behind the facade could be gracefully integrated. I'm kind of excited to see a true reconstruction of a historical building that would otherwise be lost. We don't have many of those.

But one thing that is profoundly dumb is that the original tower on top of the mansard roof (as seen on the right in this pic) can't be rebuilt, because it now falls under view plane restrictions. I mean, come on--the tower was built in 1891, and in 2014 it's too tall? Quite ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2014, 4:11 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,854
It's particularly sad since the view planes are sometimes sold as a form of heritage preservation. In this case, they are preventing the reclamation of a little piece of the city's heritage.

Rebuilding the tower definitely would have made this building more impressive looking. I hope we'll one day see more and more restoration of stripped detailing like this. The former post office (AGNS) cupola is the biggest example I can think of but there are many others.

I still think this project will improve the look of the street enormously though. The empty, deteriorating facade that is there now is one of the most noticeable things along Barrington and it does not leave a great impression.
__________________
flickr
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 3:24 AM.

     

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