[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Barrington south

hey SDM, how exactly does the cogswell proposal violate HRM by design?

Its an area suggested by HRM by Design for maximum height buildings, i believe around 25 stories.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by sdm

Its an area suggested by HRM by Design for maximum height buildings, i believe around 25 stories.

Yeah, thats what I was thinking... the convention centre proposal is too short for cogswell lands.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Barrington south

worldlyhaligonian...they already had renderings for the herald lands all set to go before a request for convention center proposals was made. If the original mix-use development had proceeded they would have already been in the approval process stage...so in other words...this convention center is going to take much longer to complete and therefore your Ugly lots will be around that much longer. So i guess you are the one that is "out of your mind" because YOU are the one who wants these Lot's around for a longer amount of time...ohhh and the original proposal had a couple of towers to so that segment of your argument is void...also if your looking for a perfect opportunity to develop the interchange as a whole....THIS IS IT

But the fact that this is a WTCC proposal for the Herald site means that it will be more easily passed. I would put money on the fact that these old renderings of towers you speak of would be shot down by both council and HT (ie mid-town proposal). They will be more people in support of a quasi-public use instead of a proposal directly from a developer. Think about it... this will have the official backing of all levels of government.

THIS ISN'T IT...

I'm not out of my mind at all... this is the worst idea for the interchange aside from a stadium. Think about what you are saying. The financing for the infrastructure changes would be massive. I would much rather see public money go towards the library and other more important issues in the short term. I don't believe for a second that a private developer would be able to demolish even a small part of Cogswell, change the street layout and then build with any sort of reasonable timeframe or cost. That is why its being rejected. From what I remember, Hardiman stated a 2012 finish date. LOL, they would have to break ground today.

Cogswell should be for high quality, tall towers in the future... to define a modern CBD over the next 20 years.

Why are you against the Herald site? Don't you own a pub that is closer to the Herald site than Cogswell? I think you fail to grasp how big Cogswell is. Would you prefer low density, low height in the only downtown area where tall buildings will be allowed? Now that doesn't make much sense now does it.

[pnightingale]

The Cogswell Interchange was on Kelley's list of "shovel ready" projects that they asked for funding for. Not that "shovel ready" really means anything, but the city seems to be serious about tearing it down. Didn't they do a study on it a while back and determine that it would be more costly to do the required preventative maintenance on it than it would to just tear it down?

I'd love to see the interchange gone, but I don't know if it will happen until there is some plan for using the land. I think the convention centre would have been an excellent place to start.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by pnightingale

The Cogswell Interchange was on Kelley's list of "shovel ready" projects that they asked for funding for. Not that "shovel ready" really means anything, but the city seems to be serious about tearing it down. Didn't they do a study on it a while back and determine that it would be more costly to do the required preventative maintenance on it than it would to just tear it down?

I'd love to see the interchange gone, but I don't know if it will happen until there is some plan for using the land. I think the convention centre would have been an excellent place to start.

No, the plan has been 8-10 years for its removal. I want to see the interchange gone too, however I want to see landmark developments replace it. I doubt the convention centre proposal has appropriate height.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would prefer skyscrapers there. I thought this was a forum about skyscrapers.

[Jonovision]

If the convention centre was put on the Cogswell lands, why couldn't it have high quality tall buildings incorporated into it? There are some very interesting high quality convention centres going up all over the world. I don't see why we can't have one, and why we couldn't have tall buildings as part of it. Yes, they need lots of column-less space, but I'm sure todays architects and engineers can come up with something.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

If the convention centre was put on the Cogswell lands, why couldn't it have high quality tall buildings incorporated into it? There are some very interesting high quality convention centres going up all over the world. I don't see why we can't have one, and why we couldn't have tall buildings as part of it. Yes, they need lots of column-less space, but I'm sure todays architects and engineers can come up with something.

Yeah, you are totally right. However, I'll bet you that the proposal we are discussing won't be 20-25 stories and will have a huge footprint. A monolith replacing a monolith. I guess the jury is out until we see a rendering.

I'm not against it if it is tall and whatnot, I just really doubt that is what they will be going for. The Herald lands are quite elongated and would suit a big convention style space. It would be huge for all of the exisiting business in that area (hotel, bar, and restaurant) that really need it.

Lastly, I would love to see a 13 and a 17 story tower on the Herald lands mainly because I doubt it would be passed unless pitched as a convention centre.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I think you guys are out of your mind if you would rather have the herald lots look like they do right now.

I don't want the Herald lands to stay as is, but that is no reason to approve a poor development. This convention centre will be there for a long time and is going to be a very large footprint building. If it turns out poorly it's a tough mistake to recover from. Parking lots can always be turned into something better. I would much rather wait five years and let downtown idle than see poor projects destroy any chance of a proper recovery.

The biggest problem I have with the Herald site is it will require the consolidation of two blocks. That is definetly going against the spirit of HRMbyDesign and most urban design thinking. I'm almost positive block consolidation would also be against the actual design guidelines of HRMbyDesign. As SDM has pointed out the height limit HRMbyDesign is proposing for these blocks is around 9 stories and various reports have put the towers above that height - in the 12 to 15 storey range. It wouldn't shock me if HRMbyDesign's final recommendations are changed to reflect this development. There are also restrictions on heights within a certain radius of the Citadel (within four blocks I believe) that may also be an issue regardless of what HRMbyDesign decides. Citadel viewplane and associated height restrictions will still be in place after HRMbyDesign is approved - changing these is not even on the political agenda or part of the design study.

The height limits for Cogswell are just that - height limits. This building does not contradict HRMbyDesign because it is too short. We have a chance to demolish the interchange and put a potentially good development in its place - why are we passing that up for a questionable location? I have two thoughts, speculation but I think they are plausible.

1) Kelly and Rodney are not urban planners or designers and fail to see the limitations and downsides to the Herald site. Also since neither have been active participants in the HRMbyDesign process they don't understand that the design study is proposing a framework for how Cogswell should be redeveloped, not a set in stone masterplan. Since the convention centre doesn't quite match HRMbyDesign's drawings and maps for the area our fearless leaders feel it is contradictary to the urban design study. Since the Argyle site has no 'plan' or renderings from HRMbyDesign it's harder to see that it contradicts the principles of the study.

2) Argyle is easier. You don't have to tear down the interchange, which is something that City Hall seems very reluctant to do for a myriad of reasons which I don't really understand. Argyle can also get done quicker. I have a funny feeling Rodney's continued unpopularity is pushing him to do something fast to show he loves Halifax. Unfortunately he doesn't really understand it takes more than big towers and flashy projects to make a city work.

I'm glad to hear it is not going to be a straight up blank walled, huge footprint, flat out convention centre and office tower combo. That would be a bad thing for an area that has a lot of potential, especially along Argyle for some neat retail, mixed use and entertainment. Given the nature of the proposal I'm still skeptical this project can turn out well, but it might be less of a disaster than I originally thought.

And again - why is there NO public process what so ever for what will likely be the most significant project to happend downtown in a decade?

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Lastly, I would love to see a 13 and a 17 story tower on the Herald lands mainly because I doubt it would be passed unless pitched as a convention centre.

That may be true from council's perspective, however, I think discussing that kind of height on these properties is playing with fire, given the Midtown ruling. The Heritage Trust is quite litigious but rarely wins a case. Since they won a ruling in that location, with similar heights I would be shocked if they didn't pursue the case.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

I don't want the Herald lands to stay as is, but that is no reason to approve a poor development. This convention centre will be there for a long time and is going to be a very large footprint building. If it turns out poorly it's a tough mistake to recover from. Parking lots can always be turned into something better. I would much rather wait five years and let downtown idle than see poor projects destroy any chance of a proper recovery.

The biggest problem I have with the Herald site is it will require the consolidation of two blocks. That is definetly going against the spirit of HRMbyDesign and most urban design thinking. I'm almost positive block consolidation would also be against the actual design guidelines of HRMbyDesign. As SDM has pointed out the height limit HRMbyDesign is proposing for these blocks is around 9 stories and various reports have put the towers above that height - in the 12 to 15 storey range. It wouldn't shock me if HRMbyDesign's final recommendations are changed to reflect this development. There are also restrictions on heights within a certain radius of the Citadel (within four blocks I believe) that may also be an issue regardless of what HRMbyDesign decides. Citadel viewplane and associated height restrictions will still be in place after HRMbyDesign is approved - changing these is not even on the political agenda or part of the design study.

The height limits for Cogswell are just that - height limits. This building does not contradict HRMbyDesign because it is too short. We have a chance to demolish the interchange and put a potentially good development in its place - why are we passing that up for a questionable location? I have two thoughts, speculation but I think they are plausible.

1) Kelly and Rodney are not urban planners or designers and fail to see the limitations and downsides to the Herald site. Also since neither have been active participants in the HRMbyDesign process they don't understand that the design study is proposing a framework for how Cogswell should be redeveloped, not a set in stone masterplan. Since the convention centre doesn't quite match HRMbyDesign's drawings and maps for the area our fearless leaders feel it is contradictary to the urban design study. Since the Argyle site has no 'plan' or renderings from HRMbyDesign it's harder to see that it contradicts the principles of the study.

2) Argyle is easier. You don't have to tear down the interchange, which is something that City Hall seems very reluctant to do for a myriad of reasons which I don't really understand. Argyle can also get done quicker. I have a funny feeling Rodney's continued unpopularity is pushing him to do something fast to show he loves Halifax. Unfortunately he doesn't really understand it takes more than big towers and flashy projects to make a city work.

I'm glad to hear it is not going to be a straight up blank walled, huge footprint, flat out convention centre and office tower combo. That would be a bad thing for an area that has a lot of potential, especially along Argyle for some neat retail, mixed use and entertainment. Given the nature of the proposal I'm still skeptical this project can turn out well, but it might be less of a disaster than I originally thought.

And again - why is there NO public process what so ever for what will likely be the most significant project to happend downtown in a decade?

This will definitely not be the most significant project to happen downtown in a decade... International Place, UG, or even Trinity are more important and already approved.

The public process IS the problem with development in Halifax. Groups like the Heritage Trust have stalled EVERY major development in the city. Sometimes too much democracy goes too far. For example, council was receiving anti-development e-mails after input deadlines and practically had a whole meeting on that subject of what they should do with these invalid suggestions alone. The HT has had a smear campaign against almost every development I can think of. Developers get screwed financially, but the other groups don't feel as though they have to play by the rules and have alot less at stake. For once, I wish that we could have some development HAPPEN downtown.

HRM by Design is bullshit anyway and won't act as a bandaid solution. Kelly and Rodney aren't urban planners or even leaders, but where have the urban planners of Halifax ever got us? Especially when council never understands what staff planners are talking about. Ultimately urban planning is subjective. Some individuals in Halifax would hate New York, Montreal, etc. I love those cities and I hate to say it, but they are much more vibrant than Halifax for reasons directly related to their levels of development. I find it hard to be proud of Halifax when it isn't giving me anything to be proud of.

Kelly and Rodney are not leaders in any sense of the word, but I think that in this case action is required to allow for this development. And yes, Argyle is easier, and I'm not worried about the blocks being consolidated. I haven't seen the renderings yet, but my opinion could change.

"Unfortunately he doesn't really understand it takes more than big towers and flashy projects to make a city work."

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life. We're talking about downtown development here. What do you want? Cambridge Suites? Nice towers and flashy projects have seemingly improved every city in the world I have visited.

[someone123]

I personally believe this is happening for all the wrong reasons, primarily because the Argyle site is simply easier, as mentioned. The block consolidation alone should raise major red flags with people and the fact that they don't say much to address that issue is very telling. If the development fails on that front then it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to imagine that it would have a relatively poor street presence in general, although I guess I'll reserve my judgement on that front. Still, if that's the case, it would be a real shame.

The only big mitigating factor I see here are the two towers on top. Those definitely are much better than just having a convention centre, but they will also be the most controversial part of this proposal.

Sadly, I also believe that without the impetus of a major public project it will take forever to get rid of the interchange. The city is not proactive with anything. If they need to land for a convention centre they will slowly get it done. If they don't, they won't. They're mostly lazy suburban career politicians and they don't take risks for the betterment of the city.

Do higher level politicians ever actually listen to experts in the areas of planning and urban design? Principles like those in HRM by Design seem to go out the window whenever they require any kind of sacrifice whatsoever.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by hfx_chris

How does that conflict with HRM by Design?

Originally Posted by Barrington south

How does the Cogswell street area conflict with HRM by design?

That's what I meant when I asked that question. I know the Herald site is limited to 6 stories.

[Keith P.]

I suspect this was mostly a politician-driven decision. I say that because my source was a staffer who was blindsided by this announcement. I suspect that the availability of federal money in the budget lit a fire under Rodney and the mayor and they short-circuited the staff process to pick this because it was quicker and seemed less complicated than the Cogswell site. Planners, the public, and other interest groups were obviously not consulted.

I'm not heartbroken because Ramia's original plans for the site didn't seem to have a whole lot behind them. I do question why the public sector is sponsoring the construction of office towers, and one hopes that the quality of design is several steps above the usual low-bid government building.

There has been no discussion as to the fate of the current WTCC. While the quick answer would be that the site could be used for a new Metro Center, I don't see how the two could coexist during the arena construction phase.

[hfx_chris]

The old WTCC would make for some nice office space. The old MC could be demolished, and make way for... more lowrise buildings. Hmm..

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

I don't want the Herald lands to stay as is, but that is no reason to approve a poor development. This convention centre will be there for a long time and is going to be a very large footprint building. If it turns out poorly it's a tough mistake to recover from. Parking lots can always be turned into something better. I would much rather wait five years and let downtown idle than see poor projects destroy any chance of a proper recovery.

The biggest problem I have with the Herald site is it will require the consolidation of two blocks. That is definetly going against the spirit of HRMbyDesign and most urban design thinking. I'm almost positive block consolidation would also be against the actual design guidelines of HRMbyDesign. As SDM has pointed out the height limit HRMbyDesign is proposing for these blocks is around 9 stories and various reports have put the towers above that height - in the 12 to 15 storey range. It wouldn't shock me if HRMbyDesign's final recommendations are changed to reflect this development. There are also restrictions on heights within a certain radius of the Citadel (within four blocks I believe) that may also be an issue regardless of what HRMbyDesign decides. Citadel viewplane and associated height restrictions will still be in place after HRMbyDesign is approved - changing these is not even on the political agenda or part of the design study.

The height limits for Cogswell are just that - height limits. This building does not contradict HRMbyDesign because it is too short. We have a chance to demolish the interchange and put a potentially good development in its place - why are we passing that up for a questionable location? I have two thoughts, speculation but I think they are plausible.

1) Kelly and Rodney are not urban planners or designers and fail to see the limitations and downsides to the Herald site. Also since neither have been active participants in the HRMbyDesign process they don't understand that the design study is proposing a framework for how Cogswell should be redeveloped, not a set in stone masterplan. Since the convention centre doesn't quite match HRMbyDesign's drawings and maps for the area our fearless leaders feel it is contradictary to the urban design study. Since the Argyle site has no 'plan' or renderings from HRMbyDesign it's harder to see that it contradicts the principles of the study.

2) Argyle is easier. You don't have to tear down the interchange, which is something that City Hall seems very reluctant to do for a myriad of reasons which I don't really understand. Argyle can also get done quicker. I have a funny feeling Rodney's continued unpopularity is pushing him to do something fast to show he loves Halifax. Unfortunately he doesn't really understand it takes more than big towers and flashy projects to make a city work.

I'm glad to hear it is not going to be a straight up blank walled, huge footprint, flat out convention centre and office tower combo. That would be a bad thing for an area that has a lot of potential, especially along Argyle for some neat retail, mixed use and entertainment. Given the nature of the proposal I'm still skeptical this project can turn out well, but it might be less of a disaster than I originally thought.

And again - why is there NO public process what so ever for what will likely be the most significant project to happend downtown in a decade?

Very well said. If there is a poor streetscape it'll be a real lost opportunity to really advance Argyle and build on what's already there. Wiping out Grafton Street would be a huge mistake. There is stuff happening at either end of Grafton. With something in the middle it could quickly become a great street and then we would have Barrington, Argyle and Grafton all linking up to Spring Garden. That would be a lively district, instead of just two lively streets as it is now. My other big concern is the nature of use. Unless they really incorporate a lot of other things into the place (office, hotel, residential shops etc) and design it well, the building will be either full of people or empty with little in between. Basically it'll be just like the current Metro Centre and Convention Centre except it'll take up more land. These types of buildings are important to have downtown since they sell the city and bring people in, but they should be a few blocks apart (like down at the Cogswell or Pier 21) to lessen the completely full or completely empty effect. You need daily use to sustain a neighbourhood and bring in businesses that are actual draws. Given the federal money is about to flow, the chance to tear down the Cogswell, put the Convention Centre on the water and save the Hearld Lands for something more appropriate to the area is a real missed opportunity, and one that's, sadly, not surprising given our current weak-kneed and lackluster provincial and municipal leaders.

[terrynorthend]

Argyle is a tough street to front a convention centre especially one with 3 times the capacity of the current WTCC. I was lunching at the Shoeshop today and watched cars trying to drive down that narrow strip. Access is even worse on that block than the current block in front of city hall. At least the current WTCC has Grand Parade across from it, opening up the vista a bit. It just seems to me that this new place will feel very claustrophobic from streetfront.

[reddog794]

The MC, WTCC foot print is awfully large, almost large enough to put a 20,000 arena...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Exactly what I want to happen, Metro Centre expansion and the convention centre near by on the Herald lands, a much more cost effective solution.

I know alot of you disagree with me, but I think it will be done properly. I think it would take years to even get things prepared on the Cogswell site. I'm not looking for a rushed solution, but I want people coming to a convention centre that is in the heart of downtown and near to the citadel, SGR, Metro Centre and numerous hotels and shops.

I think International Place needs to be built before we can think about Cogswell.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Exactly what I want to happen, Metro Centre expansion and the convention centre near by on the Herald lands, a much more cost effective solution.

I know alot of you disagree with me, but I think it will be done properly. I think it would take years to even get things prepared on the Cogswell site. I'm not looking for a rushed solution, but I want people coming to a convention centre that is in the heart of downtown and near to the citadel, SGR, Metro Centre and numerous hotels and shops.

I think International Place needs to be built before we can think about Cogswell.

I agree...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Also, it would be impossible for this new development to have worse street level that what is currently there... the herald building is not only empty, but has limited entrances/exits. They couldn't possibly build something that is worse than what is there. Imagine how vibrant the areas in and around citadel hill will be in the summer if there is a conference going on...