[Halifax] The Vuze at South Village (Fenwick) | 106 m | 36/10/8 fl | U/C

[halifaxboyns]

While you could've done the viewplanes with the HbD work, I think it's more of a Regional Plan exercise as part of a future vision for HRM. I think DMJ's comment about consolidating 9 and 10 is fair, they effectively do the same thing. But I don't think there was enough time to do an effective analysis on the viewplanes in the time that HbD was being done.

If you are going to talk about changing them or getting rid of them - you need to really do an effective mapping of them first. Use GPS to find the coordinates of the viewpoints, then do perspectives of how the building height caps work, etc. I just don't think there would've been time with HbD to do that. With a Regional Plan - it typically takes 5 years to do it, because it's developing vision and policy for the region. That should be more than enough time...

[Nilan8888]

The south-end viewplanes (#9 and #10) are aimed past Point Pleasant Park. One look towards McNab's/Lawlor Island and the other looks towards York Redoubt Historic Site. The latter actually theoretically limits the height of buildings in part of Purcell's Cove. The best way to see these are to use ExploreHRM (look-up "ExploreHRM" on drop-down-menu on halifax.ca) and use the layers function to find viewplanes.

IMO, people don't need to see York Redoubt from the Citadel. That's just not necessary. That's overkill. Again, York Redoubt is not the draw, the draw is the views of the harbor. You're not going to get tourists either put out or much excited that you can look over there, squint, and see York Redoubt. Almost all of them are going to say at most 'oh, that's neat' and then promptly forget about that quaint line of sight 10 minutes later. It's not going to put them out to say "you used to be able to see... yada yada"

Does it make sense to see McNab's and Point Pleasant? Sure, maybe some of that, but anything beyond Fenwick -- heck, even before you get to Fenwick -- that's overkill. It's not necessary to see all of that. Seriously, tourists will get the idea. If you want to see what it looks like around Point Pleasant Park... GO TO POINT PLEASANT PARK. It's good to see some of it from the Citadel, to know it's there. Anything beyond that is unnecessary.

It's nonsensical. The main draw is the view of the city and harbor itself. Viewplanes #9 and #10 should be vastly reduced.

[FuzzyWuz]

Originally Posted by Nilan8888

IMO, people don't need to see York Redoubt from the Citadel. That's just not necessary. That's overkill.....

York Redoubt, Point Pleasant Park, the fort on Georges island and the citadel are all part of what used to be the Halifax Defence Complex and the signal mast at York Redoubt communicated with the one on the citadel. It's part of the context when you learn what the citadel is and why it was built etc. I understand the desire to have a sightline there.

[Nilan8888]

York Redoubt, Point Pleasant Park, the fort on Georges island and the citadel are all part of what used to be the Halifax Defence Complex and the signal mast at York Redoubt communicated with the one on the citadel. It's part of the context when you learn what the citadel is and why it was built etc. I understand the desire to have a sightline there.

I understand that desire too, but we're already working with a downtown that can't easily have 30-40 floor towers buildings because of this viewplane or that viewplane. And those other viewplanes actually show off Halifax itself. Now we're saying we can't build them in yet another direction because it will remove the context in which the Citadel was created, and the viewpoint to a place that's a fair dive away from the peninsula?

Something's gotta give, here.

[Hali87]

From what I understand, the view planes are in place to preserve the historical integrity of the Citadel, not to offer nice views to tourists. It's confusing because in practice these sometimes work out to be the same thing (though often they don't) and groups like STV will use the tourist argument because they think it strengthens their case. The merits of preserving the historical views between various parts of the defence complex is debatable, but it's also kind of an "all or nothing" situation from many peoples' viewpoints. Many on this forum would argue "why do we need to preserve the view of McNab's AND York Redoubt AND Point Pleasant AND etc." while others (mostly not on this forum) would argue "what's the point of preserving the view of McNab's if we don't preserve the view of York Redoubt?"

I think the arguments around the view planes would be a lot more rational and constructive if people were more honest (or knowledgeable) about why they're there in the first place.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

If you are going to talk about changing them or getting rid of them - you need to really do an effective mapping of them first. Use GPS to find the coordinates of the viewpoints, then do perspectives of how the building height caps work, etc.

I agree. I think this has to be looked at in terms of trade-offs instead of simply pitting one group against another and asking who should get their way.

Different viewplanes have different impacts on the effective height caps and the amount of land that is capped depending on how they are situated. A viewplane that does not cover much developable land but has particularly high heritage value might be worthwhile to preserve whereas others might not. It is not possible to have a meaningful debate about this without looking at the real costs and benefits. A "yea or nay" view doesn't reflect the real options available.

I don't necessarily see groups like the Heritage Trust (many of the same people are in different groups) as inherently negative, aside from the fact that they sometimes try to present themselves as knowledgeable when it comes to planning and economics. The problem is that they are sometimes perceived as giving a broadly valid perspective of the issue while they are in fact a very narrowly-focused special interest group that doesn't care about most of the things that are important to people living in the city.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

The viewplanes have resulted directly in some very bad design decisions in Halifax: the angle of the Maritime Centre is pretty much a middle-finger to the intent behind the viewplanes...

I don't hate the angle of the Maritime Centre, but the fact that a new by-law (that buildings had to follow the street grid and could not be built at an angle to the street grid) was created because of this building's response to the viewplane legislation says that the viewplane rules are not written very well - not much thought was given to the impact beyond immediate limitations to height. To me, it feels like council at the time forgot the overall picture of city form making and focused on one short-term, and very political, goal.

Originally Posted by Halifax Hillbilly

Bishop's Landing and Salter's Gate were both sunk into the ground to sneak in under the viewplane (the results at Salter's Gate are a disaster, Bishop's is only frustrating).

The sunken ground floors are disastrous. This should be illegal. They're bad bad bad.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Hali87

From what I understand, the view planes are in place to preserve the historical integrity of the Citadel, not to offer nice views to tourists. ...

Perhaps they should require all visitors to the Citadel to don olden timey garb so they don't ruin the carefully maintained illusion with artfully distressed denim and picture-taking-machines.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I don't hate the angle of the Maritime Centre, but the fact that a new by-law (that buildings had to follow the street grid and could not be built at an angle to the street grid) was created because of this building's response to the viewplane legislation says that the viewplane rules are not written very well - not much thought was given to the impact beyond immediate limitations to height.

The sight of the Maritime Centre is what gives an urban feel to Spring Garden Road. I love it. I'd be nice if the building were to be renovated soon, though.

[teddifax]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

The sight of the Maritime Centre is what gives an urban feel to Spring Garden Road. I love it. I'd be nice if the building were to be renovated soon, though.

One thing I find amazing is the 7 floors added after the initial construction have never faded to the same colour. You can still see quite clearly the newer floors. It would be nice if they were all the same. Plus qoing with an earlier comment. I don't know why they ever made the main entrance so high up and not at street level. It never made sense to me.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by teddifax

One thing I find amazing is the 7 floors added after the initial construction have never faded to the same colour. You can still see quite clearly the newer floors. It would be nice if they were all the same.

Can't verify the truth of this, but I seem to recall a report at the time of construction that indicated that the precast pieces for the additional floors were tinted from the natural concrete shade to match the slightly dirty, weathered tone the original pieces had taken on. Obviously that did not quite work out so well.

[worldlyhaligonian]

A glass and metal reclad would be attractive. Blue Glass.

[someone123]

Another bit of trivia about the Maritime Centre is that it's the largest office building in Atlantic Canada in terms of floor area. It is something like 560,000 square feet. It is 2/3 the size of the largest office tower here in Vancouver.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

A glass and metal reclad would be attractive. Blue Glass.

That would totally ruin the appeal of the building.

[Nilan8888]

From what I understand, the view planes are in place to preserve the historical integrity of the Citadel, not to offer nice views to tourists.

Then that makes it even sillier. Sorry, these sorts of hazy, subjective labels rile me. 'Historical Integrity'... well what does that really mean? We preserve the integrity of the fort by something that's not in the fort? And who exactly benefits from this particular historical integrity? If it's not to offer nice views to tourists -- the people who visit most often besides those who work there -- then who? Halifax is like anywhere else: the main public landmark attractions are visited most by people who don't live there, because they can go anytime. That and school trips, most likely.

I enjoy history, and I don't mind at all preserving those buildings worth preserving. And its a travesty to knock down historical buildings for poor development. But when your entire downtown is being constrained in the name of not even tourism, but 'historical integrity' then that phrase has become precisely meaningless.

The people of history are gone, and they wanted their children and descendants to have better lives than they did, like anyone does. We should do our best to remember them, not live beneath their shadow.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

That would totally ruin the appeal of the building.

Why do you think so?

What would you recommend as an alternative, if the owner of this building were to announce funding for renovations?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

That would totally ruin the appeal of the building.

What is the "appeal" of the building. Its form is nice... cladding is uggers IMO, even if it was homogenous.

[alps]

I think I'd prefer the current Maritime Centre cladding to "blue glass." It takes all kinds of buildings and styles to make a city and I think it would be a little more boring if everything were sleek, shiny, clean and glassy. Same reason I don't feel the same eagerness to see the grain elevator torn down as others.

Only renovation I really wish they'd make is an improvement of the way it relates to Barrington Street. I'd like to blow a storefront into the blank wall and build some sort of overhang to mitigate the wind problem there. The Salter Street corner with the mall entrance is pretty ugly too.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by alps

I think I'd prefer the current Maritime Centre cladding to "blue glass." It takes all kinds of buildings and styles to make a city and I think it would be a little more boring if everything were sleek, shiny, clean and glassy. Same reason I don't feel the same eagerness to see the grain elevator torn down as others.

Only renovation I really wish they'd make is an improvement of the way it relates to Barrington Street. I'd like to blow a storefront into the blank wall and build some sort of overhang to mitigate the wind problem there. The Salter Street corner with the mall entrance is pretty ugly too.

I agree with you on this. I like the grain elevators, Maritime Centre and Fenwick Tower just the way they are. Pressure wash Fenwick and you're good for another 30 years. Fenwick has a unique 60's style that you likely won't see again. It probably won't look as tall after the reno's.

[someone123]

I like the style of the Maritime Centre too, and as time goes on those concrete buildings will be more the exception than the rule. I think the street level of the tower could be improved a lot with some relatively inexpensive and superficial modifications to the building exterior and plazas. An improved, opened up ground floor with a nice glass atrium might make the interior retail spaces more successful as well.

The blank wall facing Barrington is not actually that large. It's nothing like Scotia Square. If the rest of the building were friendlier to pedestrians that single wall wouldn't even be that noticeable aside from whatever wind effects the flat wall creates.

Something else to mention is that the hotel on Hollis Street right next to the Maritime Centre was built in 2001 or so and has an equally terrible street level design. Toronto's got tons and tons of modern glass condos built on a scale that is somewhat unfriendly to pedestrians. In my opinion cities that are 90% blue glass are no less monotonous and depressing looking than cities that are 90% concrete. I like how Halifax has a mix of building styles, and it's great that builders are starting to add a bit of colour to the balconies and other parts of the building exteriors.