HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 1:40 AM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,004
No, it shouldn't dictate how the other lands are developed. But it should have some influence. We want a cohesive city here that works as a whole. We don't want this neighbourhood to a total pocket in and of itself. The buildings that are put up around it should take some cues from it. Now I'm not saying put up subdivisions on those lands. I'm just leaving it open. Let me see what people propose and then I'll make up my mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 2:50 AM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post
Exactly... and the later seems to be their prime motivation.
Bingo

And hollistreet am the one who made the NSLC and Park Vic comments so please direct your rant towards me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 11:39 AM
hfx_chris hfx_chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollistreet View Post
The only thing I ask is that it is great architecture that will be around in 200 years and people will want to live, work and play in.
200 years? I can almost guarantee you nothing we build today, no matter how inspiring and stimulating the design (read: faux heritage?), will be much of anything in 200 years time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 1:37 PM
Wishblade's Avatar
Wishblade Wishblade is offline
You talkin' to me?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfx_chris View Post
200 years? I can almost guarantee you nothing we build today, no matter how inspiring and stimulating the design (read: faux heritage?), will be much of anything in 200 years time.
Yeah, I hate to say it but I agree.

I just cant see any structures that are in existance today, existing 200 years from now. That not only includes modern structures, but older ones as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 1:59 PM
hollistreet's Avatar
hollistreet hollistreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
First of all, can the insults. Secodly, pay attention to whom you're responding to -- I did not post the comments about Park Vic and the NSLC; sdm did.

There is no question that Schmidtville as a designated area is a new phenomenon, possibly related to Lyndon Watkins, who is a property owner there. I lived in Park Vic for most of the 1990s, was fairly active around that area, and can assure you that the term Schmidtville had never been heard by me during that time. I first heard it about 3 years ago when the neighborhood suddenly started making noise about how historic it was.

Like others, I have no problem with those 3 blocks being frozen in time. If that's what you want, fill your boots. Just don't try to dictate how the surrounding area gets developed.
First of all sorry Keith P.
Second, I am not trying to dictate how the area gets developed any more that any other interested party. Heritage trust wants one thing, the people who live in Schmidtville may or may not want something else, the folks who participate in this fourm may all have a different opinion on how the area gets developed. I thought this was a format for having that discussion.
Third, wether you or anyone else had not heard of the area as being referred to as Schmidtville until a few years ago does not change the fact that it has been referred to as Schmidtville since 1830.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 3:46 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollistreet View Post
First of all sorry Keith P.
Second, I am not trying to dictate how the area gets developed any more that any other interested party. Heritage trust wants one thing, the people who live in Schmidtville may or may not want something else, the folks who participate in this fourm may all have a different opinion on how the area gets developed. I thought this was a format for having that discussion.
Third, wether you or anyone else had not heard of the area as being referred to as Schmidtville until a few years ago does not change the fact that it has been referred to as Schmidtville since 1830.
Hollistreet

Everyone agrees the area exists, the problem is if this area was so scared then why is it only coming up now if its been there since 1830......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 5:15 PM
hollistreet's Avatar
hollistreet hollistreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdm View Post
Hollistreet

Everyone agrees the area exists, the problem is if this area was so scared then why is it only coming up now if its been there since 1830......
Perhaps it is coming up now because some (if not the majority) of the residents of Schmidtville preceive their neighbourhood to be threatened. Do you not agree that just because you or someone else had not heard of the term until the last few years does not mean it did not exsist?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 5:37 PM
hfx_chris hfx_chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,450
When you've got a board full of people who have never heard the name before, plus a member who has lived (not directly in, but) next to it for the better part of a decade, and who claims to have been active in the local community, who also claims to have never heard the name used before... you can't help but wonder why we've never heard of it before.
If it's such an important, historic neighborhood (which I agree it is), why was it never named before in public? I bet if you asked almost anybody in Halifax if they know where the Hydrostone neighbourhood is, almost everyone would point to the blocks bounded by Duffus, Isleville, Young and Novalea. But I bet a couple of years back if you followed that up by asking where Schmidtville is, the majority would say they've never heard the name before. Even today, I bet a majority would say that, as the only ones who know about it seem to be the folks who live there, or folks like us who take a keen interest in following development news.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 6:14 PM
hollistreet's Avatar
hollistreet hollistreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 86
hfx chris
I don't disagree with you that the majority of people who know about it are the people who live there and people like us. Does that mean that the name Schmidtville has not existed since 1830? When I moved here 8 or 9 years ago and was trying to decide where to live one of the neighbourhoods I looked at was the area referred to me as "Schmidtville". Maybe everyone is familar with the Hydrostone area because of the shopping area associated with it and all of the advertising that goes along with the Hyrdostone Market. It is another area that I gave consideration to living in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 6:16 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollistreet View Post
Perhaps it is coming up now because some (if not the majority) of the residents of Schmidtville preceive their neighbourhood to be threatened. Do you not agree that just because you or someone else had not heard of the term until the last few years does not mean it did not exsist?
I've never heard of it till now, but please read carefully to what I’ve previously stated; I agree it exists within a certain defined area (3 blocks).

You speak of the area being threatened? No development is proposed within the 3 blocks (maybe the NSLC), and I agree there shouldn't be one IN THAT AREA of 3 blocks. Properties on the other side of this should have every right to build without restrictions.

I fear the true motive of the protection is to halt development in adjacent areas
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 6:22 PM
hollistreet's Avatar
hollistreet hollistreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 86
Yes, I understand you agree. Now I ask you to read what I have written. No where do I state the area is being threatened and I quote "Perhaps it is coming up now because some (if not the majority) of the residents of Schmidtville PERCEIVE their neighbourhood to be threatened". Did I not suggest earlier that I would be happy to see 20 or 30 story buildings built on the vacant land? Again, all I ask is for quality in design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 6:37 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollistreet View Post
Yes, I understand you agree. Now I ask you to read what I have written. No where do I state the area is being threatened and I quote "Perhaps it is coming up now because some (if not the majority) of the residents of Schmidtville PERCEIVE their neighbourhood to be threatened". Did I not suggest earlier that I would be happy to see 20 or 30 story buildings built on the vacant land? Again, all I ask is for quality in design.
Yes, but your one of how many that think the same way (20-30 Story building)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 6:40 PM
hollistreet's Avatar
hollistreet hollistreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 86
Again, I am not saying it has to be 20 or 30 story buildings. It has to be quality design and I feel it has to be mixed use. If that means a tall building so be it. I would be just as happy with a Frank Ghery building as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 6:44 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollistreet View Post
Again, I am not saying it has to be 20 or 30 story buildings. It has to be quality design and I feel it has to be mixed use. If that means a tall building so be it. I would be just as happy with a Frank Ghery building as well.
Thats great to hear, and hopefully that is true.
Any developments on the Clyde street parking lots will almost for sure be mixed use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 6:56 PM
hollistreet's Avatar
hollistreet hollistreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 86
Arthur Erickson would be an ideal architect to design something for the infirmary site. Something along the lines of Robson Square, Art Gallery in Vancouver. If you are not familar cdheck it out on line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 7:26 PM
sdm sdm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollistreet View Post
Arthur Erickson would be an ideal architect to design something for the infirmary site. Something along the lines of Robson Square, Art Gallery in Vancouver. If you are not familar cdheck it out on line.
Maybe the Robson yes, but that site demands mixed use (High density Residential, Public space and facility, retail).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 8:15 PM
hollistreet's Avatar
hollistreet hollistreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdm View Post
Maybe the Robson yes, but that site demands mixed use (High density Residential, Public space and facility, retail).
I use Erickson's Robson Square as an example because it incorporates a library and a court house as well as other uses, art gallery and tremendous public/park space. The entire roof of the 3 block complex is practically a park. I am not suggesting we simply copy what has been done but I do feel that the general concept would suit the infirmary site to a tee. I am a fan of Erickson as an architect, I find his designs to stand the test of time and not look like they should be torn down and replaced with something new.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 8:37 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Halifax in general doesn't have many well-branded, distinct neighbourhoods. The fact that this particular place didn't have a well-known name until recently isn't surprising at all and says little or nothing about its level of historic importance. There are plenty of other neighbourhoods similarly worth preserving that also do not have names (what do you call the south end of Hollis or Barrington for example?).

Personally I would like to see a little more subtle "branding" of neighbourhoods in the city along with local beautification initiatives, etc. I believe that some of this is talked about in HRM by Design. A Schmidtville historic area would be consistent with the plan.

I agree with the comment above that area residents and property owners in Schmidtville feel threatened by nearby developments. This is what they said in the Trillium public hearing and it is understandable. Their neighbourhood has no special protection right now. Setting aside those few blocks makes a lot of sense and would allow developers in future hearings to point out that in fact there is no risk of similar buildings happening in the middle of the historic area. From the point of view of overall development I also believe this would be a best case sort of scenario; protected small-scale development south of Clyde, mid-scale infill on the parkings lots, and towers along South Park and north of SGR with mixed use and public buildings on the infirmary lands. If all of those things happen that part of the city will do extremely well and will be an attractive place for everybody.

As for a Robson Square type of development on the infirmary lands, I just don't think it's needed. There's lots of public (outdoor) space sprinkled throughout the downtown area. Mostly what's needed is the actual library space and some kind of indoor atrium-like space. Something else to consider is that this site isn't terribly central in any way. The vast majority of traffic will simply happen along Spring Garden Road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 8:59 PM
reddog794's Avatar
reddog794 reddog794 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 198
Okay, so we have a place in the city named Schmidtville, cool, I've never heard of a place with that name, city or district, before.

How does this effect SGR, DT, and the South Waterfront? Even before the name came up, this area is about 4 mins to each, and houses a good chunk of the workers for those areas, I'm assuming.

How far would the designation of a historical district go? Could one build up from one of the houses there, so long as it keep the street front in place?

Someone123 is right, passive district...ization? helps in the long run for a more centralized city. I'd like to see Dartmouth broken down into "schidtville" sized proportions, same with areas of Halifax, like just up from North. Maybe not on the same grounds, but still neighbourhoods within the Neighbourhood of Halifax.

Shoot Schmidtville could become our "Greenwich village".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2008, 11:42 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Well, Schmidtville is very small, much smaller than a normal sized neighbourhood even in Halifax. Originally it would have been pretty similar to other residential areas all the way from Queen Street to Robie Street but it stands out today because it has remained untouched while the rest has mostly been redeveloped.

I visited Greenwich Village in NYC a couple of weeks ago. It probably has more people than all of the central areas of Halifax combined. In NYC terms it's more along the lines of a neighbourhood of about 2,000-5,000 people in Halifax. I think distinct areas of about that size would be good to establish. Within each of those areas there could be a set of design goals (this is in HRM by Design) and there could be targets in terms of for example public space. Areas like SGR have lots of public space but large parts of the North End have very little. Other parts of the city like the southern end of Barrington etc. have nice public spaces (Cornwallis Park) that are not really properly maintained or tied in with new development.
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 > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:16 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.