Development Rumours

[Jethro Bodine]

Originally Posted by atbw

Oh this is exciting! It'll be nice to see Lower Water St. fill in more.

"Nova Scotia's new $130-million art gallery will be built next to Bishop's Landing on the Halifax waterfront"

Has anything else come out on this or was it just a late April's fool joke?

I consider the parking lot next to Bishop's as the heart of the waterfront, if you take that away if will ruin it. That location next to the harbour, overlooking the downtown, makes it a world class site for concerts/festivals/gatherings. You take that away and it really affects very negatively the waterfront. A horrible idea.

Jethro

[Keith P.]

I think it is a horrible location for an art gallery just from the standpoint of adjacency to the harbour and the prospect of higher sea levels making it a poor location for such a facility. Of course there is a govt parking lot across the street from Summit Place behind The Maple which could be developed for this, but I'm guessing the politicians and civil servants don't want to lose that perk.

[Jethro Bodine]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I think it is a horrible location for an art gallery just from the standpoint of adjacency to the harbour and the prospect of higher sea levels making it a poor location for such a facility. Of course there is a govt parking lot across the street from Summit Place behind The Maple which could be developed for this, but I'm guessing the politicians and civil servants don't want to lose that perk.

I agree Keith, there are far better locations in downtown Halifax then this for an art gallery.

Also, I don't think a high rise should ever be built at that location, you would have one building with great water views but you would be taking away said views from dozens of other buildings in the downtown. It just doesn't make sense to me. Having visited many of the great waterfront cities in North America/Europe that just isn't done because it doesn't make sense.

Then again, I haven't heard anything come up on this since the original news item so maybe they've reconsidered.

Jethro

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

adjacency to the harbour and the prospect of higher sea levels making it a poor location for such a facility

Sea level rise is about 3 mm per year. So about one foot per century.

I think the waterfront is a great place for the art gallery because it gets so much tourist traffic, including foot traffic from the cruise ships that doesn't tend to make it far into downtown. It's also complementary to the Discovery Centre and Maritime Museum of the Atlantic.

If I remember correctly the lot next to the Maple is zoned for 20+ storeys.

[Jonovision]

This is the perfect location for an Art Gallery. They are not going to invest millions of dollars and not take sea level rise into consideration. Develop NS is very aware of sea level rise as it affects all waterfront properties around the province.

Downtown locations are not places for surface parking lots. Period. There is plenty of parking available around the downtown, it just requires that you go inside a building and change your habits. Not to mention this proposal will likely incorporate more parking than already exists on the site.

There is an international design competition for this site that opened a few weeks ago. I think they will be creating a shortlist by the end of Spring.

All that being said, I hope the design does take into consideration the fact that this is a highly used open space for festivals and gatherings and I'm sure there is a consideration to try to integrate those uses with the new design for the art gallery and open space to be built.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Of course there is a govt parking lot across the street from Summit Place behind The Maple which could be developed for this, but I'm guessing the politicians and civil servants don't want to lose that perk.

I thought that lot was being considered as a new location for the law courts?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

There is an international design competition for this site that opened a few weeks ago. I think they will be creating a shortlist by the end of Spring.

Here's a link to the thread about it:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...77#post8808377

[Nouvellecosse]

So the new art gallery... Is is just a new building for the AGNS or is it supposed to be a new institution meaning that there will be two?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Sea level rise is about 3 mm per year. So about one foot per century.

I think the waterfront is a great place for the art gallery because it gets so much tourist traffic, including foot traffic from the cruise ships that doesn't tend to make it far into downtown. It's also complementary to the Discovery Centre and Maritime Museum of the Atlantic.

If I remember correctly the lot next to the Maple is zoned for 20+ storeys.

The most recent IPCC projections (which have a way of underestimating things and being continually revised upwards as new information is crunched) project about 3 feet in Nova Scotia, or 0.9 metres, once land subsidence is factored in. Sea-level rise will also be more pronounced on the continent's east coast than the west.

Having said that, it's still possible to build a waterfront facility that accommodates for this, especially on a shoreline like Halifax's that rises so steeply and rapidly above the waterline.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Having said that, it's still possible to build a waterfront facility that accommodates for this, especially on a shoreline like Halifax's that rises so steeply and rapidly above the waterline.

There are buildings like Purdy's that are built right on top of the water. The market value of the waterfront land is enormous and makes it well worth the comparatively small cost of accommodating a few feet of potential sea level rise. 1 foot vs 3 feet doesn't really matter, and it seems these days that the life expectancy of buildings in Halifax is only around 30-40 years.

There's great irony in putting extra energy into avoiding future sea level rise due to an obsession over climate change yet not taking care of buildings long enough that they even make it to that future period.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's great irony in putting extra energy into avoiding future sea level rise due to an obsession over climate change yet not taking care of buildings long enough that they even make it to that future period.

And as we all know, the Province does not maintain its buildings (or most any other capital assets) very well at all.

[someone123]

Not sure how new this is but Dexel's website now has a simple page up for the Dennis Building project: https://dexel.ca/dennis-project.html

I'm still curious about what will happen with the upper floors of the Dennis Building. The original media release was clear that only the granite portion of the facade needs to be preserved. Then again, it has since been registered as a heritage property. I think removing the upper floors and cornice would be a mistake.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I think that's been up for awhile, or at least I've seen the press release before.

It would be nice to see some more complete information on the project, as it would not make sense to remove the upper floors that have been there for over a hundred years. Until we see an actual plan, it will be all speculation, though.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think that's been up for awhile, or at least I've seen the press release before.

It would be nice to see some more complete information on the project, as it would not make sense to remove the upper floors that have been there for over a hundred years. Until we see an actual plan, it will be all speculation, though.

If I recall correctly, they can build up to about eight storeys here. So if the upper floors are removed, we're probably going to get four storeys of granite and four glassy modern floors. That won't really be the Dennis Building anymore.

It would make a lot more sense for historical continuity and aesthetics to retain the building as-is, and add a storey at the top.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

If I recall correctly, they can build up to about eight storeys here. So if the upper floors are removed, we're probably going to get four storeys of granite and four glassy modern floors. That won't really be the Dennis Building anymore.

It would make a lot more sense for historical continuity and aesthetics to retain the building as-is, and add a storey at the top.

I agree completely.

[Northend Guy]

Not sure if this has been referenced on the forums yet. I walked by the corner of Bayers/Joe Howe, and the three brick apartments on the corner have the approval application signs up. Most of the apartments look empty.

http://wmfares.com/7135br/

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by Northend Guy

Not sure if this has been referenced on the forums yet. I walked by the corner of Bayers/Joe Howe, and the three brick apartments on the corner have the approval application signs up. Most of the apartments look empty.

http://wmfares.com/7135br/

Goood timing! I was walking by this morning and noticed the same thing. Very promiment location.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Has this ever been posted? https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...ed.Apr2018.pdf

5706-5720 SOUTH ST, HALIFAX, NS

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Has this ever been posted? https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...ed.Apr2018.pdf

5706-5720 SOUTH ST, HALIFAX, NS

Is it a bit disingenuous to use the height of the QEII, VG Site, Centennial Building as a reason for height here? Not that I necessarily disagree with the height to begin with, but if the plan is to demolish the Centennial, then it's not really relevant here and a better argument should be made, no?

[atbw]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Is it a bit disingenuous to use the height of the QEII, VG Site, Centennial Building as a reason for height here? Not that I necessarily disagree with the height to begin with, but if the plan is to demolish the Centennial, then it's not really relevant here and a better argument should be made, no?

I'm torn on this one. Is there any plan on what's going to happen with the VG site?