[Halifax] RBC Waterside Centre | 37 m | 9 fl | Completed

[Empire]

All of the buildings at the Waterside Centre site will last another 100 years. Can someone out there site a building in Halifax that has fallen down recently?

The proposal sucks, the building is ugly, adds very little to class 'A" office space and destroys buildings that have much more value than the proposal.

Just to clarify.....when Armour speaks of the unstable condition of the buildings, they mean that they are unstable if you excavate the back-end off of them. Take a walk around those buildings and you will not see an exterior stress fracture anywhere. They are in very good condition. The only problem with them is they are in the way of higher profits...period.

[Wishblade]

Originally Posted by Empire

All of the buildings at the Waterside Centre site will last another 100 years. Can someone out there site a building in Halifax that has fallen down recently?

The proposal sucks, the building is ugly, adds very little to class 'A" office space and destroys buildings that have much more value than the proposal.

Just to clarify.....when Armour speaks of the unstable condition of the buildings, they mean that they are unstable if you excavate the back-end off of them. Take a walk around those buildings and you will not see an exterior stress fracture anywhere. They are in very good condition. The only problem with them is they are in the way of higher profits...period.

Buildings are generally not kept until they 'fall down'. They are usually kept until they are a danger and don't meet safety codes. So no, I don't recall any buildings that have fallen down, but ones that were crumbling to the point of demo? you bet.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by Empire

All of the buildings at the Waterside Centre site will last another 100 years.

Extremely doubtful. Besides, as sdm said, you can't tell the structural condition of a building by looking at the exterior. Hell you could even go eat in the restaurant and stare at the walls and still never be able to tell what sort of structural condition it's in.

[alps]

I still lean towards supporting this project. The buildings aren't going to be there forever as-is, it's unlikely that a developer is going to come along and renovate without a significant expansion, and this group seems to have good experience in preserving heritage facades. The building seems to be reasonably massed and set back, it's attractive enough IMO, if not a bit dull -- I personally think it's the best option we'll have presented to us anytime soon, and I don't think the owner is going to wait.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by hfx_chris

Extremely doubtful. Besides, as sdm said, you can't tell the structural condition of a building by looking at the exterior. Hell you could even go eat in the restaurant and stare at the walls and still never be able to tell what sort of structural condition it's in.

If the buildings are used as they currently are they aren't going anywhere. Foundations are shored up all the time if required and in this case they aren't bad or you would see cracks on the exterior. The highest and best use for this group of buildings is exactly what they are used for now. The province should buy the buildings and restore them. The province has spent millions bailing out pulp mills in the province by buying surplus scrub land as nature perserves so it wouldn't hurt them to buy these buildings.

[terrynorthend]

After reading the latest article, i am leaning in favour of this proposal once again. Although he may be overselling the decrepitude of the structures, Ben McRea's indignation over HT's comments is fair. He makes great points about his proven commitment to heritage preservation in the city, about the beautiful job he did with the east facade of Barrington Place (I regularly forget that the Delta Hotel is behind my head whenever I'm in the Granville Mall), and about praise and awards for his preservation of the Historic Properties despite complete internal reconfiguration of these former warehouses.

The idea that he would be destroying historic integrity in this block by gutting the buildings is bunk. The only historic thing about these buildings after years of reuse and internal appropriation IS the exterior. So what the argument boils down to is preservation of the roof line and perhaps the quality of the new architecture proposed to sit on top.

My primary concern was for the roof line, which is unique, interesting and will be a loss. A small loss however, and a fair trade to keep the historic street level elevations in place between Granville and HP. As for the architecture above, from the latest renderings, I don't mind it at all, a nice glass contrast to the stonework. Quality IMO.


PS- on a side note, did anyone else read E. Pacey's comments about the removal of the stone wall from in front of the Manulife building on Dutch Village? Something about a nice contrast with the glass of the Manulife and Herald buildings. A lovely aesthetic I must agree. A blend not unlike what many of us envision as our perfect downtown.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

The idea that he would be destroying historic integrity in this block by gutting the buildings is bunk. The only historic thing about these buildings after years of reuse and internal appropriation IS the exterior. So what the argument boils down to is preservation of the roof line and perhaps the quality of the new architecture proposed to sit on top.

The major point about destroying this block in addition to destroying the buildings is the setting. The walkway and outdoor cafe (now closed) is exactly what we should protect. This is immensely popular with the thousands of cruise ship visitors, visitors in general and locals. That same block with this squat office building on it has zero appeal to the historic properties district.

[terrynorthend]

I agree that the pedestrian breezeway thru the middle of the block was cool, and I will miss that. There is opportunity for a cafe/restaurant with outdoor component on the north face, the side with "Morses Teas" printed on the top. There is a wide curved apron on the sidewalk here. A cafe here would considerably soften the view of this stark wall.



photo credit watersidecentre/armourgroup

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

The major point about destroying this block in addition to destroying the buildings is the setting. The walkway and outdoor cafe (now closed) is exactly what we should protect. This is immensely popular with the thousands of cruise ship visitors, visitors in general and locals. That same block with this squat office building on it has zero appeal to the historic properties district.

Was there EVER an outdoor cafe there? I cannot recall one. As for the walkway, it was also a cause of traffic tieups as pedestrians jaywalked constantly and was a safety hazard, so good riddance to that. Your statement about it being popular with tourists and cruise ship visitors is total bunk -- they would never know about it prior to arrival and it would be just one more small feature in the middle of a bunch of small features. Whatever replaced it would be at least equally interesting to them in my view. As as Terry indicates, the plaza by the Morses Tea building offers far more potential for such a thing anyway.

In thinking about this in the context of Barrington Place and Founders Square and Historic Properties itself, I am now of the view it should go ahead. It will be better than what is now there in the long run.

[planarchy]

While I thought I supported this project, this cropped area above taken from a photo found on the development website sure looks good. When you can't see scotia square behind or 1801 to the left, or the cogswell exchange to the right, you can really see why it is a special part of the city. Looking at it from this angle, it is hard to imagine this proposal doing anything but destroying the character of this area. Maybe if it wasn't so bulky, or was similar in height to the Morris building...

It also shows that it may be nice to continue this type of dense fabric through the cogswell exchange, even as a single path with towers behind, to establish a nice connection with gottingen...

That being said, the properties affected by this development are ripe for some sort of intervention...perhaps this proposal is the best the city will get. Seems a pity though to just fill in the gap with something so mediocre.

[alps]

You make a good point, that's a convincing photo, I don't know where I stand!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Looking at it from this angle, it is hard to imagine this proposal doing anything but destroying the character of this area.

From this angle maybe, which for practical purposes doesn't really exist. From the actual point of view of a person walking around the buildings in question there are already buildings like 1801 Hollis and Purdy's Wharf that loom over the area. Possibly there will also be another 22 storey office tower going up in this part of the city. Adding another office building is totally consistent with the character that already exists, and I would argue that the mixed architecture of this part of town is its main strength both visually and in terms of vitality.

[planarchy]

Yes, of course that view doesn't exist, but it still tells you something about the character of the area. And in reference to the image above, that view of purdy's wharf won't exist either if this project is completed. While the diversity of building type in the area is positive it doesn't necessary mean this project will improve on that. It may do the exact opposite and make it all seem the same.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by planarchy

And in reference to the image above, that view of purdy's wharf won't exist either if this project is completed.

Then walk down a block to Lower Water
Personally I've always loved the view when you stand at Lower Water & Duke, looking down Lower Water, you can see Historic Properties on your right, Morse' Tea on your left, the two Purdys Wharf towers straight ahead with the smaller "Xerox" building in front, and the big Purdys Wharf sign lit up.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Yes, of course that view doesn't exist, but it still tells you something about the character of the area. And in reference to the image above, that view of purdy's wharf won't exist either if this project is completed. While the diversity of building type in the area is positive it doesn't necessary mean this project will improve on that. It may do the exact opposite and make it all seem the same.

This sounds grasping..? This specific project is in a style that is different from both 1801 and Purdy's (glass but much newer building techniques etc.) and of course is different from the heritage buildings it will be built on top of.

From street level the heritage buildings will still be fairly dominant and I would argue that the scale of the proposal is better for the area than what is currently there. The current buildings are only two and three floors plus there are gaps. The rest of the street is mostly medium (4-8 floor) and large (12 or more) scale buildings.

The big argument against the current proposal I think is simply the architecture of the addition. The ground floor part is bland looking, the roof looks a little awkward, and there is a large blank wall running down the middle of the Hollis Street elevation. If these issues were addressed then I would definitely be in favour of a development like this one.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Was there EVER an outdoor cafe there? I cannot recall one. As for the walkway, it was also a cause of traffic tieups as pedestrians jaywalked constantly and was a safety hazard, so good riddance to that. Your statement about it being popular with tourists and cruise ship visitors is total bunk -- they would never know about it prior to arrival and it would be just one more small feature in the middle of a bunch of small features. Whatever replaced it would be at least equally interesting to them in my view.

I walk by this area most noon hours and always see tourists taking photos of the walkway area. The outdoor cafe area was part of Sweet Basil. Maybe tourists will take pictures of the ugly Waterside building and go inside on a sunny summer day to have lunch.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

I walk by this area most noon hours and always see tourists taking photos of the walkway area. The outdoor cafe area was part of Sweet Basil. Maybe tourists will take pictures of the ugly Waterside building and go inside on a sunny summer day to have lunch.

If tourists take phots of that walkway maybe its because they tripped and hurt themselves on those worn-out wooden steps and are planning a lawsuit. There is nothing remarkable about it that would cause me to take a picture of it.

[Jonovision]

They might not take a picture of it but it certainly adds a lot to the atmosphere and experience of the area. It would be a very different experience if they had to walk through a modern office atrium.

[planarchy]

Exactly. This is what fine grain fabric is about, where you can cut through a block rather than always walking around it. It is providing choice in navigation. It is something unexpected. And while this is a very minor and seemingly insignificant cut, it represents a different urban quality. It is precisely why the alleyways and small streets of medieval cities are so alluring. It is a notion of exploration. This may sound like a romanticized take on such a minor element, but this piece of the city may offer more character to Halifax than the proposed box ever will.

While this may be of a different style than 1801 or purdy's wharf, it is unlikely from current renderings that it will be of similar quality.

That being said, maybe they should just demolish the whole block and start over!? Halifax has enough half-assed attempts at good design, this to me just seems like one more. A Trillium type would fit nicely here and treat the corners and street levels with the respect they deserve.

[sdm]

Development decisions shouldn’t take so long

By ROGER TAYLOR Business Columnist
Tue. Sep 23 - 6:47 AM







THEY’RE taking a break from a public discussion of the merits of the Waterside Centre proposal this week. Too bad.

There have already been two weeks of public hearings at city hall and they are to resume next week. It shouldn’t take this long to give a project the thumbs-up or thumbs-down, as many of the people making comments now are just repeating points that have already been made.

Opposition to the project comes mainly from people who fear the Armour Group’s proposed six-storey glass tower linking existing buildings at the corner of Duke, Hollis and Upper Water streets would strip the older buildings of their heritage patina.

The Armour Group developed the Historic Properties shopping centre across the street from the proposed project and most people applaud how that turned out. But they fear the Waterside Centre project would lead to the historic downtown becoming nothing but a facade.

That may be a valid concern, but the fact remains that the buildings included in the proposed development do need major renovations. With the cost of construction, the question becomes how to recover the expense.

Historic Properties is apparently suffering from a shortage of shoppers, and adding a large office building nearby is viewed as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone — fixing up some dilapidated buildings in the downtown and providing some new customers for Historic Properties.

City staff, who appear to be sensitive to heritage issues in the downtown core, have already approved the Waterside Centre project. But that doesn’t mean council will follow suit.

The longer the public hearing goes on, the more it seems bitterness and inflexibility set in. Is council really serving the public by allowing the process to be drawn out?

The fear is that the public hearing process isn’t working. People may feel they need to make harsh statements to get a reaction, because it seems the decision-makers will make up their minds no matter what is said.

The city would be better served if it created an atmosphere in which tempers were kept in control and a spirit of give-and-take existed.

Could it be that public input comes too late in the process? Developer Ben McCrea has indicated he’s been working on the project for two years and I’m sure he believes he’s addressed all aspects of it.

One bone of contention is the survival of a small building that is not included among the structures with heritage designation. While the heritage backers want to save everything, the developer points out that the small wooden structure at 1810 Upper Water St. isn’t even included in the public hearing because it is not a heritage building and a demolition permit has already been issued.

Of major concern is the future development of the Imperial Oil building, better known in recent times as O’Carroll’s restaurant. McCrea says the stone structure was built on wooden piles, which may create major structural problems for anyone trying to renovate the building.

There isn’t much doubt that improvements need to be made to the existing buildings that would be included in the Waterside Centre project. Otherwise, there may soon be a group of derelict buildings in a prime downtown location.

And if McCrea was bent on tearing down historic Halifax, he wouldn’t be trying to maintain the heritage streetscape.

( rtaylor@herald.ca