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

[Takeo]

Good point about bring more people to the Historic Properties mall. That place is dead as a doornail... mostly cruise ship traffic... not to mention cruise ship pricing in the food court.

[sdm]

Was checking the schedule for tomorrow nights council and found there is a supplementary report by staff.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...80930ca82i.pdf

Took a glance through it and theres some interesting stuff by Staff here.

[sdm]

Found out a motion to defer was past this afternoon

Oct 21st,

[spaustin]

So what happened to this one? I had the TV on in the background all evening and it never came up. Did they defer it? I wouldn't be surprised if they bumped it until after the election given how hot a topic it is.

Edit: Thanks SDM. You beat me to the punch. I'm not surprised they bumped it past the election. Blatant political cowardice. It's pathetic. That means it'll have been 6 weeks since the public hearing started before council will have made a decision.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by spaustin

So what happened to this one? I had the TV on in the background all evening and it never came up. Did they defer it? I wouldn't be surprised if they bumped it until after the election given how hot a topic it is.

Edit: Thanks SDM. You beat me to the punch. I'm not surprised they bumped it past the election. Blatant political cowardice. It's pathetic. That means it'll have been 6 weeks since the public hearing started before council will have made a decision.

Yeah, also trying to figure out the motion to defer as i understand this was something to it.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by spaustin

So what happened to this one? I had the TV on in the background all evening and it never came up. Did they defer it? I wouldn't be surprised if they bumped it until after the election given how hot a topic it is.

Edit: Thanks SDM. You beat me to the punch. I'm not surprised they bumped it past the election. Blatant political cowardice. It's pathetic. That means it'll have been 6 weeks since the public hearing started before council will have made a decision.

And don't forget that it'll be a new council making the decision not the ones who were present for the hearings and presentation.

I thought the cat by-laws are bad...now they're pushing public hearings to six weeks after they started...

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

And don't forget that it'll be a new council making the decision not the ones who were present for the hearings and presentation.

I thought the cat by-laws are bad...now they're pushing public hearings to six weeks after they started...

Actually the new council sits in November, this will be voted by the current.

Thank god developments are market driven............

[sdm]

News as well in allnovascotia.com about this development as well.

Everything from reduction of floors, to being asked to sit down with Heritage trust.

This one is just crazy and after 2 years makes you wonder.

[someone123]

Is consultation with the HT even useful? Do they have any architectural or urban design credentials or knowledge whatsoever?

What could a reduction of floors possibly accomplish? Most of the argument against this proposal involves the fact that it involves salvaging only facades and that rooflines would be lost. This will happen whether the addition is 1 floor or 20 floors.

[sdm]

Developer willing to change plans
Armour Group: We’ll trade 2 storeys for a tax break
By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Wed. Oct 1 - 5:42 AM
Faced with the prospect of losing city hall’s vote on his latest development proposal, a veteran Halifax developer is offering to change the plans for his building at the 11th hour — in exchange for a tax break.

In a letter to council dated last Friday, Ben McCrea of the Armour Group said he could take up to two storeys off his six-storey Waterside Centre redevelopment and change its mirrored facade to brick exterior cladding.

That would keep the design more in line with his Founders Square project on Hollis Street, which has won awards for its heritage redevelopment.

However, he made the offer reluctantly, the letter suggested.

"If council believes that more flexibility and compromise is necessary, we are, with significant apprehension, prepared to agree to a mutual ‘best efforts’ clause that, if the contract development is approved by council, Armour will work with HRM staff to explore a mutually acceptable means of financial support that would . . . allow Armour to reduce the overall height . . . by one or even perhaps two storeys."

Mr. McCrea had earlier said that his proposed six-storey glass tower, which would be built on top of existing buildings at the corner of Duke, Hollis and Lower Water streets, was needed to make the project viable because the heritage renovation of the existing buildings at street level would likely cost more than $1.6 million.

Without the extra storeys on top to flesh out the potential of his investment, some financial support is necessary, Mr. McCrea said in his letter.

He’s looking for a "rebate of a significant percentage of the tax increase resulting from the development of the project over a period of five years after completion."

In other words, the municipal taxes on the redeveloped property would be higher, so he’d like a break on the tax increase for five years after construction is finished.

Mr. McCrea’s letter said he was making the request because "we do not believe that there are any provincial or federal grant programs that would give any meaningful financial support to this project."

Councillors were to debate the merits of the Waterside Centre proposal at their Tuesday night meeting but voted to put it off until Oct. 21.

In September, council heard 61 people speak at a public hearing. Of those, 47 opposed the project. Many didn’t like the idea that only the facades of the existing buildings would be preserved in a "Disneyland" or "movie set" way while the interiors would be gutted and rebuilt to support the new six-storey tower above.

Mr. McCrea took the criticism hard. Much of it came from members of heritage groups that had previously lauded his 40-year career as a heritage developer.

"I find it very difficult to keep on the high road to deal with the fact my company has been continually attacked by the (Heritage) Trust’s misinformation and portraying me and my company as the destroyer of Historic Properties," he told council at the close of the public hearing two weeks ago.

On Tuesday, Coun. Sue Uteck (Northwest Arm-South End) said the three-week delay before the project comes back to council will provide a "cooling-off period."

"It’s been very personal, very intense — with personal attacks on the developer and the architect and on councillors — and I think a cooling-off period is needed to show that there could be some compromise," she said.

"Armour has put forward a new proposal that if perhaps staff and Heritage Trust can find some common ground, we might be able to move the project forward without everyone having to go before the URB (Utility and Review Board)."

[sdm]

Council votes to defer decision on heritage property development
LINDSAY JONES, METRO HALIFAX
October 01, 2008 05:00




Both sides embroiled in a dispute to redevelop a block of heritage properties downtown Halifax are trying to reconcile.


At the request of Armour Group, council voted unanimously yesterday to defer a decision on the developer’s proposed Waterside Centre for three weeks.


Armour Group wants the extra time to meet with the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia and negotiate its project that would join existing buildings at the corner of Duke, Hollis and Lower Water streets with a six-storey glass tower atop.


In a letter sent to the mayor and councilors last week, Armour Group chairman Ben McCrea suggested he’s flexible about changing the glass exterior and height of the controversial building.


“There appears to be concern by some that the glass exterior is not Halifax,” McCrea wrote. “If it is the wish of council, we are fully prepared to build Waterside Centre with a brick exterior cladding similar to Founders Square.”


Citing significant apprehension, McCrea said if council approved the proposal, he would consider reducing the building height by one or two storeys if they could agree on a level of financial support. He said the economic feasibility for the building is “very thin” and the only public money in the 35 history of the Historic Properties has come from the federal government.


But McCrea said, after two and a half years of working with city staff on the proposal, he’s not willing to start over. If council doesn’t approve the proposal, that’s the end of it.


Downtown Coun. Dawn Sloane says she will wait to hear whether a compromise can be reached.


“I hate to see us compromise heritage as it is, but at this point in time I think we’re up to seeing what can come out of these conversations,” she said.


In August, the Heritage Trust launched a postcard campaign criticizing the proposal. Armour Group fired back with a letter to councilors and the mayor accusing the Trust of spreading misinformation. Since then, more than 60 people have weighed in during a public hearing.

[Takeo]

Oh my god. I'm not a big fan of the design... but I want something more modern and inspired and "light" to contrast with the existing buildings... not a brick box!!!! Switching to a squat brick box is better?!?!?!?! What a completely and utter nightmare. The HT is right... glass is not Halifax... uninspired cold butt ugly faux heritage squat brown brick boxes are. I can't stop shaking my head. How does putting a 4 story brick box on top of the same "Disney Facades" make this project any better?!?! How does that makes the clueless idiots at the HT happier?! This isn't a compromise, this is a disaster. Any addition should stand in contrast to the existing buildings. Like the ROM Crystal project in Toronto. Or that historic building INSIDE the world famous Calatrava Galleria in BCE place in Toronto. If you try to do something that blends in, it will clash. And a brick box on top of those buildings would overwhelm them much more compared to glass. And the glass was to be as transparent as possible... not "mirrored" as the article mistakenly states. If i were the Architect right now... I would be so angry. And here's another question... why does Armour even CARE what the HT thinks? Seriously. It's up to council... not some squeaky wheel special interest group of geriatric fools.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Takeo

Oh my god. I'm not a big fan of the design... but I want something more modern and inspired and "light" to contrast with the existing buildings... not a brick box!!!! Switching to a squat brick box is better?!?!?!?! What a completely and utter nightmare. The HT is right... glass is not Halifax... uninspired cold butt ugly faux heritage squat brown brick boxes are. I can't stop shaking my head. How does putting a 4 story brick box on top of the same "Disney Facades" make this project any better?!?! How does that makes the clueless idiots at the HT happier?! This isn't a compromise, this is a disaster. Any addition should stand in contrast to the existing buildings. Like the ROM Crystal project in Toronto. Or that historic building INSIDE the world famous Calatrava Galleria in BCE place in Toronto. If you try to do something that blends in, it will clash. And a brick box on top of those buildings would overwhelm them much more compared to glass. And the glass was to be as transparent as possible... not "mirrored" as the article mistakenly states. If i were the Architect right now... I would be so angry. And here's another question... why does Armour even CARE what the HT thinks? Seriously. It's up to council... not some squeaky wheel special interest group of geriatric fools.

My understanding going through everythign from yesterdays notes is that Council motioned to have Armour discuss things with Heritage Trust. Armour didn't request it.

I too think the brick idea is not a good idea, nor the height drop.

This is turning into a nightmare.

[phrenic]

Bricks? Oh for crying out loud. They might as well put vinyl siding on it.

[spryscraper]

I guess this is what we all get for complaining about the uninspired design of the tower eh? Here's hoping that the new design is a radical, groundbreaking architectural marvel...

But seriously, a 4-storey brick tower on top of these heritage buildings? Can you even call 4 storeys a tower?? It's just enough height to totally negate the roofline of these buildings and not much else. If the HT has any backbone, they won't accept this compromise, because it isn't addressing ANY of the complaints they had... just a knee-jerk "we'll reduce the height and make it look older" reaction that we've all seen before. The problem is that accepting the new design would make this an official precedent.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by spryscraper

I guess this is what we all get for complaining about the uninspired design of the tower eh? Here's hoping that the new design is a radical, groundbreaking architectural marvel...

But seriously, a 4-storey brick tower on top of these heritage buildings? Can you even call 4 storeys a tower?? It's just enough height to totally negate the roofline of these buildings and not much else. If the HT has any backbone, they won't accept this compromise, because it isn't addressing ANY of the complaints they had... just a knee-jerk "we'll reduce the height and make it look older" reaction that we've all seen before. The problem is that accepting the new design would make this an official precedent.

My understanding is Council has suggested brick, not glass. The developer has already stated Glass meets the policy, and brick won't.

This is just crazy now. The building according to staff meet the polices, why are council and HT dicating design when its not them the governs it.

[spaustin]

I don't like this project, because I'm not a fan of the design, but going to brick and making it shorter? That's not the kind of rethink that this needs. I think they need some variety to the modern addition (maybe step down to Morses Tea). This shorten it and make it brick is a rather stunned "compromise" that'll only make it worse.

[someone123]

The developer should just appeal to the URB then, although at this point the process has already been going on forever.

This is a disaster and demonstrates how sad the state of affairs still is in Halifax. The city keeps shooting itself in the foot again and again.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by spaustin

I don't like this project, because I'm not a fan of the design, but going to brick and making it shorter? That's not the kind of rethink that this needs. I think they need some variety to the modern addition (maybe step down to Morses Tea). This shorten it and make it brick is a rather stunned "compromise" that'll only make it worse.

Stepping the design would yield less square footage i would think and could make the building less economical substainable.

If there were no need to restore the heritage buildings, ie vacant lot, i believe you would see some elements of your suggestion in the design. Again i believe this development is either what you see, the 6 storey addition and saving the heritage buildings, or no buildings at all.

I would hate to see brick....

[worldlyhaligonian]

I'm not saying anything before I see a new rendering... I think there could be potential with brick if done properly. It is really all about the design, and with International Place going up near here, I think it should be about what looks good... tower or no tower.

The vinyl siding comment was great.