General Updates and News

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I spent considerable time in there when it was new and it is a good building. The angle you show was a compromise forced upon the designer by an expectation at the time that the lots adjacent would be developed. Of course no such development occurred thanks to Halifax's virulent anti-development climate in the early '90s and beyond. You may also remember that the designers were forced to incorporate the facade of the old church that once occupied the lot as an interior feature behind the front curtain wall in an attempt to appease the HT, then at the height of their influence. It looks ridiculous but that is what you get when you allow heritage advocates to call the shots.

If the developer was smart the stone arches would have been exposed and the building would reflect the architecture. Instead, the ridiculous entry is nothing but a urinal for Argyle St. weekend drunks.

The concept of building ugly blank walls because the lot next door might get developed someday has been proven a very bad policy time after ugly time.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

If the developer was smart the stone arches would have been exposed and the building would reflect the architecture. Instead, the ridiculous entry is nothing but a urinal for Argyle St. weekend drunks.

As I recall the original design incorporated none of the church facade and was a typical glass curtain wall front. After tantrums by the usual suspects the developer offered up what is there now. I agree it does not make sense.

The concept of building ugly blank walls because the lot next door might get developed someday has been proven a very bad policy time after ugly time.

As it is, the minimal windowing there was forced to have thermostatic metal fire shutters installed on them thanks to the building code. To provide full fenestration there given that and the expectation of a future building would have been a waste.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The offices don't need to be downtown.
Ease congestion and have them in Dartmouth or Bedford and more yuppies can live in small apartments in DT Halifax.

Yes, yes, because moving offices out to suburban business parks, that are poorly service both by roads *and* by public transit will "ease" congestion.

Come on. This is city planning 101. There's a reason why traffic congestion is a nightmare out in business parks like Bayers Lake despite having a comparatively far smaller percentage of office space than downtown.

Also, I also find the arrogant dismissal of people living downtown as "yuppies" to be the usual hair-brained faux populist clap trap that better belongs in the loony toon comments to online Chronicle Herald stories, than SSP.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

A: The economy and wonky planning rules stifled downtown development. We've torn down loads of buildings in the past 30 years, including the buildings that faced Barrington directly to the west of the Dennis. Halifax has totally played fast and loose with its heritage, so I aggressively reject the idea that we're "held hostage" by history, or that it's "stifled" anything,

That's just a popular but totally fake narrative that has no traction in fact.

B: I think, Keith, you have to accept that your perception of what's ugly vs. what's attractive, architecturally, isn't reflective the majority opinion.

I think you're both right, to an extent.

Dry, you're right that Heritage rules or the Anti-Development Trust did nothing to restrain heritage demolition in the last several decades.

But Keith is also right that viewplanes, ramparts, and other bad planning/development rules-- and a litigation happy Anti-Development Trust-- *did* play a role in chilling or deterring development, particularly on those very empty sites, parking lots, brown sites, etc, where heritage buildings once stood.

Result? All kinds of empty lots on prime land downtown, growing over with long grass or providing ugly surface parking. They are slowly being filled in, but we lost decades and could be much further ahead.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I think you're both right, to an extent.

Dry, you're right that Heritage rules or the Anti-Development Trust did nothing to restrain heritage demolition in the last several decades.

But Keith is also right that viewplanes, ramparts, and other bad planning/development rules-- and a litigation happy Anti-Development Trust-- *did* play a role in chilling or deterring development, particularly on those very empty sites, parking lots, brown sites, etc, where heritage buildings once stood.

Result? All kinds of empty lots on prime land downtown, growing over with long grass or providing ugly surface parking. They are slowly being filled in, but we lost decades and could be much further ahead.

That's a good argument that there should be no need to tear down any more historic buildings to build new ones: empty lots - and there are many of them. I now think we have passed the time when tearing down 19th century buildings that have significant history attached to them should ever be considered acceptable.

I understand Keith's assertion that as is, it would not be a good candidate for a functional office building, and I appreciate his concern for how our tax dollars are spent. However, there are many citizens who will prefer to maintain a certain aesthetic to our downtown that involves historic buildings. There are those who have an appreciation for our history, those who appreciate the contrast of the old standing proudly next to the new. It's not all about pure function all the time, we need a balance and many of us want to have an interesting downtown that includes more than that.

I will present the idea that if you want to experience an area where pure function takes priority over history and aesthetics, then go to any one of our lovely industrial parks... not a pretty site, is it? That's pure function at minimal cost, not what we want for our downtown.

Somehow our government needs to be able to look beyond pure dollars and cents, and pick the route that may not be the easiest but the best overall for the long term. Right now I'm sorely disappointed that they don't seem to have that vision.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Yes, yes, because moving offices out to suburban business parks, that are poorly service both by roads *and* by public transit will "ease" congestion.

That said, I think idea of moving them to downtown Dartmouth could be an interesting one. My vision would be to have downtown Halifax and Dartmouth (which is really Halifax now) function as one downtown area, made more functional by a bolstered transit system. Right now, the downtown Dartmouth area is still largely untouched and there are many areas where prime office space could be built. This would also have the spin-off effect of increased residential and retail building in the area and yes, there could be some positive effects on traffic.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

As I recall the original design incorporated none of the church facade and was a typical glass curtain wall front. After tantrums by the usual suspects the developer offered up what is there now. I agree it does not make sense.

Let's look at this for what it is.

The idea of maintaining the façade was to incorporate design elements of the original building into the new building to maintain some flavour of the original stone building (which I believe was a residence for the clergy of St. Paul's church, but not much info out there on it to confirm).

The actual result makes it appear that the builder begrudgingly attempted to satisfy the minimum standard of maintaining the historic building, by building around the façade rather than attempting to incorporate it into the design. This ended up all but concealing what was there before. Really they just built what they wanted to while leaving a small piece of the façade standing - giving the appearance of a featureless box eating a stone building.

I can't help but think if they had followed the spirit of the requirement and highlighted the original design elements of the building, we would have been left with a really interesting and significant building that would attract attention and add visual interest to the street to this day.

What was there:

(source NS archives)

What is there now:

(source Google Maps)

Too bad, it could have been so much better.

[JET]

Mark, you certainly have a knack for finding some nice old photos;
pretty soon I expect you'll have to pony up a nickel for your posts.

[Drybrain]

Holy hell, I had no idea that was such a great building back in the day. Dramatically better than what's there now—the current building doesn't even have the benefit of adding much more density, being only marginally larger.

A tremendous fail on every level.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

What was there:

(source NS archives)

I had no idea there was a street with nose-in parking in front of St Paul's! Imagine that. It would be much more useful than the unused space there now.

While the old building was likely non-functional in the interior, I agree that the exterior appears to have been worth reusing.

[JET]

"I agree that the exterior appears to have been worth reusing. "
I'm glad that I'm sitting down; here I was thinking that you disliked almost all old buildings, interesting.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I had no idea there was a street with nose-in parking in front of St Paul's! Imagine that. It would be much more useful than the unused space there now.

While the old building was likely non-functional in the interior, I agree that the exterior appears to have been worth reusing.

I don't have a personal recollection of that parking area, but I did find this atlas page from 1878 on the NS archives site that shows a clear divide between St. Paul's and the Grand Parade. I assume that this area was city-owned and probably evolved from hitching-post to parking area over the decades. I don't remember when it was changed to its current configuration.



Source: NS Public Archives

http://novascotia.ca/archives/virtual/maps/hopkins.asp

[Dmajackson]

Demolition is beginning at 3138 Isleville to make way for this project;


Source: Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

Since this is on my walking route I will be blogging the progress: Halifax Developments Blog - 3138 Isleville

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Yes, yes, because moving offices out to suburban business parks, that are poorly service both by roads *and* by public transit will "ease" congestion.

Come on. This is city planning 101. There's a reason why traffic congestion is a nightmare out in business parks like Bayers Lake despite having a comparatively far smaller percentage of office space than downtown.

Also, I also find the arrogant dismissal of people living downtown as "yuppies" to be the usual hair-brained faux populist clap trap that better belongs in the loony toon comments to online Chronicle Herald stories, than SSP.

[edited]
Moving civil servants to Dartmouth or Bedford is not moving them to 'suburban business parks'
Lots of development opportunities in downtown Dartmouth and Wyse Road. Several empty acres at the MacDonald bridgehead, more than enough for residential and office development and then people can live close to work a concept that really is 'city planning 101'. The location is next to the bridge, shopping mall, grocery stores, transit terminal, park space, schools, and the Sportsplex.

Do any families live in downtown Halifax ? Are the condos full of families and is the Spatz development being marketed to families, or yuppies or seniors ?

Several weeks ago the Globe and Mail had an excellent article re condo living and the quandary faced by young couple who buy a condo and some years later start a family. The key to attracting couples with kids to condo living is to have lots of park space, according to Toronto planner Keesmat. A similar article can be found here :
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comme...recedence.html
Peninsula Halifax does not have 'lots of park space'.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by Colin May

[edited]

Peninsula Halifax does not have 'lots of park space'.

Haha have you ever been to this city.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by hokus83

Haha have you ever been to this city.

Indeed, peninsular Halifax is absolutely LOADED with park space. Point Pleasant, Fort Needham, the Commons, Gorsebrook, Public Gardens, Conrose Field, Flinn Park, and all kinds of pocket parks. It's easily the most park-endowed city I've ever lived in, in terms of the central part of town.

(That Keesmaat article is interesting, too, though a bit self-serving to her as a planner—makes it seem like young Torontonians are throwing away their drivers's licences and emrbacing the condo lifestyle. In fact, Torontonians lvoe to loathe condos, and the vast majority of young people in that city who I know are desperate for a house—which is why the GTA's biggest growth areas is still still the belt of 905 greenfield sprawl where young people are buying cheap houses.)

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by hokus83

Haha have you ever been to this city.

Apparently this guy hasn't... and apparently Halifax is going to implode due to development according to him.

Halifax might even have too many parks...

Adding to the list mentioned by Drybrain in one area: Larry O'Connell, Westmount Park, Ardmore Park.

This whole green space thing has been used as a false argument against height... the Bayer's road development LOST park space when it was reduced from 16 to 8 stories.

[Keith P.]

Never thought it was possible, but it seems Mr. May is more cantankerous and grumpy than I am.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Indeed, peninsular Halifax is absolutely LOADED with park space. Point Pleasant, Fort Needham, the Commons, Gorsebrook, Public Gardens, Conrose Field, Flinn Park, and all kinds of pocket parks. It's easily the most park-endowed city I've ever lived in, in terms of the central part of town.

(That Keesmaat article is interesting, too, though a bit self-serving to her as a planner—makes it seem like young Torontonians are throwing away their drivers's licences and emrbacing the condo lifestyle. In fact, Torontonians lvoe to loathe condos, and the vast majority of young people in that city who I know are desperate for a house—which is why the GTA's biggest growth areas is still still the belt of 905 greenfield sprawl where young people are buying cheap houses.)

I spent the first week of September in a private home on the 0-100 block of Crawford Street about 150 yards from Trinity Bellwoods Park.
I won't tell you the house number but google 66 Crawford Street and look at all the parks within a 200 yards or more. Compare that with downtown Halifax or compare it with peninsula.
I had condos at the top and bottom of the block, the former York Knitting Mills building is all condos, and on King St W the Massey Harris building is condos with an adjacent park (Massey Harris Park) Walk a little further south and it is the Garrison Common and new condos about to go up on the north side of the Gardiner.
I admit that Toronto is nice and flat and therefore much easier for families in condos to quickly get into a park.
Keesmat makes the point that neighbourhood parks are the main requirement for younger condo dwellers who are contemplating a family. In Toronto the area councillor has a great deal of influence on the development approval process and the negotiations generally centre around impact upon adjacent neighbourhoods and extraction of cash for local public amenities. The cash is spent at the discretion of the residents and the councillor. The now Liberal MP Adam Vaughan was a master at ensuring residents had a voice in how their area was developed.
Public Gardens is closed for 5-6 months of the year.
Overlaying peninsula Halifax on top of Toronto will prove my point. East of Citadel Hill and in the heart of downtown Halifax there is almost no green space other than the legislature and the small area in Grand Parade. Family oriented condos downtown will require residents to take small kids uphill.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Never thought it was possible, but it seems Mr. May is more cantankerous and grumpy than I am.

A week in the heart of Toronto will do that to you !
Vogue magazine calls the area I stayed in as the 2nd hippest place in the world.
I walked around a lot, took photos of residential properties and my impression was a cosmopolitan city loaded with young people, a lot of whom had dogs. Never seen so many dogs in a big city - dogs must be the new 'babies' considering all the pet pampering salons I saw.
A lot of local businesses and when you get closer to the city centre you see the chain stores proliferating.
What used to be a working class area is now very desirable, some streets still have homes which would be ticketed in Halifax as ' dangerous and unsightly premises' and would sell for at least $500,000 and in need of significant renovation.
Condos in Toronto were easy on the eye because they don't seem to intrude upon the public space. King & Queen W are about 5 lanes wide and the sidewalks are wider than in Halifax by a factor of at least 3.
Parks all over the place. The house we stayed in was a complete reno and just 18 feet wide internally but about 40 feet deep.
Our Mayor and council would be wise to go and take a look at how the Toronto neighbourhoods work ;they may even break down and use TTC.