The tug-of-war between preservationists and developers continues after the Mary Ann site open house this week. The Mary Ann construction, planned for September, is the latest luxury-living project by WM Fares Group and BANC Group; the proposed nine-storey building will face Clyde Street between Birmingham and Queen Streets. It’ll contain 135 units, with the main level is reserved for commercial space.
The project’s website mentions the property’s proximity to stores, restaurants, the new library and Public Gardens, but missing from the attraction list is Schmidtville, the quaint neighbourhood that begins across the street. Schmidtville is one of the oldest neighbourhoods in Halifax, with some homes built in 1850s.
A non-profit group called Friends of Schmidtville is asking Mary Ann site developers to pay attention to their neighbours. Judy Haiven of the Friends of Schmidtville steering committee says the community hasn’t been consulted and doesn’t have enough time to respond. “The building design doesn’t reflect the area. It looks like four architectural styles in one building, and where is the public or green space?” says Haiven.
Friends of Schmidtville is also unhappy about the nine-storey design—the property height restriction is seven storeys but developers can bypass HRM by Design rules if public amenities are included. Cesar Saleh of WM Fares,says this requirement will be met by providing affordable housing in the building.
The open house was inside the Trillium building, which is also owned by WM Fares. Saleh explains the meeting was held at Trillium to ensure community accessibility. Although easy to access, it was in an unfinished portion of the Trillium building, with concrete walls and no seating.
When Friends of Schmidtville members asked questions, Saleh answered briefly or politely directed them to the suggestion box. According to the site approval process, WM Fares is following the public response rules precisely: the company held an open house, has suggestion kiosks around the city and created a website.
The next proposed project, on the Margaretta site, one block west from the Mary Ann site, and continues Friends of Schmidtville’s concern of tall buildings encroaching on their historic neighbourhood.
This article appears in Jun 7-13, 2012.
What is the definition of ‘affordable housing’ and does that encourage housing for people of low income ?
It never ceases to amaze me that the architect rendition of the building is always encompassed by pristine streets and sidewalks, trees, zebra crossing. It is too bad that the actual vision is never quite realized.
I understand that these people live in a “historic” (although, in my mind old =/= historic) neighbourhood, but that can’t impede progress.
The same people the don’t want tall buildings are usually the ones who don’t want to expand roads to make accessing the core easier. Either HRM is going to have to deal with more urban sprawl, or downtown has to move upwards.
That said, there’s a way to marry this type of progress with the history of Halifax. I think the building is simply ugly. It’s modern (and would probably fit in really well on parts of Spring Garden), but perhaps the architects behind these buildings should try something innovative that we haven’t seen a lot of in Halifax — a modern building with a “historic” appearance.
There’s nothing wrong with 9, 10, 11, 12-story buildings, but make them feel like Halifax. The only reason the buildings in the area weren’t 9-stories in the 1850s is because it wasn’t feasible.
Why not at least attempt to marry a “Historic Properties” type of feel with a bit of a modern twist?
The preservationists make some good points, but these often get lost in their strident anti-development ideology and lack of strategic focus.
Instead of focusing on meaningful input to negotiate specific things (like underground power lines), they whine and bitch about past battles and nostalgia. They don’t ever articulate a positive alternative (like the kinds of things teamfarrell mentions above). It’s no wonder that developers don’t take them seriously.
I live in the area and support the development. The parking lots are ghastly.
Maybe developers would be more inclined to listen to citizens if the self-anointed spokespersons didn’t present themselves as lunatics.
I was told by Cesar Saleh that affordable housing will be offered in 10% of the units at a rate of 20% less than market value.
A: The building DOES look like four styles in one building. It’s a bad design.
B: On the other hand, from a heritage perspective, nothing is being demolished, right? No old buildings will be lost? (I would be opposed to that, in most cases.) So I suspect the real beef isn’t that the building is ugly, but that Schmidtville residents just want to pretend they live in a 19th century village rather than a 21st century city.
LOOK: Heritage preservation is about exactly that; preserving are old buildings, for aesthetic, cultural, and economic reasons. Heritage preservation shouldn’t be about preventing new buildings from going up on parking lots and empty land, or replacing undistinguished small buildings. Halifax needs development. If it’s responsibly managed, let’s freakin’ do it.
C: On the other, other hand, the building is totally ugly.
I take offence to this statement:
“The preservationists make some good points, but these often get lost in their strident anti-development ideology and lack of strategic focus. “
I am on the Friends of Schmitville steering committee and I do not have a ‘strident anti-development ideology’. As I told the developers in person, I am not against development – what I am FOR is smart development. In my opinion, principles such as engaging in a dialogue with your neighbours, taking every opportunity to build in such a way that you can benefit from passive solar heating, and creating a streetscape that takes into account its surroundings is not a RADICAL IDEOLOGY.
Leah– it depends on what’s being offered, no? I mean if he’s got multi-million dollar condos in there– a building full of Trillium’s $4 million penthouse– than 20% off is $3.2 million. Is that “affordable” to anyone who’s not a millionaire? Can the working poor afford it.
For me, “affordable” should be defined as a dual-income family working at, say, $15/hour can afford to rent at 1/4 of total income. You could tweak it this way or that, but that general principle. Anything else is empty rhetoric, like “sustainable” or “green” or whatever.
The building design is not good, but that isn’t because it is done in a semi-modern style. It’s ugly because it is a mishmash of disjointed design cliches. Porthole windows? You have to be kidding.
Making it faux-historic will result in yet another Halifax red-brick and foam cornice wonder like the atrocious Marriott Residence Inn. Not what the city nor the neighborhood needs. I’d be happier if it took its inspiration from our new library with its contemporary look.
It seems clear from the article that the FoS think they are so special that the rules of HRM By Design, which the developer has scrupulously followed, do not apply to them. There is no shortage of people in this town who need to get over themselves and let this city move forward.
if this project gets the nod from council without a proper definition of ‘affordable housing’ iI am sure the opponents will be off to court. HRM needs to make a clear, logical and fixed definition. The plan should have used the phrase ‘low income’ and defined it in dollar terms.
A Ferrari is ‘affordable’, soccer players in Britain buy them and and a Bentley is quite common in the parking lots at soccer stadiums.
It seems a bit far-fetched to worry about discount penthouses, because for one thing the developer would lose out more if he really did offer a discount on more expensive units.
It’s not correct to say that developers can “bypass HRM by Design rules” if they include affordable housing. The provisions for height bonuses based on affordable housing are part of the HRM by Design rules, and the 9-storey height was part of the original public consultation process.
Fundamentally 9 storeys is also a totally reasonable height for these sites. These blocks are two of the most desirable in the whole city and they are separated from the neighbourhood by a street and an extra setback that was always part of the plan and again dates back to earlier public consultation about the Sister Sites.
There’s very little substance to the complaints about this development.
I was told that these units will be rental by someone on the developers team at the open house. I had assumed condos, so I was surprised. It should be easy to confirm one way or another by a call/email to them.
As for the rest of the debate, I’m thrilled to see FoS members (@TartanFrog) on here articulating “smart development.” I’d like to nominate you to be the new spokesperson for the group on the condition that you stop YELLING.
Well I see Tim’s bending the reality of HbD to fit his ideology again. Tim – the building isn’t going around the rules or bending them, it’s doing what the rules allow. There is ‘pre-bonus height’ (which is 7 stories) and then ‘post bonus height’ (which is 9 stories). The rules say, if you provide affordable housing and a bunch of other things, you can go up to 9 stories. So why don’t you report it accurately.
Secondly, the issue of ‘tall buildings encroaching on Schmidtville’ is mute, they do. Period. Once Park Vic went up and then the other taller buildings too, that was it. The context was defined and set. They had their say, when council debated the issue, council didn’t agree. A 9 storey building here isn’t appropriate, when the average height of the adjacent buildings is 16.5 storeys (with the 4 tall buildings in the adjacent blocks).
“….where is the public or green space?” says Haiven.”
How about walk over a couple of blocks to Victoria Park and Public Gardens…. sheesh…
LOL Nimbyism at its finest Tartan Frog.
“I am on the Friends of Schmitville steering committee and I do not have a ‘strident anti-development ideology’. As I told the developers in person, I am not against development – what I am FOR is smart development.”
In other words, build it the way you’d like it to be because: You have the money to be a developer and you are in competition for this space? Because you are a world renowned architect and people give a fuck about your architectural critiques? Because you are an urban planner with years of experiences determining what fit form and function are appropriate within the Central Business District of the city?
Get over yourself. You – and people like you – are the ones raising taxes in this city. Maybe you will pay every citizen back for the thousands in lost tax revenue from yet another development shot down by those with parochial attitudes about development in our down town. Which is you.
In short, fuck off.
“Well I see Tim’s bending the reality of HbD to fit his ideology again. Tim – the building isn’t going around the rules or bending them, it’s doing what the rules allow. There is ‘pre-bonus height’ (which is 7 stories) and then ‘post bonus height’ (which is 9 stories). The rules say, if you provide affordable housing and a bunch of other things, you can go up to 9 stories. So why don’t you report it accurately.”
Tim didn’t write this article, I did. And yes, what you said is the correct explanation of how the system works. I should have explained clearer. WM Fares is staying within the flexible HRM by Design rules by providing public amenities to increase building height.
Hey Joe Blows, point taken:)
As for Dartmouthy, don’t know who pissed in your cornflakes.
I believe in respectful dialogue and positive community contributions.
I had a respectful conversation with the developer and the architect asking about the possibility of turning the building to face our community in order that a) the building could benefit from environmentally-friendly passive solar heat, and b) the open side provide a safer, open community feeling.
If we’re concerned with taxes, I believe we also need to look at how to design streetscapes that will be conducive to citizen safety.
“…the possibility of turning the building to face our community in order that a) the building could benefit from environmentally-friendly passive solar heat, and b) the open side provide a safer, open community feeling.”
Apparently not allowed under the Downtown Halifax Land Use By Law, according to the architect (see p. 25: http://www.halifax.ca/planning/documents/D…), viz: “A streetwall shall extend the full width of a lot abutting the streetline.”
Someone more knowledgeable than I can interpret the variance clause: “may be varied by site plan approval where the relaxation is consistent with the criteria of the Design Manual.”
I hope the Design Committee improves the design, but I’ll be glad to see those parking lots go regardless.
Don’t see the problem here. They’re building over parking lots, to the NORTH of Schmitville thus not posing any risk of blocking the sun.
That being said, I enjoy our heritage and I agree the buildings could blend in better, but to stop this because they’re too tall or threaten the community (how is that even possible?) would be absurd. We need buildings downtown, and they need to be TALL, not your ugly as sin sky-wall Park Vic type hotel slab buildings, but point towers that don’t cast huge shadows.
This building would not threaten anyone, but it would ease the demand for housing downtown.