The Utility and Review Board has ruled that the Halifax Regional Municipality had improperly rejected Halifax developer Ben McCrea’s Armour Group’s application to build the Waterside Centre.
Plans for Waterside Centre call for tearing down four registered historic buildings on the block bound by Upper Water, Hollis and Duke Streets and by the distinctive Morse’s Tea building. An effort will be made to preserve the facades of the buildings; if that is not feasible some facades may be torn down and rebuilt. Otherwise, the historic buildings will be completely gutted and removed, and a new nine-storey highrise built in their stead.
The UARB found that: McCrea had
established that council’s decision refusing to enter into the development agreement failed to reasonably carry out the intent of the [Municipal Planning Strategy].
Further, the Board finds that the proposed development agreement does reasonably carry out the intent of the MPS.
Accordingly, the Board allows [McCrea’s] appeal and orders that HRM council approve the development agreement.
The ruling is not particularly surprising. Premier Rodney MacDonald had made it clear that he wanted to force the Halifax council to approve Waterside, and while the UARB is theoretically independent, everyone knows who butters their bread.
It’s also worth noting that Armour group contributed $6,823.66 to MacDonald’s Progressive Conservative party in 2005 and and $395.65 in 2007, while McCrea personally donated $500 in both years. MacDonald kicked off his party leadership bid in the lobby of McCrea’s Founders’ Square office complex.
This article appears in Mar 26 – Apr 1, 2009.
It looks nice…what the hell was all the fuss about???
Jackasses
This is great news. They’re keeping the outside the same, while, renovating the inside. We need to realize that this city needs to grow up and be open to new things and more importantly, new buildings.
FINALLY. Now hopefully they can start building soon, although the fucking pisswhiners at the Heritage Trust will probably appeal and bog it down again. This is a nice, compromising design.
Hopefully this isn’t another in a long line of projects that receives approval and then never gets built.
i moved to the city to enjoy the old-build downtown, not to wander among butt-ugly office towers that get torn down and rebuilt every 30 years, and as a result the downtown looses all originality, and starts looking as yet ANOTHER north american city.
and then the same people who advocate the demolition of historic buildings go to Europe for vacation to ‘enjoy architecture’.
what the hell is wrong with not tearing down OUR old buildings, so in 200 years people will flock to Halifax to enjoy the architecture? i flocked here, but looks like in vain.
there is nothing wrong with renovating the insides of the buildings, but please stop tearing them down!
Fuck!!!
Great news! But leave it to Tim and the Coast to spin it as something bad, and post a smear as well. Those trivial contributions — usually made to the Libs as well, but not the anti-business party — are meaningless in buying influence. Unlike Big Labor’s massive support to the NDP, which causes that party to take up residence in the union’s pockets.
K— hate to burst your bubble, but if you’ve ever been to any other city in Canada, there are much better examples of “enjoying architecture”. Old Montreal is filled with old, Gothic buildings, Quebec City looks exactly like what it used to back when Champlain lived there. Halifax lost most of it’s classic “architecture” a little less than 100 years ago from the explosion. Here’s a another newsflash for you: NO North American city is going to look like ANY European city. Most cities in Europe have 5 or 6 hundred years on the oldest settlements in Canada. Not to mention: the proposed building is NOT changing the front of the building. Sure, it’s being built on top of the existing structure and it’s going to be modern, but the existing “old architecture” is going to be maintained. Besides, some new buildings look way nicer than some of the old, dirty, buildings left over from the Victorian era. Besides, not all modern buildings are going to end up like the some of those ugly grey stone buildings created in the 70’s and 80’s.
This is good news. Keep in mind that this is the same company that built Founder’s Square (corner of Hollis and Prince), and it included facades of heritage buildings that were perfectly maintained. That spot actually looks much nicer than it did back in the 70s before the office building was constructed.
I suspect that the new building will be much the same – it will be built, it will look nice, and all the detractors will quietly stop complaining. Most people will barely notice the tower on top, but WILL notice the fact that there are people and businesses in the area.
lovin the unbiased news coverage here people, this is why i only read the bitching and the sex advise, anyways, congrats to Armour group, i for one, am totally thrilled!!!
lovin the unbiased news coverage here people, this is why i only read the bitching and the sex advise, anyways, congrats to Armour group, i for one, am totally thrilled!!!
Dr. Fever – i have been to plentiful CDN (and other north american cities) i have lived in the t dot and travelled around.
you agree that old downtowns are beautiful, so what is it that you disagree with in my post? is the point you are making that hfx lost too much of its downtown to remain an old city? i agree, it is a pity, but we can still SAVE what we have left.
well, i am from europe, and from a city that is YOUNGER that several canadian cities (including Quebec City), and architecturally does not look like a non-european city (heck, it is considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in Europe by some). so the fact that hfx was founded in 18th century does not change the fact that it could well have looked like A european city.
the fact that the facade of the building will have a scyscraper growing out of it, changes (COMPLETELY) the compositional aspect of the design. try moving a painting relative to its frame, and youll see what i mean.
and for the record, i have not seen more than a dozen modern buildings that look better then even XIX century faux-gothic.
My point was that what old architecture in the downtown area was here, was annihilated by the Explosion. What survives is the South End, and those properties are not in any danger of being removed. We’re still an old city; but the downtown core is not old anymore. The few building that are there deserve to be protected, but that should not prevent new ones from being built at the expense of preserving a dilapidated old one. The new design does not ruin the existing architecture, thus preserving it. Oh, a 5-10 story structure does not constitute a skyscraper, and not everyone loves Victorian or post Gothic architecture.