With more of the cart-before-horse planning process that has characterized the Halifax convention centre from the start, construction has started on the site, even though a final design for the project has yet to be officially approved.
When Halifax council approved the HRM By Design planning policies for downtown in 2008, it specifically included a grandfather clause that exempted the convention site from height limits that would apply were the convention centre not built. That exemption was tied to a design for an underground convention centre stretching from Argyle to Market Street, under Grafton Street, which would remain open to traffic, with towers on either side of the street.
But developer Joe Ramia and the province then split the $200,000 cost to hire spoken word artist Tim Merry to conduct public consultations for a design revision. With that public input in mind, Ramia’s architects came back with a completely new plan, which calls for the convention centre to be above ground, stretching over Grafton Street. That design will require the closing of Grafton Street to traffic.
Another city land use policy, however, specifically prohibits the closure of streets. “The traditional street grid provides a high level of connectivity and is an important characteristic of the downtown,” reads the policy. “HRM shall not close streets to permit blocks in the downtown to be consolidated for development.”
Last Thursday, Ramia brought the design changes to the Design Review Committee, which theoretically has to approve all new designs. Since construction based on the revised design has already commenced, the committee’s role is something of a farce, but that hasn’t stopped some committee members from objecting parts of the design, including a blank wall along Market Street, which will consist of service doors for the convention centre. Additionally, heritage groups are objecting to increased massing of the towers above the convention centre.
The process farce will continue on Thursday, October 24, at 7pm at the Dalhousie Computer Science Building, where the public will supposedly be able to weigh in on the building that’s already being built. At some later date, council will have to approve planning law changes that allow for the closure of Grafton Street. Those changes will require a public hearing, even though, again, the building is already under construction.
This article appears in Oct 17-23, 2013.
So, is that it then? Did we give away a whole downtown street?
A buried concrete parking garage doesn’t change if different glass finishes or other aesthetics change above grade. The building is limited by view planes – the structure below ground will have to support something that will maximize usable space out of the view plane, so even if what is above ground changes, the foundations will be able to hold it up either way.
Bousquet is a great reporter, and I understand the importance of outing the ways in which council is letting Ramia off the hook in small but numerous ways. But it’s getting a bit over-the-top: Every little thing is exploited as an opportunity to decry the convention centre as a “farce, ” etc. It’s obviously some personal grievance and it’s interfering with editorial objectivity.
ALSO: “Heritage groups are objecting to increased massing.” Gee, I wonder who these “heritage groups” are. I would love for our city’s heritage activists to stop getting their granny-panties in a knot obsessing over tall buildings, and start actually WORKING to protect our dwindling stock of beautiful old buildings, which they seem entirely un-concerned with.
One notices they have nothing to say about the endangered Dennis Building, or Westwood Development’s long-simmering plans to demolish the Brunswick-Doyle block on Spring Garden (Tom’s Little Havana, Fireside Restaurant and the rest of the block). Instead it’s all view corridors and height restrictions. No one takes them seriously, and they’re turning the general public in Halifax against heritage advocacy, doing more harm than good.
In fact, I’d like to see the Heritage Trust disappear altogether, and an effective, useful heritage-advocacy group take their place.
@ T. Buckets: I don’t think Tim’s concern is that the design of the parking garage will prevent meaningful adjustments to the building’s design. I think his concern is that because the garage exists, there is going to be immense pressure on the DRC and Council to not request significant and meaningful changes to the design lest it delays construction or we get stuck with an unfished hole in the ground.
At least glad to see they’ll be allowing bicycles to travel west on sackville street again, lets hope they can at least accomplish that much.
Roger Nelson