[Image-1]
There’s finally a clear picture of those design changes being proposed for the Nova Centre.
In March, the as-yet-finalized changes to the $500-million complex caught the municipality and the public by surprise when a vague description appeared on an information item that was supposed to go before HRM’s Design Review Committee. That meeting was cancelled over a lack of agenda items.
Argyle Developments owner Joe Ramia has been planning for exterior design changes to the towering downtown project since September, 2015, according to the information report. But no one seemed to have any concrete details on what exactly those proposed modifications were.
Well, now we know. The new design includes 14 alterations to multiple elements of the Nova Centre’s base and tower, as listed below:
[Image-4]
If approved, the changes would turn the Nova Centre from this:
[Image-2]
Into this:
[Image-3]
Speaking of the Nova Centre’s design; over the weekend the Willow Tree community group posted a blog illustrating all the photo tricks those pretty architectural renderings use to sell the public on new developments (particularly the Nova Centre). Those methods include, but are not limited to, cropping out neighbouring structures, manipulating light and the kind of Photoshopping more commonly found on glossy magazine covers.
“A striking formal composition is what architects call ‘the killer view’: the one we’d buy on postcards. To achieve this, some liberties may be necessary. In all of the images above, we’re stationed a quarter-mile away, so Nova Centre fits within a 60-degree cone of vision and doesn’t appear monstrously distorted. Of course, this view wouldn’t be possible without tearing down another city block in the foreground.
Architectural renderings are often composed as bird’s-eye views. Who wouldn’t want to be a bird, soaring through the city and looking down? Meanwhile, our human-eye view is at street level, looking up, so it’s fair to ask why that viewpoint wasn’t included in the renderings.”
The original design for the Nova Centre was approved back in 2014, but due to the “length of time that has passed” since and the extent of these proposed modifications by Ramia, HRM staff have recommended a new substantive site plan and round of public notification is needed before the changes can be approved.
A public open house on the proposed modifications will take place Monday, Wednesday night, 7-9pm, at the Cambridge Suites (1583 Brunswick Street). The Design Review Committee will then hear a preliminary presentation for amending the Nova Centre’s site plan on Thursday, April 14.
Related Stories
Special treatment for Nova Centre mocks HRM By Design
This article appears in Apr 7-13, 2016.
“Tricks” aside, you realize that it’s being built and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, right?
This is called progress which leads to economic growth which leads to better financial health. Financial health means… why am I bothering? Look, cry on of you must but do it our of site so the rest if us don’t have to listen…
The blogpost you have linked to is a piece to discredit architects by calling them unethical in the conclusion of the post. The same group has, over the past few months, published a number of illustrations, from skewed shadow analysis that show you February 8 am shadows to wrong ‘views from the library’, that were all drawn incorrectly to convey a message. (I will be happy to point out their many intentional wrong representations in a separate comment)
The architects are bound by high standard of ethics and they go through difficult processes to receive their stamp. No drawing can go out of their shop without their name all over it. It is ironic that the very group that publishes skewed information and calls architects and developers unethical has no reference to who is writing the posts or who, with what kind of credential and motives, is doing their graphics. At least have the decency of telling people who you are before taking pleasure in dragging professionals through the mud.
The Coast must remain a professional entity, if you reference a blogpost without a writer’s name you are discrediting the newsletter. There are many rules around journalism, one of which includes referencing credible sources.
It’s the same damn people who cry about the loss of Halifax’s virginity that complain about high municipal and provincial taxes who want nothing to do with progress or economic development. The majority of the younger people who complain end up moving to Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Go figure!
prohfx: the author’s name is listed at the end of that post and he is an architect who teaches at the Dalhousie Faculty of Architecture.
Update: the name of the post’s author was added after my comment here this morning. It is great to see that he is at least willing to come forward. But now the issue gets even more problematic: as an architecture prof, is it really ethical to call other architects unethical? If Mr. Parcell really thinks what the architects have done is unethical, shouldn’t he go to the Association of Architects instead of calling out the issue in the public, essentially shaming and bullying architects ? Doesn’t basic professional decency require you to discuss the issue with the architects you are accusing of unethical behaviour first? I think he owes a big apology to all the architects that work in the city with developers. Yes, that’s about every architect in the city except for Mr. Parcell himself because he is not a practising architect.
My issue with the Coast remains: you are calling an entire industry into question by publishing a post that questions the profession that has a code of ethics. Please reconsider your post.
So…they wanna build a great big brick wall with garage doors along the street. Also slam all the exhaust and intake system at street level. Don’t let them do it. It’s anti-people and anti-community. It becomes a scurry-by, no go area. Surely to God for the amount of public is forking out Joey can make the solid brick wall go away.
Update 2: Mr. Parcell has now changed the tone adding “or architectural renderer” in brackets at the conclusion of the post where he calls developers and architects unethical. The question still remains: why is Mr. Steve Parcell discussing professional ethics of architects (or architectural renders, and developers) online by ‘shaming’ them and not through professional bodies governing the industry or through constructive conversations?
This blog post is not a dialogue, it’s not constructive criticism to make future projects better. It is the definition of online bullying where someone gets to write whatever they want without any chance for the person being accused having an opportunity to express their side of the story. Even the blogpost’s comment section is closed off to make sure no other opinion gets expressed. Mr. Parcell has hoped to get ‘public relations’ to work for him here. What I find really troubling is that Mr. Parcell teaches at Dal to the architects of tomorrow and he is supposed to be the one establishing trust and be an example for future industry leaders. Instead he is forgetting about the ethics he is supposed to teach the future architects by expressing his opinion through desecrating other architects.
The conclusion still reads: “Unfortunately, there is no ethical gatekeeper to protect the public from Big Developa.” Who is Mr. Parcell to accuse and shame an entire industry by calling them worse than Big Pharma in the States? If Mr. Parcell really wants to have an influence and make things better, host an event, have a conversation, show respect, don’t sit behind your computer and kill someone’s reputation through online shaming and hope that you get away with it.
Bullying? Really? You think that blog post is bullying? You’re out to lunch.
These are renderings, not official drawings to be used in construction. They are sales and marketing material, I would be very surprised if digital renderings such as these require an architect’s sample of approval. And if they did, clearly someone should be getting in trouble for misleading the public (I highly doubt anything like this falls under architects’ rules and regulations though).
It really sounds like you’re a big fan of false advertising, which is what this is, not some failure of architectural professional standards. We now have more information and can consider these designs with a more critical eye. Thanks to the coast (and Halifax Examiner) for pointing us to these pieces.
“It really sounds like you’re a big fan of false advertising”, No I’m a fan of professionalism. Read the post again, it’s not ‘here is a guideline on how to look at architectural renderings and what to look for’. The whole tone of the post is condescending and at the end of it the post concludes the architects and developers are unethical and that they are worse than Big Pharma in the States. The last paragraph literally reads “What About Ethics?”, who is Mr. Parcell to go online and question people’s ethics on a public post? That’s the type of behaviour we see down South with Trump and Cruz! I certainly don’t want to be subject to such unethical and bullying behaviour myself.
Yes, we all have a duty to educate specially when we have a skill to pass on but this post is questioning the whole industry. Again, I’m all for a dialogue and conversation that will make our city better but this way of attacking others kills trust all together and does nothing but to polarize the discussion.
It is also troubling that Mr. Parcell did not willingly put his name on the post originally and change his tone until these comments here were posted. He needs to be better than that as an architecture prof and active community member.
I can’t really disagree more prohfx.
Keep calling people bullies for using their expertise to highlight misleading practices that are related to the use of large amount of public money if you really want.
I have my own objections to the Nova Centre (just like the Ferry ordeal) and how the public money was used. I would be happy to discuss all the things I see wrong with the project. I will be happy to participate in public forums about what we should demand from architects and developers to strive for better buildings than glass boxes. I will happily share my insight on why I think taxpayers money can go into much more amazing projects like the convention centre in Vancouver. But I refuse to go on personal attacks to prove a point, to discredit architects and developers that are community members and we see them on the streets every day. The very same people that have a huge influence on the future of our city. Willow Tree Group has done nothing but to divide us even more. I’m looking forward to a day that angry people like the ones running the Willow Tree Group will channel their energy into helping build a better city through dialogue and collaboration.