Toronto-Dominion Bank wants to nearly triple the size of its 18-storey Barrington Street tower. The plan calls for the demolition of the Macara-Barnstead Building on Granville Street, a registered historic property that dates to the 1820s.
Architect Bill Anwyll unveilled the plans last Thursday before the Design Review Committee. That committee reviews all building proposals and determines if they meet the design criteria established by the HRM By Design planning rules for downtown.
The TD building was built in 1972, explained Anwyll. The full tower sits to the south of the CIBC building on Barrington, and extends back only half a block, because at the time of construction TD didn’t own the two lots on Granville. (One lot is occupied by the Barnstead building. The second is now empty, but once was the site of the historic Kellys Leather Goods Store, which was demolished in 2006.) TD has since acquired both lots.
Along George Street, the tower drops to a four-storey “podium,” as to preserve the protected view shed from Citadel Hill down the George Street corridor to the harbour. That podium extends to Granville Street.
The TD proposal fills in the block, by extending the tower back to Granville Street. The podium would remain in its current configuration, but the facade at the corner of George and Granville would be reworked to be consistent with the larger building. There would also be a three-storey pyramid-shaped extension to the top of the tower, two storeys of which would be rentable office space, with the third storey housing some of the building’s equipment.
The bigger building would increase the space on each floor from the present 3,500 square feet to 9,800 square feet, said Anwyll. He did not say, but that increase presumably does not include the podium or the pyramid. The overall increase in office space would be in the neighbourhood of 110,000 square feet; Anwyll gave no indication whether the bank would use the extra space itself, or lease it out.
Thanks to more efficient design, the bigger building would use less energy than the existing building, said Anwyll.
The Macara-Barnstead Building
TD’s plans call for demolishing the Macara-Barnstead Building, although responding to a question from a committee member, Anwyll objected to that characterization. “We’re not going to demolish the building,” he said. “We’re going to deconstruct the rear of the building, which has very limited heritage value, but maintain the front facade… The intent is to get it looking like it looked in the 1870s.”
Anwyll was referring to a brick extension to the rear of the building constructed in the 1880s, but in fact, the plan is to tear down the entire building, save for the facade and parts of three stone walls. Those walls now extend all the way to the rear of the original building (in the picture above, the exterior wall is one of the three walls), but TD intends to keep only the easternmost 12 feet of each wall. Keeping any more of the walls would interfere with the rentability of the space, said Anwyll.
Asked if The Flower Shop would be back in the reconstructed space, Anwyll said no. “The reality is that The Flower Shop is in this building because it’s a relatively inexpensive space to rent. When it’s new and it has air conditioning and proper heating and little things like that, and everybody wants to be there because it’s in such a lovely condition on the street, the rent’s going to go up.”
“We think that entire building is important,” said Phil Pacey of the Heritage Trust, after the meeting. “It’s one of the few stone buildings left in the city.”
The new building would also recreate the lost facade of the Kelly building along Granville Street.
Process issues
At a previous meeting, Pacey had asked to address the committee, to lay out his view that demolishing the Macara-Barnstead Building goes against the design guidelines laid out in HRM By Design. The committee, which was only created this year, had not yet drawn up rules for public presentations; at that time they voted not to allow presentations from the public.
That decision didn’t sit right with four members of the committee, who insisted last week that their contrary views be recorded in the minutes of the earlier meeting.
“The developer just spoke before the committee for, what, an hour?” said Pacey after the meeting. “We think it’s within our democratic rights to also address the committee.”
As for the building proposal itself, TD will need two variances from the Halifax council in order to get permission to build. Both variances are needed to make the project economically viable, said Anwyll.
The first involves extending the front facade, above the Macara-Barnstead facade, to 41 metres before it is stepped back from the street. HRM By Design guidelines dictate a stepback after 37.5 metres in height.
The second variance would apply to the north side of the new portion of the building, facing the CIBC building. Planning rules say that after the first 33.5 metres of height, new construction must be stepped back at least 17 metres from the common property line. Abiding by those rules would leave a large blank space omitted from the otherwise square tower. Anwyll argued that it made no difference, except to the people in the CIBC building, if that blank space was filled in, because the existing tower already blocks views and sunlight.
The Design Review Committee will formally decide on the merits of the TD proposal at its next meeting, which hasn’t been scheduled yet.
This article appears in May 13-19, 2010.
“As for the building proposal itself, TD will need two variances from the Halifax council in order to get permission to build. Both variances are needed to make the project economically viable, said Anwyll. “
What does ‘economically viable’ mean ?
What rate of return does TD require to meet the definition of ‘ economically viable’ ?
TD could consider using the older building as a ’boutique’ for its wealth management team and sales of insurance (except the feds keep listening to those damn insurance brokers who just don’t like competition and want to make it as awkward as possible for you and I to buy car or home insurance from a bank)
Not a bad description of the meeting but there are a couple of facts that are incorrect.
The building will be slightly less than doubled in rentable area with this addition. Currently each floor is approximately 4500 square feet and the new floors will increase that to almost 9000 square feet, except for the podium, of course.
The Macara Barnstead Building was built in a different guise in 1825 and renovated into its present configuration in 1906, 1922 and 1936.
The podium is actually 5 stories high.
The TD Bank does not own the building but is a tenant.
The side yard setback required by HRMbyDesign is actually 11.5 meters rather than 17 meters. There would be a net loss of nearly 30,000 square feet of rentable area if that requirement was not relaxed with a variance.
As for what “economically viable” means; if you add the cost of the original building plus the cost of the new addition, you arrive at the cost (sort of) of the new building. Since the money to buy and renovate the building is borrowed from lenders, there is the need to pay back the loan and interest from income generated by rents. If the building is smaller, there is less rent available to service the debt. Of course the cost to build the addition will be smaller so the amount of debt will be slightly lower but when the economies of scale are taken into consideration, the amount or rent per square foot is higher with a smaller building. One of the shortcomings of the current building is its small floor plate. The larger floor plate will allow a wider range of tenants to be interested and willing to sign leases.
Thanks for your comments, Bill. Writing the article, I checked my recording of the meeting re: 17 metres, and I just checked it again, and that’s what was said. I’ll take your word for it that the actual code is 11 metres, but that’s not what was said.
I also had five storeys for the podium, originally (I counted, from the picture), but changed it to four, again, because that’s what was said at the meeting. Kind of silly, I know. Also, the “3,500 square feet to 9,800 square feet” figures come from my notes; I didn’t check that against the recording (which is 90 minutes long), but I remember being surprised that you could increase the space that much.
I went to a public consultation on 28 Jan 2010. It was hosted by the building. There was a model, and rendering, and cheap food as well.
Here’s their snazzy website:
http://halifaxdowntown.ca/
not to be confused with
http://downtownhalifax.ca/
Enjoy.
Bill Anwyll – I wonder what rate of return (ROR) the developer is looking for to meet the test of ‘economically viable’. I presume it to be 8-12% based on the the risk and the other investment opportunities available if the cash was invested elsewhere.
Developers never talk about the ROR they seek but quite readily complain that they need 15 storeys when 12 will generate a good ROR; the extra storeys are usually negotiable but never a deal breaker.
I hope whatever is built kills or injures fewer birds than the existing building. My friends and I have found many dead birds at the base of the existing building. It seems the birds fly out of the trees in the Parade and collide with the reflective glass.
With the change from mirrored glass to tinted transparent glass the death to birds will likely decrease, but any glass is reflective by nature and birds are not especially bright, hence the expression “bird brain”.
I seriously doubt that the owner would ever realize a return of 8-12% per year. In general, buildings are financed to do slightly better than break even (2 – 4%) so that when they are sold to the next person, the seemingly “natural” increase in value of the real estate becomes the profit. That said, the smart developer will make sure he has some profit for the times that the economy stumbles and interest rates increase. Of course, when the value of the building increases in value, the owner may up their mortgage to reflect the increase in value. Then he has money to invest in the next project.
The extra floors are the profitable ones for the developer. The extra cost of construction is less than the first dozen floors (per square foot) because the land cost is spread over more area, the increase in the cost of mechanical systems for the larger area is incrementally smaller as the area increases, the professional fees do not increase at the same rate as the area increase and about 500 other reasons based upon the economy of scale. On the other hand, higher buildings also require more, faster elevators to handle the people load and those sort of things. One need only look at the floor plans of really tall office buildings to see that the rentable to usable floor area ratio is hugely skewed from 85% to as little as 35%. Anyway, it is a highly complex juggling feat and the very smart and brave people who develop property for a living are very rarely the greedy, mouth breathers they are portrayed as.
i had a great conversation today with a fellow young, committed-to-living-in-halifax, urban dweller. we were at the Trident Café (in an old building .. not sure if it is registered, but that doesn’t really matter to me) chatting about the places we like to spend time in the city.
suddenly we realized – we spend ZERO time hanging out, swapping ideas, spending our cash in new buildings. none. all the places that make us feel at home, or feel in a creative space, or make us want to consume are old buildings. not facades, not new. i’m not against new development .. i don’t particularly care about registered or not registered status…
BUT I DO care about having things to do in the downtown. i do care A LOT about QUALITY.
i think every old building torn down is an opportunity lost. cmon private sector of halifax! let’s get creative and find an economic model that works for old buildings and funky uses.
we can’t (or at least we don’t) build like that anymore.
there must be a better way possible in halifax – we see examples all around the world.
can we take this opportunity to do something outstanding?
The redesign looks good. It’s interesting that the article is only concerned about variances and the historic building. Nothing is mentioned about the the solar panels, nothing is mentioned of the green space on the roof. But hey, we’ve gotta turn away new development, because they’re going to gut out an old building that is drafty, old and generally poorly constructed.
It doesn’t surprise me that the most uninformed are the banks. TD get with the times. Globally, especially Japan, the business trend setter, there is massive downsizing of office space as large corporations (such as banks) allow employees to work from home. This trend makes ecological sense (tremendous downsizing of daily commutes by gas propelled vehicles), but it also allows families of all types and locals to have access to the good jobs.
TD is dumb to invest money in a large building that will, over the next 20yrs became a vacant waste of space.