What stops Halifax architects Craig Mosher and Niall Savage from embracing heritage defenders is bigger than the chain-link fence that surrounds the Texpark site on Hollis and Sackville Streets; it’s their imaginations.

As modernist architects, both put function before form. They prefer straight lines. They emphasize shape, light and transparency before things like the decorative window frames we see on the nineteenth-century Barrington Street buildings.

Mosher’s tallest design is Stadacona, the 13-storey Officers’ Quarters Building near the Macdonald bridge, says the WHW Architects designer. He’s currently working on the new medium-rise Life Sciences Research Institute at Dalhousie University sited for the old Grace Memorial Hospital lot—which happens to be adjacent to the Tupper Medical Building, 16 floors of wind-tunnelling mass built in 1967.

Savage, who teaches at Dalhousie’s School of Architecture and runs his own office out of the Roy Building on Barrington, is known within Halifax for designing The Music Room, an exquisite small performance space on Lady Hammond Road, and the Creighton-Gerrish Development housing project off Gottingen Street.

Both architects choose their words carefully. They want to see a beautiful modernist building built here, and they are cautiously—and deeply, one senses—optimistic about the 27-storey, two-tower Hariri Pontarini design. Like many of its supporters, they use the word “elegant” to describe the Toronto firm’s work.

“It seems like an honest, elegant effort,” says Mosher of the “twisted towers”—the moniker which media and critics have used to describe the proposal.

Savage points to the firm’s Toronto housing and campus projects—work of a similar scale to his own—and to their National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais in Santiago, Chile: “They’re good architects, so they’re going render this thing in a very elegant way. And I like the way they’re not just making this your basic shard in the sky. And that they’re really concerned about what’s going on at the street.”

Steeling himself against the cold on the corner of Sackville and Granville Streets on Friday, Mosher agrees that the plinth-and-pedestal base in the proposed design will allow pedestrians to experience the building like a shorter, four-storey structure—although Mosher makes it clear that his opinion is not necessarily the same as his employer’s. Mosher contrasts that with a two-storey, stepped-back section of the Centennial Building across the street: “Now that’s quite clumsy looking, but it’s a buffer. And it’s classic solution to the wind problem—the wind gets pulled back up instead of down along the street.” Mosher believes that downtown Halifax already has a wind problem.

The towers’ design includes a two-storey canopied hotel entrance on Hollis, two-storey retail windows on Sackville and shops, a restaurant, and condo and office entrances on Granville; all are treatments intended to soften the street-level experience of the buildings.

So what are our local precedents for tall buildings? The Tupper was once the tallest, but it’s only half the height of Halifax’s most scorned high-rise, Fenwick Tower. Tall buildings have inched their way up in the downtown, starting in 1929 with the 13-storey Dominion Public Building, a modern classical design, and moving on to a spate of yet taller buildings—although not until forty years later: 1967’s Centennial Building, just 14 storeys; the 17-storey Bank of Montreal in 1971; the 5770 Spring Garden Road high rise apartments in 1975 and the Aliant Building in 1977, both 20 storeys; and the 22-storey Purdy’s Wharf 2 and 1801 Hollis Street, both built in the mid-1980s.

“Twenty years is too long between tall buildings,” insists Mosher. “This building would be a foil to the low-rises that exist already down here. If there’s no rhythm in character and form, that’s dangerous. To mimic old buildings is just patronizing.”

Savage uses even stronger words: “To keep all the buildings at 40 feet is killing the place.” He points out that in the nineteenth century, four-storey buildings were consistent with the economic and technical possibilities—there were, for example, no elevators.

At last Tuesday night’s city council meeting, the second part of a public hearing on the United Gulf Developments proposal, Savage is most convinced by a photocopied panoramic picture of the Halifax skyline. The superimposed towers, a mirage-like insertion, appear to blend in well: “It’s not that tall,” Savage declares. “This is the most convincing thing—the fact that it won’t stand out from the rest of downtown’s tall buildings. That it’s part of the fabric of downtown.”

Savage grimaces when one of the critics—who outnumbered the project’s supporters on Tuesday—invites United Gulf to move the design to Kempt Road, where it wouldn’t interfere with the view from Citadel Hill. “The problem with modernism is just that portability,” says Savage. “Design became so abstract that it could just go anywhere. A post-modern design like is conceived with the site in mind.”

That post-modern sensibility is also the source of the twists, which Savage explains as another way of tricking the eye into seeing the building as a penetrable mass.

Hariri Pontarini Architects prides itself, according to its website, on “producing designs that use an open collaborative process, intensive research, sensitivity to site, a dedication to detail and craftsmanship and an emphasis on enduring materials. work reflects an evolving philosophy that celebrates light and colour, material and texture, and sophisticated relationships to landscape and complex urban conditions.”

Mosher pushes that relationship a step farther: “Why are tall buildings beautiful? The Eiffel Tower. The Chrysler Building. Because we’re motivated by what we see in nature. By the mountains, by incredibly tall trees like the sequoias.” At more than 300 feet, west coast sequoias are even taller than Purdys Wharf 2.

The Texpark site, so named because of the garage and crumbling parkade that used to be there, is a “brown field” site in LEED’s books—according to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, the international green consensus-based standard for developing sustainable buildings, renewing it will earn the architects LEED certification points, a designation which provides incentive to build.

For Mosher, the building would be a tangible improvement on the downtown. “Look around you,” he says, casting an eye back up the street. “There is so much here that’s derelict.” He gestures past the Chronicle-Herald building, which will likely be redeveloped—the block-sized structure went up for sale earlier this year—and at the parking lot where the Midtown tower was rejected by city council.

“And it’s not like proposing to build on top of Citadel Hill,” says Mosher. “And they’re not tearing anything down.” Gazing across the rock-filled pit, he wonders of the heritage defenders: “Just what do they think they want to protect here? If the Citadel, the thing that gave Halifax its birth, ends up being the thing that kills us, it will be an incredible irony.”

City council will begin formal discussion of United Gulf Developments’ proposal on March 21.

Join the Conversation

9 Comments

  1. I’m writing to give my vote of support to the United Gulf tower proposal. Here are a few reasons of my reasons:1. From Citadel Hill, the proposed towers would perhaps block the view of the Woodside refinery, so the “Blade Runner” Citadel view would be gone.2. It seems at times, that the Heritage Trust is a sort of architectural Taliban that uses height restrictions to help create derivative architecture that’s terribly uninteresting. To me, the new Marriott on Grafton St and the new Brewery building being built now are both red-brick uninspired mediocrities. Founder’s Square is a black hole that sucks all the light and energy out of the block it occupies. Even the new Neptune could have been so much more than it is. Consider this – I propose that the three most “iconic” structures in this city are the Town Clock, MacDonald Bridge, and Purdy’s Wharf – their images are used in more local ads and logos that any other buildings, from what I can see. Each of these is very much “of its time” – not trying to replicate some long-gone look or way of life. Keep what’d old, beautiful, and worthwhile, most definitely, but I think it’s a bad, bad idea to try to recreate something that’s gone, over, and done in a living city.Please be daring – look forward, be inspired. Look what Frank Gehry did for Bilbao, Spain. Look what Daniel Liebskind did for Berlin. Look at Frankfurt – the city has the tallest skyscrapers in Europe surrounding its medieval city square(which was completely rebuilt after being destroyed by the Allies). 3. To address the matter of “scale”, well, both the Empire State Building and the World Trade Centre towered above everything around them in New York – both were completely out-of-scale, and New Yorkers despised the WTC before it was built – and now they mourn its loss. The CN Towers in Toronto and Place-Ville-Marie in Montreal both dwarf their surroundings…. as does the John Hancock Building in Boston – and you know what – they all work.I really do love the old buildings of downtown Halifax – I love the feel of the area, the sense of history (even with the 3 or 4 huge empty lots pockmarking a rather small downtown – if I were a developer, I’d be thinking “why bother” right about now) – and I think the United Gulf towers will only enhance the area, bring life there – and if that happens, perhaps the owners of the older buildings on Barrington will find the money to properly renovate their properties. By the way, I noticed, when leaving the Tuesday council meeting, there are two “Halifax” coffee table books on display in city hall lobby – have a look, you’ll notice there are no Victorian brownstones on the cover.

  2. RE Architects comment in your article:'”It seems like an honest, elegant effort,” says Mosher of the “twisted towers”—the moniker which media and critics have used to describe the proposal.’There is nothing ‘elegant’ about the design of the proposed ‘Tex Park’ re-development. There is nothing economically, or civically ‘elegant’ about this threateningly aggressive airspace inflation scheme. This twisted development is not ‘elegant’ in any way that is important to our low density city neighbourhoods or peninsular residential taxpayers.

  3. This ‘Teisted Sisters’is an inelegant design, not a simple one. For the resients of Halifax,this project is ineligant economically, aesthetically, and is functionally demanding on municipal resources.Mr. Hurst should check the mathematical definition of elegance before making ‘mealy-mouther’ comments on ‘elegance’ in city design.

  4. This ‘Twisted Sisters’is an inelegant design, not a simple one. For the residents of Halifax,this project is ineligant economically, aesthetically, and is functionally demanding on municipal resources.Mr. Hurst should check the mathematical definition of elegance before making ‘mealy-mouther’ comments on ‘elegance’ in city design.

  5. This ‘Twisted Sisters’is an inelegant design, not a simple one. For the residents of Halifax,this project is ineligant economically, aesthetically, and is functionally demanding on municipal resources.Mr. Hurst should check the mathematical definition of elegance before making ‘mealy-mouthed’ comments on ‘elegance’ in city design.

  6. elegant[common; from mathematical usage] Combining simplicity, power, and a certain ineffable grace of design. Higher praise than ‘clever’, ‘winning’, or even cuspy.The French aviator, adventurer, and author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, probably best known for his classic children’s book The Little Prince, was also an aircraft designer. He gave us perhaps the best definition of engineering elegance when he said “A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

  7. In Peter Ewert’s case against the Texpark development, he claims that the development is “functionally demanding on municipal resources.” This statement reveals how little Mr. Ewert knows about urban planning. If the 250 housing units were developed on un-serviced land on the perimeter of the city, it would cost taxpayers thousands of dollars. New infrastructure including roads, plumbing, electricity and sewage would all have to be paid for by the city, not the developer.This development would be developed on empty, serviceable land in the urban core. It would bring money into city, rather than stretch its resources. If you’re going to disapprove of something, at least get your facts right first.

  8. Dear Peter Ewert, B.Sc., M.U.R.P.,For someone who chooses to add his list of accomplishments after his name, and chooses to speak in such a lecturing tone, I would suggest you go back to school and learn to spell.”Teisted” = “Twisted””mouther” = “mouthed””ineligant” = “inelegant”If you are going to try and fake some intelligence, you should really make a better effort. At least have your mommy read over your work before you pass it in. Either that or just drop the stuck-up tone and the alphabet after your name (which, incidentally, just makes you look like you are making up for something… possibly a lack of spelling ability). Your choice.

  9. Do you think this could help a chain link fence vancouver company? It seems like it could improve a lot of different industries, but I could be wrong. Thanks a ton for the help!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *