[Halifax] 11Ninety (1190 Barrington) | ? m | 8 fl | U/C

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The first is a commonly used trope intended to make anybody who has a concern - any concern - look like the bad guy. Well played.

Regarding the second, the LPC is the federal govt, who have unexpectedly added something like 1.5 million new people per year, all looking for housing, to our country over the last few years (as you are aware, I’m sure). While I don’t agree with Houston’s plan either, as I think it is too much too soon, at least he appears to have a plan, whereas the feds did not seem to see any further than opening the floodgates and seeing what happens.

No need to be so defensive all the time, brother. I'm just saying there's a cost to the status quo that's hurting a hell of a lot of folks.

Also, What's the PC plan for population growth in HRM? Build highways in rural areas? Study LRT on the Cape? AFAIK they don't have a plan at all for population growth in HRM. While it's probably too little too late, at least the Feds are doing something about housing (HAF) and transportation (new ferry terminal, funding for BRT plan) for the city. I guess the province is building the Burnside Connector and JRTA (which could fizzle out into nothing) but those probably would have been completed even if we weren't experiencing much growth.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

... The right to choose what to do with your own property is much more foundational and logical in a free society...

I think this right has to have some limits. What gets built on a person's property impacts neighbours as well as others who work, travel, or otherwise use the area nearby. That's what good development rules should balance - ensuring some sort of "reasonable" public benefit from development.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

No need to be so defensive all the time, brother. I'm just saying there's a cost to the status quo that's hurting a hell of a lot of folks.

Just trying to put a stop to the repetitive back-and-forths that usually go along with these discussions before they start. No need to call in Half Axed to beat me up...

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Also, What's the PC plan for population growth in HRM? Build highways in rural areas? Study LRT on the Cape? AFAIK they don't have a plan at all for population growth in HRM. While it's probably too little too late, at least the Feds are doing something about housing (HAF) and transportation (new ferry terminal, funding for BRT plan) for the city. I guess the province is building the Burnside Connector and JRTA (which could fizzle out into nothing) but those probably would have been completed even if we weren't experiencing much growth.

I don't know the details, as I already said I don't agree with it. I'm sure they are available somewhere. I suspect the growth plan was somewhat more measured however, as compared to the unprecedented, unexpected growth dropped in our laps by the feds. Either way, I'm not defending either. IMHO the chance for our country to continue to be a good place to live is teetering in the wrong direction. We live in a fragile existence, and without careful planning it can all go to hell in a very short time. I'm afraid for all of our futures, TBH.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Maybe the way to do it is to not try to write hyper-detailed regulations specifying the type and color or finishes, etc, as HRM planners are wont to do. Requirements that specify more of a "spirit and intent" approach, either site-specific or more broadly, that call for things to be a certain standard will soon be understood by developers and designers and hopefully result in better proposals. It would take some creativity, rare in bureaucrats, but it can be sone.

So that's basically what Design Manuals are. You may be surprised to learn that there is one for Downtown Halifax. It can be found here (for now, until what remains of HRMxDesign is repealed): https://www.halifax.ca/media/75719

But the problem with "spirit and intent" is, how do you enforce that? Developers LOVE to argue and to push boundaries as far as possible (seriously, I think it's half the fun of the job for a lot of them). And with so much open to interpretation, they do push. HRM's answer to that was to have a Design Review Committee whose job it was to debate and interpret the Design Manual. It didn't work out though because members were in the industry and had no incentive to piss off their colleagues. They also intimately understood the costs that it takes to get a project to a stage where it can be critiqued, and were understandably hesitant to force people to go back to the drawing board.

But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you're right that it can be argued that the Design Manual is somewhat responsible for the shift in the quality of downtown proposals by slowly educating the development community on what's expected?

I think egb put it quite well though. Yes, you CAN regulate design, but at what cost? There are certainly places that do very detailed and "successful" design regulation, especially when it comes to a heritage context. But it takes a very long time, adds cost and complexity, and also very much limits the range of architectural expression in a community. Sometimes those costs are worth it (like around world heritage sites), but often they're not.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

There are certainly places that do very detailed and "successful" design regulation, especially when it comes to a heritage context.

That was my line of thinking, that perhaps it might have been possible to designate some 'hard points' like a podium that imitates the building that was removed, but perhaps that's even too complicated.

As far as cost goes, IMHO the location in a prominent downtown location would be worth the 'cost'.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I think this right has to have some limits. What gets built on a person's property impacts neighbours as well as others who work, travel, or otherwise use the area nearby. That's what good development rules should balance - ensuring some sort of "reasonable" public benefit from development.

While it's true that there are some limits, it's also obvious enough that it shouldn't need to be said. All laws and rules are about balance (if they're done in a just way). No one is talking about building an ore smelting facility or a giant office tower on a residential street. The issue is that even a lot of of normal residential buildings like small apartment buildings or row houses aren't allowed in a lot of residential areas due to them not being the "taste" of the neighbours aka "neighbourhood character".

But it's also a little dangerous to use vague terms like a new developments "impact neighbours" or should provide "public benefit". The new residents will be members of the public and having a place to live will benefit them. Why should their homes need to benefit other people who aren't living in them when there's no such requirement for the existing homes? The existing homes also impact others in the sense that they occupy space that others can't use and therefore cause displacement, distorts the market, lowers average density which increases travel distances and infrastructure costs, and leads to artificial shortages. But when you place all the onus of providing public benefit and not impacting anyone on the newcomer, you have a systemic bias that favours those already established at the expense of those who need homes. Yet fundamentally the impact of not having a home is greater than the impact of having someone else living nearby.

So the takeaway is that while there needs to be balance, the current balance is skewed much too far in one direction.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

While it's true that there are some limits, it's also obvious enough that it shouldn't need to be said. All laws and rules are about balance (if they're done in a just way). No one is talking about building an ore smelting facility or a giant office tower on a residential street. The issue is that even a lot of of normal residential buildings like small apartment buildings or row houses aren't allowed in a lot of residential areas due to them not being the "taste" of the neighbours aka "neighbourhood character".

But it's also a little dangerous to use vague terms like a new developments "impact neighbours" or should provide "public benefit". The new residents will be members of the public and having a place to live will benefit them. Why should their homes need to benefit other people who aren't living in them when there's no such requirement for the existing homes? The existing homes also impact others in the sense that they occupy space that others can't use and therefore cause displacement, distorts the market, lowers average density which increases travel distances and infrastructure costs, and leads to artificial shortages. But when you place all the onus of providing public benefit and not impacting anyone on the newcomer, you have a systemic bias that favours those already established at the expense of those who need homes. Yet fundamentally the impact of not having a home is greater than the impact of having someone else living nearby.

So the takeaway is that while there needs to be balance, the current balance is skewed much too far in one direction.

Very well said. Said systemic bias for the established and against the newcomers (or, in a broad sense, the youth = those new to the scene economically) seems to be a broader issue across Canadian society these days. A large part of it stems from housing unaffordability, but the Gen Z / younger millenial "failure to launch" could be regarded as a consequence of this ethos.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

... it's also a little dangerous to use vague terms like a new developments "impact neighbours" or should provide "public benefit". The new residents will be members of the public and having a place to live will benefit them. Why should their homes need to benefit other people who aren't living in them when there's no such requirement for the existing homes? The existing homes also impact others in the sense that they occupy space that others can't use and therefore cause displacement, distorts the market, lowers average density which increases travel distances and infrastructure costs, and leads to artificial shortages. But when you place all the onus of providing public benefit and not impacting anyone on the newcomer, you have a systemic bias that favours those already established at the expense of those who need homes. Yet fundamentally the impact of not having a home is greater than the impact of having someone else living nearby...

I understand what you're saying. Honestly wasn't what I meant when I was talking about public benefit. I am thinking of (large) developments that are buffered with large surface parking lots right between the building and the public right of way - this degrades a neighbourhood and has negative impacts. Or... mid-size buildings that have blank walls right at the sidewalk - there's an apartment building across from the Hydrostone commercial strip, at the corner of Novalea and Young that is awfully - especially given the nice urban form of the original hydrostone development.

I also agree with you about the dangerous premise of maintaining neighbourhood character.

This thread is about 1190 Barrington though, and the particular public good that's being impacted is a meaningful edge condition to what should be, or become, a significant public space (the park) in a well-developed urban core. This is not about newcomers in an established neighbourhood, this is about replacing an existing building with something new that I think is a step down in terms of contributing to the civic realm.

So do I feel grateful that this is providing housing? Maybe a little. I'm actually pretty disappointed that this building will degrade (in my opinion) the public realm here and will do so for several years. I doubt I'll be around to see if ITS replacement is any better.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

Source:https://www.kgarch.ns.ca/system/projects.../1190_Barrington_Aerial_2.jpg?1542402001

I assume this is the expected look since it's the only one on their site?

Articulation? Downgraded.
Canopies and awnings at street interface? Gone.
Strong central bay to reinfoce the symmetry of the park? Gone.
There are other changes I think are subjective, but these are ones I think are more objective.

[Panta]

The initial rendering reminds me of the W Suites which I always liked. It's not going to win any awards, but I think it's a good example of an infill building. There's enough architectural features to make the street level pleasant while the rest of the building blends into the background.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6407454,..._ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Panta

The initial rendering reminds me of the W Suites ... enough architectural features to make the street level pleasant while the rest of the building blends into the background.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6407454,..._ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I can see what you mean there - I agree. W Suites seems like a good neighbour if not a groundbreaking building. Not everything should be an architectural wonder.

[Dmajackson]

HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

[Dmajackson]

This is on my regular downtown walking route so I post updates of it way more often then is cross-posted onto this forum.


HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photo by David Jackson)

[Liam MacDonald]

I took some pictures of this building on March 1st 2026
My first post by the way. I don't know if this will work.

[Dmajackson]

HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photos by David Jackson)]