Discussion Paper on Building Elevation - Halifax Sewage Treatment Plant
1.0 Introduction
In mid August, Dan O’Halloran of O’Halloran Campbell, on behalf of HRM, requested that I attend a meeting with the Halifax North Community Liaison Committee to review aspects of the architectural design for the Halifax Sewage Treatment Plant. The CLC had originated the request for input from an independent architect, i.e., independent of the Proponent, HREP.
The meeting was held August 19, 2002, at the George Dixon Centre. Specifically, there was concern on the part of the Committee about the design of the east elevation or “the box”. Prior to meeting with the committee, I met with Dan and Mike Kroger of HRM and reviewed the drawings prepared to date for the project. I also viewed the site first hand.
It is understood that the CLC wished to avoid an “industrial corridor” atmosphere, wanted the building design to incorporate overall landscaping, and to be aesthetically pleasing.
I presented preliminary comments and overview at the meeting and these notes are contained in another document. It was agreed that I should prepare a more comprehensive report in the form of criteria in consideration of these notes and discussions by the Committee to date.
This report presents a method for moving forward by way of recommendations/criteria, taking into account the general urban context of the facility and the more particular aspect of the building elevation as presented. Commentary is made on the basis of some of HREP’s pre-design drawings dated June, 2002, and three dimensional renderings. (It is noted that the floor plans and building elevation drawings do not entirely agree, such as window and door placements).
We suggest that, subject to agreement of the following recommendations by the CLC and HRM, the proponent be asked to bring forward design options for review by the Committee, the objective being a final acceptable design.
2.0 Urban Context
2.1 Commentary: The site is situated between an established residential area in central Halifax and the downtown core. As such, there is an opportunity to reinforce the connection between this part of the City and downtown. This would be by way of an enhanced pedestrian route down Cornwallis Street and along Water Street. The route would parallel a re-aligned Water Street and be designed as a wide sidewalk with lighting and intensive landscaping. The area in front of the building could be bermed and planted with attractive vegetation to screen parking, with possibly a mini park as a rest area for those on foot. The park could contain interpretive signage on the facility or even highlight the naval yard across the street. Potentially, the walk could be incorporated as part of a regional trail system. Water Street is seen therefore not only as a vehicular route but as an important pedestrian way as well, linking the upper and lower parts of town.
There are a number of trees at the north end of the site. These trees should be inventoried with the view to preserving them, if possible. Selective removal may be required.
The Water Street side of the site is distinctly waterfront use related, while the Barrington Street side borders on residential. It is appropriate that the Barrington Street side address the residential character of the area, notwithstanding Barrington Street itself is a major traffic artery. By extension, it is logical that the overriding character of the east elevation (not visible from the upper streets) should therefore respond to the character of the waterfront. The challenge then is a design which reflects an adjacent industrial use while at the same time respects the residential scale of the upper area.
The site may also be developed so that there is an identifiable entrance or “address”. This helps to give a sense of arrival or destination. The entrance itself may be enhanced by a large building canopy, or free standing portico at the entrance. It is understood that the facility may be open to visitors from time to time.
The effect of the facility on the immediate environment of the building is unknown. The building should be wind tested in model form for potential adverse conditions of wind and snow drifting.
2.2 Recommendations/Criteria
1. Assess the opportunity/potential of creating a strong pedestrian linkage from Barrington Street and/or Brunswick Street via Cornwallis Street through Water Street to downtown. Create a safe, comfortable, and interesting pedestrian way. Provide pedestrian amenities on the route.
2. Consider intensive landscaping both within the boundaries of the site and on public ways. Incorporate landscape features, such as berms, specimen trees, and variety of vegetation. Inventory existing trees at the north end of the site with a view to preservation.
3. Consider sloping the grade west to east at the north end of the building. This is in lieu of a retaining wall and hard cut at this end of the building. Fill material to be easily removable for future expansion in this area.
4. Assess in detail the appropriate character of the east elevation in the context of setting, industrial versus residential or a combination of both.
Develop a sense of arrival at the building. Consider driveway entrance, entrance canopy or portico, and paving materials.
Carry out model testing to verify micro climate conditions and rectify through building design or landscaping as appropriate.
3.0 Building Specific
3.1 Commentary: The building as presented appears as a long, unbroken wall on the east side with minimal window area and a number of service doors and other entrances. Cladding material appears to be brick. The elevation is accented by a series of vertical pilasters which vary in spacing.
Suggestions have been put forward by the Committee on ways to enliven the facade. These include ideas as false windows, arched windows, and making the exterior appear to be a row of buildings rather than one long building.
One approach to facade design is to allow the interior function to generate the exterior expression. For example, a typical office building generates quite a different exterior than, say, a typical apartment building, as may be expected. Most successful buildings are easily “read” from the exterior. This approach precludes putting on false fronts or applying elements foreign to the purpose of the building. Good design therefore is intrinsic to intent.
In the same way, the internal workings of the Sewage Treatment Plant may be explored and exploited for opportunities to enliven the exterior. For example, can any parts of the facade be configured to express what is happening behind the walls? Are there any parts of the treatment process that could be expressed on the exterior (e.g., round tanks = curved walls)? Can the windows in the offices and similar areas be floor to ceiling and fill the entire bay? Can the exterior walls of any of the processing areas be glass to exhibit the processing equipment, especially at night (for example, former Moosehead Breweries in Burnside)?
Another approach to facade design is to express the structural grid on the exterior. The result is a series of bays (usually regular spacing), which helps to break down an otherwise long, unbroken expanse of wall. The bays may in turn be articulated as panels, either recessed from the plane of the structural grid or projecting from the grid. This system produces a three dimensional effect and is accentuated in the play of sun and shadows on the wall.
Brick is an appropriate material for exterior cladding. The brick unit imparts a human scale and is a building component to which people easily relate (2"x8"x4"). One can sense the size of a brick building more easily than, say, a precast concrete building of the same size. Brick walls may also be enlivened by varying the type of coursing or incorporating decorative brick patterns. Brick may also be cast and molded for special sculptural treatment, and artists are available who do this. An example of decorative brickwork may be seen in many of the older buildings in Halifax, for example, the former School Board Building on the corner of Sackville and Brunswick Streets. Such an approach would continue a Halifax tradition.
The building may be enhanced and highlighted by wall lights and floodlighting. Floodlighting provides interesting effects, particularly if the building is highly textured or detailed. The building takes on a different character at night as shadows are reversed from daytime. Floodlighting also provides a level of security around the building.
Canopies are another device which may be used for both functional and aesthetic purposes. Canopies provide weather protection and identify entrances. Given the nature of the building, there may be an opportunity to engineer the canopies for special effects to enliven the facade.
The elevation drawing shows a variety of door sizes and openings. One approach is to standardize door heights (or at least apparent height) and group openings as far as possible for a more organized effect on the facade.
3.2 Recommendations/Criteria
1. Examine the potential of expressing interior functions through exterior wall configuration and/or treatment as a way to establish the character of the building.
2. Explore using the structural grid as an organizing element, to establish scale, and to more easily manage the various components of the exterior.
3. Consider type of cladding material to be used. Consider scale of material, potential for decorative treatment, colour and texture. Consider traditional Halifax materials, for example, brick, granite, or other stone.
4. Consider exterior lighting, both for security purposes and to highlight the facade of the building (floodlighting).
5. Examine potential of canopies at various entrances and service doors. Enhance canopy design as building feature(s).
6. Position windows and doors to create more organized pattern on the exterior.
4.0 Summary
The above deals with the building both in terms of the urban setting and the specifics of the building facade itself. A successful design will contribute to the vitality of the City in the neighbourhood and exhibit a character appropriate to its function. It will respond in context to the surrounding area as a good fit between a working waterfront and an established residential neighbourhood.
To achieve these goals, we recommend the following:
1. The Proponent consider these recommendations/criteria and others which may come forward as a result of this Discussion Paper.
2. The Proponent bring forward design options for review by the Committee, the objective being a design that meets stated criteria and goals and aspirations of the Committee.
It is noted that this Discussion Paper has been prepared in response to comments and discussions by the CLC and on the basis of a limited review of pre-design drawings and perspectives. It has been prepared at the request of the CLC, and to help in the Committee’s deliberations.
______________________________
George Rogers FRAIC
MacFawn and Rogers
Architects Limited
August 29, 2002
|
