General Updates and News

[jslath]

The destruction of these row houses on South St. marks a very bad day for Halifax. All buildings can be renovated and the cost of renovation is not an excuse for demolition. No one would ever argue that Historic Properties was a bad idea. We are losing heritage at an alarming rate and the replacement for that heritage in most cases is the second slap in the face.

This is my issue with some projects in Halifax: the loss of our history. Halifax has a unique architectural style that should be preserved. It's such a shame that those buildings will not doubt be replaced by something cheap and bland.

Before I'm labelled anti-growth: I'm no fan of Heritage Trust, I'm also no fan of developers who have no appreciation or respect of Halifax's history (especially developers like United Gulf :hell: ).

[Keith P.]

I feel Empire's wrath is misdirected. The cause of the loss was the fire. This week's events are just the last act of that event. The buildings were old and decrepit, as can be seen from the rear view. The front facades were the only thing of interest and value.

Halifax clings to the examples of heritage buildings he cites but does nothing to keep them viable and in good repair. The apartment house by the Gardens is a good example - mildly interesting architecturally but a run-down fire trap in reality. It needed to go about 50 years before it did. And yet when it finally did go, the only way it could happen was for the developer to agree to build a semi-replica of it, which, if you have ever been inside, is a terrible building that is full of compromises and should never have been built.

If Halifax is truly interested in preserving worthwhile heritage properties - the majority of which are just old, not of any particular heritage value - then they need to take meaningful steps to ensure that the owners keep them in good repair. If that means tax rebates or outright subsidies, let's have that debate.

[Empire]

Here is a story about the fire that broke out in this building back on January 12, 2010 - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/01/12/ns-fire-south-street.html . The picture (below) is from the story. Another story indicated that the fire had spread to the second story floor joists - https://groups.google.com/group/hfx.general/browse_thread/thread/ce35c3f792e30221?hl=en.

Based on the story reports, it sounds as though the building would have required a complete rebuild (maybe the bricks could have been saved). Once a historic building is completely rebuilt then it doesn't maintain much of historic significance, it would just be a duplicate of a historic building (in my opinion).

Many old buildings are destroyed by fire because the construction is not up to today's standards. A building like this with multiple units, if built to modern standards, would have kept the fire contained to one unit because of modern fire wall construction that is intented for that purpose.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2010/01/12/ns-southstreetfire.jpg

-----------------------------------------------------

Restoring a building lies with the will of the developer and the council of the day. All of the structures that fall into the category of these row houses potentially can be wiped out by any hosts of excuses.

In terms of renovating, any building can be restored. Here is a link for the restoration of St . George's round church on Brunswick St. that was over 75% destroyed by fire.
http://www.timberhart.com/pages/timberframersstgeorgesanglican.html

In this case you had an owner with the will to make it happen. No one disagrees that it is more economical to demolish a building and start over. This has been the practice in Halifax for the most part for the last forty years. Halifax has/had some very unique architecture and it is a feature that makes it a great city even for the people who don't appreciate it. Someone has to start recognising the importance of the architecture we have and this casual attitude of let's get rid of it because it's not up to code needs some rework. The common issue I hear for vacant buildings is that they are unsafe and homeless people are living in them. Ironically the homeless people are no doubt safer in a vacant building than on the street. The cry comes from developers who want to demolish the building instead of preserving it and seems to find great acceptance with our city planning machine.

Here are a few lost in the last couple of years....Photos by Empire:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_3551.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/Hollis2-1.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_1928.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/FathersDay2008072.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/Morrisst3.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/brenton3houses.jpg

[MonctonRad]

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/FathersDay2008072.jpg

I am particularly angered by the loss of this. It served as an interesting connection between Historic Properties and Barrington Place. The fact that it is currently just a vacant lot adds considerable insult to injury! :hell:

[Jonovision]

This is very sad indeed. It does not appear as if they are trying to salvage any part of them. I hope whatever is built there pays homage to them as they were a lovely part of that neighborhood.

[spaustin]

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/FathersDay2008072.jpg

I am particularly angered by the loss of this. It served as an interesting connection between Historic Properties and Barrington Place. The fact that it is currently just a vacant lot adds considerable insult to injury! :hell:

Yep. To say Waterside Centre hasn't really paid off is an understatement at this point. I only hope that they'll proceed soon since it's really terrible to have that block sitting there destroyed. There just doesn't seem to be the demand in the Downtown office market, which is of course a structural and incentive problem rather than a problem with the Halifax economy (all the demand in the world in the burbs). Maybe they should look at modifying the project to residential. Downtown needs more people at this point more than it needs office.

[kph06]

More from today by me:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6412507723_6a72eb806d_b.jpg
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6031/6412502329_79a5197df5_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7009/6412498685_08c2f2a5a6_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7143/6412511209_c9cb9bde15_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/6412513989_2c98f4c7c8_b.jpg

[fenwick16]

-----------------------------------------------------

Restoring a building lies with the will of the developer and the council of the day. All of the structures that fall into the category of these row houses potentially can be wiped out by any hosts of excuses.

In terms of renovating, any building can be restored. Here is a link for the restoration of St . George's round church on Brunswick St. that was over 75% destroyed by fire.
http://www.timberhart.com/pages/timberframersstgeorgesanglican.html

In this case you had an owner with the will to make it happen. No one disagrees that it is more economical to demolish a building and start over. This has been the practice in Halifax for the most part for the last forty years. Halifax has/had some very unique architecture and it is a feature that makes it a great city even for the people who don't appreciate it. Someone has to start recognising the importance of the architecture we have and this casual attitude of let's get rid of it because it's not up to code needs some rework. The common issue I hear for vacant buildings is that they are unsafe and homeless people are living in them. Ironically the homeless people are no doubt safer in a vacant building than on the street. The cry comes from developers who want to demolish the building instead of preserving it and seems to find great acceptance with our city planning machine.


Nobody said to destroy buildings because they are not up to code, I said that many of these building are destroyed by fire because they aren't built to current fire codes. This is more a question of technology not ideology.

Personally, I think there are many buildings that have been lost over the years that should have been kept. Many publicly owned buildings could have been kept and maintained. For example, the Public Gardens Skating Rink built around 1860; if it had been kept then it would be a great attraction - the oldest covered skating rink in Canada. However, 100 - 120 years ago when it was demolished, residents probably just considered it to be an old, unattractive building.

There have to be very appealing tax incentives in order for people to buy and maintain old homes. I lived in and owned a 1930's home and the electrical wiring was inadequate, the single washroom was inadequate, it was poorly insulated, and the basement wall had severe efflorescence. I spent many hours of work fixing it up and lost money when I sold it.

The owners of these old homes are the ones who have to keep them maintained and bring them up to fire safety codes so they won't burn down or simply fall apart from old age. Since any owner will likely lose money on the restoration, how do you find enough owners who like old homes enough that they will fix them up and then probably lose money when they sell them?

[ZET]

The destruction of these row houses on South St. marks a very bad day for Halifax. All buildings can be renovated and the cost of renovation is not an excuse for demolition. No one would ever argue that Historic Properties was a bad idea. We are losing heritage at an alarming rate and the replacement for that heritage in most cases is the second slap in the face.

Photo of rowhouses by Empire..........................................................Bland ugly Prince George pic by Google
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/SouthSt.jpg

Here is an example of duplicated heritage on Summer St. This building was 100% demolished and rebuilt exactly as it was..
Not the original but much better than the Prince George cheap replacement.
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/summerst.jpg

It wasn't 100% destroyed. There was a requirement to maintain the 'facade". They kept the thickness of a board, about one inch, and built on this. It was something to see. On the outside, I'm glad that they rebuilt it as it looked before, but it's not even a shell, just one side of a shell.

[someone123]

If Halifax is truly interested in preserving worthwhile heritage properties - the majority of which are just old, not of any particular heritage value - then they need to take meaningful steps to ensure that the owners keep them in good repair. If that means tax rebates or outright subsidies, let's have that debate.

It seems like the root problem here is that these buildings are not kept in reasonable shape. Another problem is that there is not much faith that developers will build good replacements. If the newer buildings were nicer I don't think we'd get as many complaints, but they're not. Typically they're built with cheap materials and are poorly designed.

I wouldn't have had a problem with South Street if they'd retained the facades or done something interesting with the brick. My biggest worry is that this site will either sit empty for a decade or will end up with a very low quality building.

The city is mostly asleep at the switch when it comes to heritage. If we want these buildings the public needs to pay to make up for the fact that they're less commercially viable. Halifax's main heritage program right now amounts to allowing property owners to volunteer to give up rights to modify or demolish their property, which just makes heritage buildings even less attractive. When they wanted to strengthen the legislation they argued for a 2 year wait for demolition permits. Unfortunately I don't think many members of the heritage crowd have a good grasp of economics.

[cormiermax]

Whats the plan for the site now that the rowhouses have been demolished?

[Empire]

Whats the plan for the site now that the rowhouses have been demolished?

Build something cheap and ugly in 6 or 8 years.

[cormiermax]

Build something cheap and ugly in 6 or 8 years.

Seriously? Theres no plan too start developing the site sooner? Whos in charge of all this?

[fenwick16]

Seriously? Theres no plan too start developing the site sooner? Whos in charge of all this?

Yes there are plans to redevelop this property with a mixed use multilevel building that would be under 22 meters in height. (source: allnovascotia.com - May 4th, 2011). The owner is Galaxy Properties and they have been consulting with WM Fares Group.

One hold-up is that it was restricted to 13 meters in HRM_by_Design. It was brought up in HRM Council on May 3rd, 2011 by Councillor Sloane who supports the increase in height - http://www.halifax.ca/council/documents/c110503.pdf (page 12).

I am not sure if the height limit has been increased.

[cormiermax]

Yes there are plans to redevelop this property with a mixed use multilevel building that would be under 22 meters in height. (source: allnovascotia.com - May 4th, 2011). The owner is Galaxy Properties and they have been consulting with WM Fares Group.

One hold-up is that it was restricted to 13 meters in HRM_by_Design. It was brought up in HRM Council on May 3rd, 2011 by Councillor Sloane who supports the increase in height - http://www.halifax.ca/council/documents/c110503.pdf (page 12).

I am not sure if the height limit has been increased.

Lets hope that this development will be of the same quality as the Vic, and not what went up in the area in the 1990's. What a huge loss that would be.

[someone123]

One hold-up is that it was restricted to 13 meters in HRM_by_Design.

Height actually represents an opportunity to promote heritage development. Imagine if the city went to the owners of this property and said they could normally only go to 13 meters, but they could put up a 16 storey residential tower if they restored the rowhouses in front. That would almost certainly be a good deal for the developer and it would be better for the city.

Unfortunately the combined heritage/NIMBY lobbying tends to give us the opposite "worst of both worlds" type of scenario where there's zero financial incentive to preserve most properties and development is slowed down by red tape.

[Keith P.]

Build something cheap and ugly in 6 or 8 years.

That's better than having ugly facades looming over a dead block and keeping it that way for 20 years as is the case on Barrington St with the burned-out shell of the NFB building.

[Empire]

That's better than having ugly facades looming over a dead block and keeping it that way for 20 years as is the case on Barrington St with the burned-out shell of the NFB building.

Would you trash this building if there was a fire in the kitchen? Maybe build some trash Chedraw 4 storey edifice?

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/HH.jpg

[cormiermax]

Would you trash this building if there was a fire in the kitchen? Maybe build some trash Chedraw 4 storey edifice?

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/HH.jpg

And to think Halifax was once filled with buildings like that. If only we kept them, I would say Halifax would rival Quebec City for its European historic feel.

[Empire]

Height actually represents an opportunity to promote heritage development. Imagine if the city went to the owners of this property and said they could normally only go to 13 meters, but they could put up a 16 storey residential tower if they restored the rowhouses in front. That would almost certainly be a good deal for the developer and it would be better for the city.

Unfortunately the combined heritage/NIMBY lobbying tends to give us the opposite "worst of both worlds" type of scenario where there's zero financial incentive to preserve most properties and development is slowed down by red tape.

This is exactly what is needed. Instead of major tax concessions allow height bonusing. There is no other way. Look at Montreal, there are many tall structures that incorporate 2-4 storey historic buildings...it has to happen here!!

[Empire]

And to think Halifax was once filled with buildings like that. If only we kept them, I would say Halifax would rival Quebec City for its European historic feel.

Exactly....but now we have the VIC!!! etc

[cormiermax]

Exactly....but now we have the VIC!!! etc

Well I wouldn't say the old apartment building was worth saving, all the neighbouring houses where though. I think its time a true heritage district is established, Perhaps even move some of the endangered structures too such an area.

[Keith P.]

And to think Halifax was once filled with buildings like that. If only we kept them, I would say Halifax would rival Quebec City for its European historic feel.

Hardly. Halifax was filled with mostly unremarkable wood-frame structures that met the fate of most such buildings. There were few British Museums or Penn Stations here.

[cormiermax]

Hardly. Halifax was filled with mostly unremarkable wood-frame structures that met the fate of most such buildings. There were few British Museums or Penn Stations here.

The old row houses that filled downtown and what is now cogswell interchange, from what I could tell mostly brick structures in a very British style. If around today Halifax would be a British Quebec City.

[someone123]

Hardly. Halifax was filled with mostly unremarkable wood-frame structures that met the fate of most such buildings. There were few British Museums or Penn Stations here.

I think that's an unrealistically high standard to hold heritage buildings to, particularly when we're talking about spending on the order of hundreds of thousands or a few million dollars to save them or incorporate them into new developments (they do not all need to be 100% preserved -- often the value is just in the facade or some other component).

Not everything is worth preserving but there are also many great buildings that are declared unsalvageable only after decades of preventable neglect. You could turn the British Museum into an unsafe firetrap if you wanted to -- stop maintaining it for 50 years, watch vandals move in and trash it, then declare it a loss, demolish, and build disposable vinyl apartments. Actually this type of scenario doesn't seem like a stretch in Halifax.

Conversely many of the major heritage buildings required huge maintenance and upgrade projects to be viable. Grand Central has seen billions in restoration and improvement work. I don't necessarily think it's true that these other buildings were better designed than the ones in Halifax. All older buildings at one point had deficiencies in terms of a lack of modern wiring, HVAC, etc. These excuses used to demolish buildings in Halifax would apply anywhere else, but in some cities they opt for preservation instead.

[fenwick16]

The old row houses that filled downtown and what is now cogswell interchange, from what I could tell mostly brick structures in a very British style. If around today Halifax would be a British Quebec City.

The Scotia Square area seemed to be mostly wooden structures that appeared to be rundown. Here are a couple of links to the area from 1935 - 1947 http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/Builtheritage/archives.asp?ID=131 & http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/builtheritage/archives.asp?ID=134&Page=200803099&Width=600&Height=455&Nav=false .

However, there are structures that I wish had been saved (such as the old Royal Exhibition Building on Tower Road).

[someone123]

The Scotia Square area seemed to be mostly wooden structures that appeared to be rundown. ... However, there are structures that I wish had been saved (such as the old Royal Exhibition Building on Tower Road).

Some structures in that area were run down but others could have been restored. There should have been more of an effort to selectively cull the low-end buildings and replace them with better buildings while preserving the neighbourhood fabric.

I think Halifax would have been better off if the 60s-80s era business district had been built next to the old downtown instead of on top of it. Quebec City has old and new business districts. Without the bigger office towers downtown there wouldn't have been the same need to shoehorn in more roadways and parking. Unfortunately I think highways and office towers were "sexy" back in the 60s. Every city wanted to have them regardless of whether or not they worked properly.

[Jstaleness]

Here's one I saw on the weather network

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/your_weather/details/620/5160003/1/cans0057/plpcities/16095/?ref=ugc_city_thumbs

[RyeJay]

And to think Halifax was once filled with buildings like that. If only we kept them, I would say Halifax would rival Quebec City for its European historic feel.

Old Quebec has the geographical advantage of being very enclosed (behind the cliff is the modern city), being at the mouth of the water-route to the other cities of Central Canada--and the population advantage of having enough local dollars to save a good deal of the their heritage buildings (which, again, is easier and less expensive to do in this context).

Halifax spans the entire peninsula, with a smaller population. The city may have been a successful military town in the past, and consequently a successful military city in the near future-- but for a great deal of time there has been a stagnation in the city's economy. It's expensive to hold onto heritage buildings, when you have potential income from interested developers that your economy needs.

Old Quebec is well preserved and I enjoy visiting. Halifax, however, has evolved with an entirely different history. I wonder how Quebec City would look today if half of it was blown up in 1917....

[halifaxboyns]

Fenwick had suggested some time ago that another method of attempting to conserve heritage buildings was some sort of tax waiving on the property. I believe this is similar to the concept that is now being floated to waive property taxes on a site for up to 5 years for former gas station sites.

I thought it was a good idea because you wouldn't be charged property taxes (which can often be hefty in a downtown or regional core circumstance) for 5 years - which could be a great incentive.

[someone123]

Quebec City has also had its good and bad times economically and overall it has grown about as much as Halifax. It seems to be doing better today but in the 1950s I suspect the biggest force preserving the older parts of the city was the simple fact that there wasn't much pressure to develop it. In Halifax there most of the demolition came about as the result of grand plans like Scotia Square which were very expensive to execute. Toronto is a case where there was even less preservation and even more development pressure.

Today there's a major gap between Halifax and Quebec City when it comes to the amount of energy spent on preservation of heritage assets. I don't believe that it comes down to Quebec having more money (note that poorer countries like Mexico have tons of well-preserved historic towns and cities). Maybe Quebec gets more money from the province and federal government but I think the biggest difference is that heritage is more of a priority there.

In Halifax council spends $40M on ice rinks. Imagine a proposal to spend $40M on historic buildings in the core (even with federal support). Council doesn't even keep the sidewalks on Spring Garden Road in reasonable shape. Like I said, priorities.

[JET]

Old
Old Quebec is well preserved and I enjoy visiting. Halifax, however, has evolved with an entirely different history. I wonder how Quebec City would look today if half of it was blown up in 1917....

If half of Quebec City was blown up in 1917 and replaced by ticky-tacky cookie cutter houses, you can bet your ass that they would have hung on to all remaining historic buildings.
Our North End heritage blew up in a second; in the central and South ends, it's happening slowly but steadily.
Those houses on South St. were a terrible loss, just look at those entranceways.

[Acajack]

Quebec City has also had its good and bad times economically and overall it has grown about as much as Halifax. It seems to be doing better today but in the 1950s I suspect the biggest force preserving the older parts of the city was the simple fact that there wasn't much pressure to develop it. In Halifax there most of the demolition came about as the result of grand plans like Scotia Square which were very expensive to execute. Toronto is a case where there was even less preservation and even more development pressure.

Today there's a major gap between Halifax and Quebec City when it comes to the amount of energy spent on preservation of heritage assets. I don't believe that it comes down to Quebec having more money (note that poorer countries like Mexico have tons of well-preserved historic towns and cities). Maybe Quebec gets more money from the province and federal government but I think the biggest difference is that heritage is more of a priority there.



I think that for much of the 20th century a lot of Vieux-Québec (and also Vieux-Montréal) was in a relative state of abandonment. There was abundant modern space available elsewhere in the city for offices, residences and businesses and so all that activity simply moved there. I am not too old to remember when those two historic districts weren't exactly beehives of activity. Things weren't falling down (since most buildings were built rather solidly) and they weren't ghost towns, but there was a lot of empty stuff there and it wasn't the nicest part of town.

Things gradually started to pick up in both Quebec City and Montreal in the 80s, and then really took off in the 90s. But if you went back in time and visited these places in the 70s, you wouldn't recognize them.

It was in the 80s that stuff like Les Cours Le Royer started to take shape in Montreal. This when they kicked off the renewal of historic districts:
http://www.vieux.montreal.qc.ca/inventaire/fiches/fiche_rue.php?id=39&sec=g

Quebec City started improving its old town around the same time.

[someone123]

Judging by photos, the story in Halifax is similar. By the 50s/60s the old buildings were still there but were emptying out. There were some attempts to save some buildings that are now the Historic Properties and so on but the efforts don't seem proportional to the value of the heritage buildings.

One illustrative example is Keith House on Hollis Street. It is a three storey sandstone mansion from the 1850s. Most Canadian cities have zero buildings like this. Keith House is finally being restored but for years it sat deteriorating and it got to the point where its entryway was boarded up with plywood because the stonework was at risk of collapsing.

Unfortunately people in Halifax seem to be behind the times when it comes to heritage preservation and they do not appreciate what they have. Halifax is also somewhat under-appreciated in the rest of the country as a historic city, I guess because (English) Canadian history tends to be very Ontario-centric. It's pretty common to present the Atlantic region as peripheral throughout all of history -- books will have chapters on settlers in Toronto and Kingston in the 1700s and a footnote about Louisbourg. I've seen the Seven Years' War and 1812 presented as if they revolved around Toronto. No surprise that sites of national importance in Halifax are frequently neglected.

[-Harlington-]

CTV news story says that theres going to be a huge 500 million residential development near mount saint vincent university connecting to lacewood dr. to be mostly mid-rise and should house 3500-4000 people
They said construction should start in two years .

[Keith P.]

I suspect the biggest force preserving the older parts of the city was the simple fact that there wasn't much pressure to develop it. In Halifax there most of the demolition came about as the result of grand plans like Scotia Square which were very expensive to execute.


Scotia Square came about because the area of downtown where it is located was one of Halifax's worst slums. Run-down wooden buildings of questionable quality even when new. Over time they became horrible and needed to go. The rest of Halifax's downtown wasn't much to write home about either. The stretch along Water St was especially awful. I remember my dad telling me about visiting a family that lived somewhere on Water St who were burning old automotive batteries for winter heat. Imagine the toxic fumes those would have put out. But the people were dirt poor and that is all they had. That is the kind of housing these areas supported. It was a type of poverty that no longer exists; despite the issues that we still have it is nothing like it was back then.

We tend to look at these "heritage" buildings with rose-colored glasses but many of them had a dark history.

[someone123]

Well, I don't think the wooden shack type buildings along parts of Market Street or Water Street were salvageable. I am talking mostly about masonry buildings along areas like Hollis that would have been tired looking by the 1970s but, if they were still around today, could be rehabbed. There are lots of examples of desirable buildings today that looked awful before they were restored.

South Street is another example in 2011 where they could have done better than a bulldozer. Lots of people liked those brick facades; a developer could have retained them and built a tower in behind. It would have been more complicated for the owners but better for the city. We don't reward that kind of thing with public money though (instead it goes toward cat bylaws and McCluskey grandstanding), so most developers don't bother and we don't get ideal outcomes.

Even when it comes to the legitimate slums I'm not sure the city did very well. Africville is another clear-cut case where living standards were abysmal. Uniacke Square is probably better but isn't very successful, and the whole area nearby has basically gone to hell. My opinion is that some demolition was need but that they were too heavy-handed. I think the newer smaller-scale mixed public/private developments will work out better than the old public housing project style.

[Empire]

Scotia Square came about because the area of downtown where it is located was one of Halifax's worst slums. Run-down wooden buildings of questionable quality even when new. Over time they became horrible and needed to go. The rest of Halifax's downtown wasn't much to write home about either. The stretch along Water St was especially awful. I remember my dad telling me about visiting a family that lived somewhere on Water St who were burning old automotive batteries for winter heat. Imagine the toxic fumes those would have put out. But the people were dirt poor and that is all they had. That is the kind of housing these areas supported. It was a type of poverty that no longer exists; despite the issues that we still have it is nothing like it was back then.

We tend to look at these "heritage" buildings with rose-colored glasses but many of them had a dark history.

Not mention Jacob St. was the red light district...............

[-Harlington-]

CTV news story says that theres going to be a huge 500 million residential development near mount saint vincent university connecting to lacewood dr. to be mostly mid-rise and should house 3500-4000 people
They said construction should start in two years .



Found an article for this :


Southwest Properties buys Motherhouse site



November 28, 2011 - 6:35pm

The Rockingham property where the Sisters of Charity Motherhouse once stood is the jewel of available real estate in the municipality, said the CEO of Southwest Properties Ltd.

It’s why Jim Spatz’s development company jumped at the chance to work with the congregation on purchasing the 25-hectare property for redevelopment.

“It’s an amazing site, close to the centre of (the municipality), close to the downtown, with wonderful views, and surrounded by a very good residential community,” Spatz said.

The congregation officially turned over possession of the property, which overlooks Bedford Basin, to Southwest Properties at a news conference Monday afternoon.

The company expects to break ground on the 10-year, $500-million project in two years.

“We’re just at the beginning of a process,” Spatz said. “We’re seeking community input and taking our design forward, and when we have it at a point where we like it, going to (the municipality) and submitting for a development permit.”

The development, which is still in the conceptual stage, would include various kinds of residential options, from single-family dwellings to townhouses, apartments and condominiums. Five per cent of those will be dedicated as low-income housing.

There will be about 4,000 people living in the mixed-used development, which would include a recreational centre — possibly a gym — and a host of retail opportunities.

“We’ve got experience doing retail, so we’d like to create a heart for the community, which will be a retail, restaurant, cafe kind of heart and rich with amenities,” said Spatz, whose firm built Sunnyside Mall in Bedford and Bishop’s Landing in Halifax.

The community would be pedestrian-friendly, with access to amenities within a six-minute walk, Spatz said.

It would also be a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-certified project, similar to what the company is building in the city’s south end at the 113-unit Grainery Lofts.

“We’ve learned a ton from that that we’re going to apply to this development,” Spatz said.

Southwest Properties is one of several parties that had expressed interest over the last decade in developing the property.

United Gulf Developments Ltd. had formed a partnership in 2004 to build a $350-million mixed-used development on the site before that partnership was mutually dissolved five years later.

The Motherhouse, a 350,000 square-foot building, was subsequently demolished and about 100 retired sisters moved into Caritas Residence, a six-storey building built by Shannex, a company owned by Cape Breton businessman Joe Shannon that builds and manages continuing-care residences.

Sister Donna Geernaert, congregational leader of the Sisters of Charity, said it was the right time to part with the property, which has been owned by the congregation since 1872.

“Part of it has to do with the fact that the land has been vacant since late 2009, and you don’t like to let it sit too long,” Geernaert said, noting that the Southwest proposal met the congregation’s wish list

“I think it appealed in terms of major values that meet ours, in terms of environmental sustainability. That’s one issue that we’ve been very conscious of in recent years. There were other aspects of environmental sensitivity, including the use of building material and the fact that it would be a pedestrian-friendly area with access to public transit.”

Spatz and Geernaert declined to say how much the property was sold for.

“I will say that fair-market price was important to us, but fair-market price means that we’re selling it as land that’s zoned as institutional and requires a fair bit of servicing before it can actually be truly valued,” Geernaert said.

Spatz said the project will be built in phases, with about 150 units built each year over the course of the decade-long project.

“We haven’t determined exactly our phasing. We’re getting some ideas around that. And if the market demand is stronger than that, we’ll speed up our schedule a bit.”



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6421406875_aff8c89045.jpg
^^ The general area of the development
There was renderings on the CTV news story on tv though

EDIT: found some conceptuals
http://www.schalifax.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Conceptual-Drawing-1.jpg

http://www.schalifax.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Conceptual-Drawing-2.jpg

http://www.schalifax.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Conceptual-Drawing-3.jpg

http://www.schalifax.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Conceptual-Drawing-4.jpg

[Empire]

I hereby call upon council, Heritage Trust, the provincial government, heritage advocates, developers, philanthropists, Occupy NS, Ocupy Wall St., regular Jo citizens, fellow forumites, and anyone else that will listen...........rebuild the row houses just as they were. Jack up the building height behind it if necessary and/or do whatever it takes to get the job done. We all know it can be rebuilt and this is far too important to let slide. I will pay for one entry way....door, framing, columns, lintel...windows..

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/IMG_3551.jpg

Great pic by kph06...except for the destrution element...

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q7/empire1_2007/southst2.jpg

[coolmillion]

Found an article for this :


United Gulf Developments Ltd. had formed a partnership in 2004 to build a $350-million mixed-used development on the site before that partnership was mutually dissolved five years later.


Hmm... I remember this project being announced back in 2004 but I had forgotten United Gulf was the developer. Another example of them dropping the ball. Hopefully the city has been keeping track and connecting the dots. Great to see the new partnership with Southwest Properties... :tup:

[alps]

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l217/halps00/3584d883.jpg
(own photo)

[someone123]

Still nothing happening for Gottingen Terrace one block over I guess?

There have also at times been plans for overhauling the building on right.

[kph06]

New Chickenburger, photo by me.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6447046603_10047fae1f_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7170/6447035263_2ae0ce18b6_b.jpg

[Keith P.]

^^^ I can't believe Mickey chose to renovate an old house for the Chickenburger rather than knock the thing down and put up a properly-designed restaurant building.

[someone123]

Thanks for the photo. That does look a little odd.

[cormiermax]

Looks like crap honestly.

[RyeJay]

So I guess we need to wait for this new Chicken Burger to go out of business before that damn house may be demolished.

Shouldn't be too long.

[ZET]

they will probably do a bang up business

[alps]

Euch, so it's just gonna be a house and a big parking lot?

[someone123]

The empty space to the south is one of the Clyde Street lots, but I think the house next door (north side) was purchased and demolished in order to create a parking lot for the new Chickenburger location.

Originally I'd hoped this would be a new building similar to the Chickenburger in Bedford but more pedestrian oriented -- so there'd be a similar glassed-in counter people could walk up to, but no big parking lot out front. That would be really popular near Spring Garden. I suspect this version will be popular too but the parking is not very desirable from a planning perspective and I doubt it's as important in this location. It also comes at a big cost in such an expensive area.

Maybe there are future plans? Another explanation is that this is a result of the car/parking mindset that is extremely common with business owners. Cars are great but dedicating 75% of your land to them (actually more when you include the public road) is not. It also has a negative impact on the whole area because it brings in more cars and drives everything apart. If this were on Spring Garden Road itself it would be extremely bad.

In Vancouver something like this would be vetoed. They don't even allow curb cuts for residential driveways in some (very successful and desirable) neighbourhoods.

[RyeJay]

In Vancouver something like this would be vetoed.

Another reason why I love Vancouver.

[Empire]

Another reason why I love Vancouver.

I wasn't expecting much. After all, Mickey runined the appearance of Mills Bros. with cheap concrete veneer that looks totally out of place.

The odd thing is......the chicken burgers aren't very good.

No thought reno:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl=en&ll=44.643086,-63.576765&spn=0.000031,0.015342&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=28.297189,62.841797&vpsrc=6&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=44.643051,-63.576886&panoid=cw33fTA1BJsj5sIx1aUi3Q&cbp=12,111.94,,0,-4.44

[Dmajackson]

Windsor @ North and Brooklyn Warehouse renovations respectively;

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6468844775_04cb4cca54_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6468850127_61ecf08bfc_z.jpg

[Wishblade]

In case anyone is interested Emera has won the naming rights for the skating oval on the commons, and apparently Molson has naming rights to the food/entertainment court. Here is the article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/12/06/ns-oval-naming-sponsorship.html

[gm_scott]

^ Interesting... I haven't heard anything about this food/entertainment plaza yet, sounds like a great idea.

[halifaxboyns]

^ Interesting... I haven't heard anything about this food/entertainment plaza yet, sounds like a great idea.

As I recall, because there was concern over the use of the oval in the summer there was question about food services too. I know Beavertails provided some temporary shelter to do it during the Canada Games, but with the oval becoming permanent the idea was to provide some permanent services next to the changing area.

Since the oval has been designed to be a skating rink in winter and then a rollerblading spot in the summer, this concession area should work out quite well. I just hope that the rollerblading in summer is limited to those that want to just skate rather than doing tricks and bringing ramps in.

[someone123]

The skate park is nearby so presumably this would just be a track in the summer.

The concessions could be implemented well or poorly I guess but at least this is all more stuff on the North Common. That area has been so empty for so long and has been planned in a really bad way -- they let the bushes get overgrown, then randomly removed them when there were complaints about homeless, then there was that hideous public washroom. Basically typical reactionary HRM planning.

A couple years ago there was a nice plan drawn up for the North Common that included little "islands" with seating and greenery, among other things. It looks great but, unsurprisingly, there doesn't seem to be much pressure to implement it. It would be a major improvement to a major city park for only a couple million dollars...

I really wish the Barrington and Spring Garden streetscaping plus North Common improvements could just be pushed through and completed. They would have a huge impact on the appearance of the most important part of the city and cost very little compared to the projects like the Bedford ice rink or Canada Winter Games centre that keep popping up and getting funded a few months later. Part of the problem is that anything done downtown is contentious and takes more effort. In an environment with little direction and drive that means those projects just get dropped.

[Keith P.]

I drove by the site this week and was struck by a number of things:

1. There is still a ton of work to do before this is usable. The site is still very much a construction site.

2. This thing is massive. It looks far bigger than the one last year. Though the track may be the same size, it looks like much more has been added to the site - and the pricetag. I suspect HRM staff did their typical job of inflating the scope of the thing.

3. It looks out of place and somewhat haphazard. I have a sneaking suspicion we will be regretting this decision in a few years.

4. To amplify someone123's comment above, it seems a shame to have sunk this money into the oval when it could have done so much for the entire Common.

[bluenoser]

I can't remember if there is a thread for this but anyway, an update on the Cunard lot:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/40808-cunard-block-application-set-winter

Cunard Block application set for winter
December 8, 2011 - 6:33pm By REMO ZACCAGNA Business Reporter

The Cunard Block development project on the Halifax waterfront has now moved on to another phase.

Two conceptual designs for the property were unveiled by Waterfront Development Corp. Ltd. in June, when the provincial Crown corporation invited public feedback.

As of Dec. 1, the project moved forward into the design development phase.

....

The corporation wants to see a mixed-use project built on the property, located on Lower Water Street north of the new Nova Scotia Power headquarters by Marginal Road, that will include an 18-storey apartment tower housing 275 units. The project would incorporate public spaces and have anywhere from 20,000 and 40,000 square feet of commercial space.

Lydon Lynch Architects of Halifax led a team that worked on the two initial conceptual designs. The next phase will move forward with a new team of experts led by Michael Napier Architecture and Ekistics Planning & Design.

....

Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2013.

“It’s an aggressive timeline, trying to get the project to a point where construction would begin in 2013, and that’s our intent, and so we’re working hard with all the project partners to work toward that.”

[fenwick16]

I can't remember if there is a thread for this but anyway, an update on the Cunard lot:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/40808-cunard-block-application-set-winter

Cunard Block application set for winter
December 8, 2011 - 6:33pm By REMO ZACCAGNA Business Reporter

The Cunard Block development project on the Halifax waterfront has now moved on to another phase.

Two conceptual designs for the property were unveiled by Waterfront Development Corp. Ltd. in June, when the provincial Crown corporation invited public feedback.

As of Dec. 1, the project moved forward into the design development phase.

....

The corporation wants to see a mixed-use project built on the property, located on Lower Water Street north of the new Nova Scotia Power headquarters by Marginal Road, that will include an 18-storey apartment tower housing 275 units. The project would incorporate public spaces and have anywhere from 20,000 and 40,000 square feet of commercial space.

Lydon Lynch Architects of Halifax led a team that worked on the two initial conceptual designs. The next phase will move forward with a new team of experts led by Michael Napier Architecture and Ekistics Planning & Design.

....

Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2013.

“It’s an aggressive timeline, trying to get the project to a point where construction would begin in 2013, and that’s our intent, and so we’re working hard with all the project partners to work toward that.”

I wonder if this is the concept that they are going with?

(source: http://ourhalifax.com/2011/06/19/cunard-block-development/ )
http://ourhalifax.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/cunardlive.jpg?w=600&h=327

[RyeJay]

The corporation wants to see a mixed-use project built on the property, located on Lower Water Street north of the new Nova Scotia Power headquarters by Marginal Road, that will include an 18-storey apartment tower housing 275 units. The project would incorporate public spaces and have anywhere from 20,000 and 40,000 square feet of commercial space.

Lydon Lynch Architects of Halifax led a team that worked on the two initial conceptual designs. The next phase will move forward with a new team of experts led by Michael Napier Architecture and Ekistics Planning & Design.

....

Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2013.
“It’s an aggressive timeline, trying to get the project to a point where construction would begin in 2013, and that’s our intent, and so we’re working hard with all the project partners to work toward that.”

An 18-storey tower makes me excited, but is the Cunard site not within the same viewplane as...the VIC?

A 2013 construction commencement makes me yawn. I was hoping for something sooner.

[fenwick16]

An 18-storey tower makes me excited, but is the Cunard site not within the same viewplane as...the VIC?

A 2013 construction commencement makes me yawn. I was hoping for something sooner.

I think this is a different height limit - 49 meters (post-bonus height) and 39 meters (pre-bonus height); that is, if this is the correct location - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax,+ns&ll=44.642863,-63.568748&spn=0.001649,0.004128&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Halifax,+Halifax+County,+Nova+Scotia&gl=ca&t=h&z=19&vpsrc=6 . 49 meters would allow about a 16 storey building, so 18 storeys might require a drawn out process and development agreement.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9182/postbonusmaimum.jpg

[worldlyhaligonian]

18 story apartment tower! Well this might actually be huge for the southern downtown/waterfront!

[RyeJay]

:previous:

Yes, coupled with the Alexander especially; this part of the downtown would benefit from the added variety of dimensions, since nearly all buildings in this area are extremely low-lying, as well as the obvious benefit of a population boost.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Plus, apartments are more realistic in the Halifax market

[wackypacky]

I drove by the site this week and was struck by a number of things:

1. There is still a ton of work to do before this is usable. The site is still very much a construction site.

2. This thing is massive. It looks far bigger than the one last year. Though the track may be the same size, it looks like much more has been added to the site - and the pricetag. I suspect HRM staff did their typical job of inflating the scope of the thing.

3. It looks out of place and somewhat haphazard. I have a sneaking suspicion we will be regretting this decision in a few years.

4. To amplify someone123's comment above, it seems a shame to have sunk this money into the oval when it could have done so much for the entire Common.

From what ive read by you on here your a very intelligent person so dont get me wrong, but this oval will be wonderful and fairly unique to Halifax. You just complained about pretty much every aspect of the oval. I think itll bring the city together; something for all ages to get out of the house in the damn winter, and its just good exercise. I bet the oval will pay for itself in no time just by having less trips to the hospital. Now I don't consider myself an expert by any means, the opposite really lol, so please don;t take offense young lad, but at the same time, if all your posts were similar in nature to this one, I probably wouldn't frequent this site. Might as well change it to ht/save the fuckin view forum.
On an aside, my little 13 year old brother cant wait for the oval to open up so me and him can use it on a semi daily basis and work on our skating together. So there ya go its already brought me and him together. Lets all try to have a bit more pride in our city. Its one of the best and only getting better by the month. PS: Don't be offended Ive seen people get pretty heated towards eachother about some pretty basic stuff lol.

Here Keith have a beer:cheers:and maybe a lil splilf

[worldlyhaligonian]

Is mother nature going to play a factor in usage?

[someone123]

My understanding was that they had some form of refrigeration so an ice surface could be maintained at temperatures somewhat above zero, so that the sort of conditions happening now would be sort of prime time for skating. That's the only way something like that would be worthwhile in Halifax. Some people think of Halifax as a cold winter type city but the average high in December for example is +3 (in Vancouver it's only 3 degrees warmer at +6).

New York has artificially cooled outdoor ice surfaces as does Vancouver.

[wackypacky]

My understanding was that they had some form of refrigeration so an ice surface could be maintained at temperatures somewhat above zero, so that the sort of conditions happening now would be sort of prime time for skating. That's the only way something like that would be worthwhile in Halifax. Some people think of Halifax as a cold winter type city but the average high in December for example is +3 (in Vancouver it's only 3 degrees warmer at +6).

New York has artificially cooled outdoor ice surfaces as does Vancouver.

I know Vancouver tends to be a fair bit warmer but whats New York like compared to hali???

[someone123]

It's about 3 degrees warmer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Climate

I am thinking of the famous artificial Rockefeller rink. Perhaps they should build some 50+ storey towers around the North Common as well. :)

[someone123]

Here is the plan for the Commons: http://halifax.ca/commcoun/pcc/documents/CentralCommonPlan.pdf

It has been updated with the oval. Aside from that it looks similar to what I remember from a while ago. It looks like they will continue with other improvements after the oval itself is completed, which is good news. The other improvements are badly needed.

Another interesting pdf with the Phase 2 plans for extra amenities to go with the oval: http://www.halifax.ca/skatehrm/documents/Board5Phase2Amenitiescopy.pdf

[wackypacky]

It's about 3 degrees warmer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Climate

I am thinking of the famous artificial Rockefeller rink. Perhaps they should build some 50+ storey towers around the North Common as well. :)

That would be absolutely amazing and who knows maybe itll happen in like a couple centuries down the road. Can't wait to see it lol. I was actually at the rockefellar rink on new years last year and it was quite stunning.

[Empire]

My understanding was that they had some form of refrigeration so an ice surface could be maintained at temperatures somewhat above zero, so that the sort of conditions happening now would be sort of prime time for skating. That's the only way something like that would be worthwhile in Halifax. Some people think of Halifax as a cold winter type city but the average high in December for example is +3 (in Vancouver it's only 3 degrees warmer at +6).

New York has artificially cooled outdoor ice surfaces as does Vancouver.

I think we handle one outdoor ice surface. Here ia a list of some of the dozens of outdoor rinks in Toronto with ice plants.

http://www.toronto.ca/parks/skating/outdoor-rinks.htm

[Keith P.]

Here Keith have a beer:cheers:and maybe a lil splilf

I don't drink beer and I never use illegal narcotics.

A skating rink like Rock Center in NYC would have been fine. This ridiculous oval, however, is a bad idea and a waste of money.

[Jstaleness]

My understanding was that they had some form of refrigeration so an ice surface could be maintained at temperatures somewhat above zero, so that the sort of conditions happening now would be sort of prime time for skating. That's the only way something like that would be worthwhile in Halifax. Some people think of Halifax as a cold winter type city but the average high in December for example is +3 (in Vancouver it's only 3 degrees warmer at +6).

New York has artificially cooled outdoor ice surfaces as does Vancouver.

I think the last update about the oval was that the refrigeration units could support temps up to +10.

[beyeas]

It's about 3 degrees warmer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Climate

I am thinking of the famous artificial Rockefeller rink. Perhaps they should build some 50+ storey towers around the North Common as well. :)

Yeah the three big ones in NYC are the one at Rockefeller (which is my favourite to skate on), one in Central Park basically between The Plaza and the sheep's meadow, and the one at Bryant Park.

I'm heading there next week for a few days (wife wants to do some maternity clothes and xmas shopping), and plan on doing some skating while I am there!

[someone123]

When I've gone to NYC it's been in the summer. What I do normally is fly Seattle-NYC, which is like $350 round trip, then continue to Halifax (Canadian airfare is a HUGE ripoff). I also don't really know how to skate so it doesn't matter much. :)

Sadly I was too busy this year to go back in August and winter trips to Mexico or California are much more appealing.

What's the difference between the oval and the other rinks? Do people only skate in circles on the oval?

[someone123]

So it looks like Jono Developments/Joe Metledge will end up with the St. Pat's Alexandra land along Brunswick/Maitland.

I have not seen the non-profit plans for the site but it's probably better that it was handed off to a developer. This part of the city needs a better mix of private/public development. Non-profits are great but a neighbourhood with 80% social housing etc. etc. is never going to be great.

I do wonder about the timeline for this though. The Trinity site has been vacant for a while and Fenwick is expected to take another 18+ months, which means that we'll probably still have that parking lot at Brunswick and Cogswell for another 2 years or so. Is the St. Pat's development going to push off Trinity yet again? Are we going to have to wait 5 years for the school site to be developed?

[wackypacky]

I don't drink beer and I never use illegal narcotics.

A skating rink like Rock Center in NYC would have been fine. This ridiculous oval, however, is a bad idea and a waste of money.

I was jk, I only drink occasionally and dont smoke myself.

[halifaxboyns]

Just looked at the oval design stuff and that's quite the improvement to the ball fields. I'm impressed.

Considering the way the oval is designed - I wonder if it could be used for a summer running track? Personally, I would've put a platform in the middle of the oval (the grassed area) to be able to be used as a stage. Would be kinda cool in the winter to have some choirs singing or bands performing while you skate.

[someone123]

I think the plan is to have it as a track in the summer, or at least there was some sort of year-round use case presented at some point. Perhaps it could be used as part of a concert venue when combined with the entry plaza at the Cogswell/North Park corner.

I like the idea of some points of interest in the interior plus some entry plazas with seating and more of a connection to the neighbourhood. Right now most of it just feel like one big empty sports field. Frequently it's just a kind of obstacle you have to cross and it can be muddy/wet for much of the year. Contrast that with the Public Gardens, which are a gem that people love to spend time in and will go out of their way to walk through.

The North Common will probably also become busier if the population of the North End goes up more. There has already been some infill like Armoury Square (plus hundreds of new residents along Gladstone -- which is actually pretty close by) and there are many more opportunity sites. The Drum is already one proposal and the funeral home site by Quinpool should get a new building. The empty lot next to the Atlantica Hotel is also ripe for development. Not sure why it's been like that for so long. Anyway, if you add up development on all those sites you get thousands of new people. If the Commons are improved and become a nice spot they will be well-used.

[halifaxboyns]

While I know some people have said the oval is a waste, I don't see the money being spent on it as being a bad thing. The problem with the commons is that aside from summer, it's dead in winter. This will bring people back to the commons in the winter, big time.

I also expect that it will also help make the place busy in summer because you could do summer rollering blading or running.

Personally - I can see the common (or the oval) being a bonusing concept for any redevelopment along the proposed corridors in the Regional Centre Plan. They've identified Robie, Agricola and Quinpool as potential neighbourhood corridors - well if people want to build higher density there, then perhaps a way to get the upgrades paid for is to require (as a mandatory bonusing) contributions to an improvement fund? Setup a formula based on either the size of the dwelling unit or how many habitable rooms there are. This way, some money comes in and can help pay for it.

[Keith P.]

What's the difference between the oval and the other rinks? Do people only skate in circles on the oval?

Yes, like HRM Council, they go round and round and never get anywhere...

It is also huge yet cannot easily be used for anything other than skating in one direction. Plus, the hole in the middle is useless.

[halifaxboyns]

Yes, like HRM Council, they go round and round and never get anywhere...

It is also huge yet cannot easily be used for anything other than skating in one direction. Plus, the hole in the middle is useless.

I don't know, I think it could be used as a stage. I've made that suggestion previously. Have a stage for say a band or a choir to do stuff when the oval is in use. It would be no different than having choirs sing along street corners, just as cold! :)

[halifaxboyns]

An interesting article from Christopher Hume on condo dwellers was passed onto me. It's from the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1096828--hume-urban-pioneers-and-city-settlers?bn=1), but still very good. Christopher's articles I find are very interesting and he did a great story from CBC on Cities.

[someone123]

It does remind me a bit of, say, the commuter rail story where there's a lack of direction and a kind of publicly-driven tunnel vision that misses everything but the obvious solution. People liked the oval so it had to stay in its present incarnation, even though it was designed for particular sporting events and not as a general-purpose public ice surface. People liked the Dayliners and that's kind of setting the agenda when there should be a study of modern alternatives.

The bottom line for the oval doesn't seem so bad to me though. The capital cost is approximately $4M when you factor in private contributions. A lot of space is being used for this but realistically that area has been left fallow for a long period of time and it is particularly dead in the winter. While this seems suboptimal I could see it being a pretty good investment as far as HRM council goes. It's not hard to imagine more people using this in the winter than the rest of the North Common space.

[halifaxboyns]

Here's a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu19UJaPsfU) to the documentary I mentioned by Christopher Hume, for those who missed it.

[spaustin]

I do wonder about the timeline for this though. The Trinity site has been vacant for a while and Fenwick is expected to take another 18+ months, which means that we'll probably still have that parking lot at Brunswick and Cogswell for another 2 years or so. Is the St. Pat's development going to push off Trinity yet again? Are we going to have to wait 5 years for the school site to be developed?

And that's the problem with our demolition laws, tax system and development agreement process as it currently sits. That church could still be there serving some kind of use (theater venue? market? etc), but instead it's an ugly unsurfaced gravel lot. Who knows if the Trinity will ever even happen. This wouldn't be the only spot in our Downtown that became a gravel lot in anticipation for a project that is always just over the horizon. Most the block around the Denis Building on Barrington, for example, was taken down in what, the 80s, for a promised development that never happened. I'm sure that's not the only spot. My biggest fear right now is that Waterside Centre might be on that course. We really need to reform the rules and incentives so that we stop ripping apart our neighbourhoods. Demolition should occur when a project's ready to happen or if the building is basically condemned. Not early on simply because parking lots pay little in the way of taxes, but still generate revenue for the owner.

[someone123]

Yeah, it's really messed up. Our tax system is exactly backwards when it comes to this issue -- it adds an incentive to destroy buildings. Slow approvals and regulations also hurt.

It's easy to imagine penalties for developers but those can easily drive away business. A good system might be revenue neutral and would charge more for empty sites while reducing taxes on developed sites. There should also be tax incentives tied to heritage registration so there's a real financial reason to go through with it and preserve worthwhile buildings. Right now the system is basically just an ill-conceived way to volunteer to be shackled as a property owner.

To some degree changing cities also constantly have "frictional" empty lots that are awaiting development. The balance has been off in Halifax partly because so much is held by the government and ineptly managed (e.g. Clyde lots sat for way too long). If those were removed from the equation sites like Trinity probably would not be so bothersome. Actually that may be the lion's share of the problem because most terrible empty sites in the regional core are publicly owned.

[musicman]

You have to remember that part of the Canada Games concept is to provide a "legacy of venues" to train and support future atheletes... Yes we could have re-configured the oval to be a skating rink or something else but it would have gone against the legacy concept.. I am originally from northern NB and the legacy of the games there is amazing. They now have a world class biathlon facility, that they train the next generation of biathletes on. Yes it may not be for everybody but those kids are some of the nicest most respectfull kids you will ever meet and it is thanks to the legacy of the games. We now have what is considered a world class skating oval (and a great opportunity) in the middle of the city accessible to thousands of people every single day. And a training facility for our next generation of speed skaters who can now do long track as well as short track. Why can we not embrace what we now have and look forward to the benefits of what the oval has to offer.

[DigitalNinja]

Does anybody know what they are doing with the large mounds of earth, one is by Ceres the other by richmond terminals. I consistently see half to a dozen excavators on site every day.

[kph06]

Does anybody know what they are doing with the large mounds of earth, one is by Ceres the other by richmond terminals. I consistently see half to a dozen excavators on site every day.

I've been watching this the last few weeks, I think they are moving fill from the Richmond terminals site as part of the $75-million Richmond terminals expansion there. Also they trucked some excess in from work done at Hal-term. Now this week they started dredging in front of the Richmond terminals, and this material is now getting stockpiled. I would suspect that dredge material is quite nasty as it is coming from the former site of the Volvo plant, a coal pier and a sugar refinery. More information can be found herel (http://shipfax.blogspot.com/2011/12/pier-9c-pier-9d.html), another very interesting site (along with his others) that I check regularly.

[Keith P.]

You have to remember that part of the Canada Games concept is to provide a "legacy of venues" to train and support future atheletes... Yes we could have re-configured the oval to be a skating rink or something else but it would have gone against the legacy concept.. I am originally from northern NB and the legacy of the games there is amazing. They now have a world class biathlon facility, that they train the next generation of biathletes on. Yes it may not be for everybody but those kids are some of the nicest most respectfull kids you will ever meet and it is thanks to the legacy of the games. We now have what is considered a world class skating oval (and a great opportunity) in the middle of the city accessible to thousands of people every single day. And a training facility for our next generation of speed skaters who can now do long track as well as short track. Why can we not embrace what we now have and look forward to the benefits of what the oval has to offer.

The "legacy" was intended to be the chiller units and nothing else. There was never any plan nor desire to have a permanent speed skating venue in the middle of the Common. In fact, prior to the Rapture that happened to some residents last winter when the donut was opened up to the public, there was considerable opposition to even using this site for such a venue, even on a temporary basis. A conventional skating surface would have been a far better use than this thing.

[musicman]

Yes i agree that it was supposed to be the chillers as the legacy. However I personally would rather see a legacy that includes something that can be used for something other than hockey or figure skating. Yes there was opposition to the site being used but most of that opposition came from people that we as a group on here oppose all the time on pretty well every subject.

I am personally glad that we will see something different to the status quo, not to mention a decision by council that did not require years of study and debate only to be back at square one in 10 years...

[DigitalNinja]

Interesting about the port. Would be nice to see more activity down that end of Halifax.

[ewjonsson]

News about the St. Pats Alexandra school site on Gottingen street

http://http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/12/12/ns-st-pats-school-development.html
A former Halifax school could be turned into a private development instead of being handed over for community use.

A non-profit group in the Gottingen Street area had hoped Halifax Regional Municipality would turn the site of St. Patrick's-Alexandra Elementary School over to them, but city staff have recommended tearing down the building and using the lot for a residential and commercial complex.

Jane Moloney of the North End Community Health Clinic wanted to share the building with the nearby MicMac Native Friendship Centre.

She said the clinic's current space is "very cramped" and does not meet accessibility standards. There are two buildings at the school and the groups want to share the space and develop the outdoor areas for their clients and the general public.

"I think it's just really short sighted. There are lots of vacant lots around on the peninsula still that would be developed for housing, but we would really need to be within two or three square blocks of where we are now to really be part of the community that we serve," she said Monday.

"It takes a very courageous governing body to not accept $4 million, but I think sometimes we do need to be brave and we do need to be visionary ... That piece of land is very precious and there won't be another opportunity like this."

Friendship centre in disrepair
The clinic is renting a building near the school for its nutrition and dental programs. The friendship centre is in disrepair and needs work, or to move to a new location. The two groups submitted proposals to share the space.

Pam Glode, the executive director of the friendship centre, has said it badly needs the former school because its current building is cramped and in disrepair.

"The floor is separating from the walls in certain spots, we have major leaks, and we have mould, which we've contained," Glode told CBC in August.

"Sometimes we have a lineup waiting for the computers, even to sit down and have tea and coffee, people will be waiting sometimes, so this would be space. I would like to expand and offer more resources."

The large former school has been empty for a year. The city asked for proposals to re-use the site in the summer of 2011. It is valued at $4 million.

HRM staff have recommended that councillors approve a bid by Jono Developments. Its proposal includes five to 10 per cent of the residential sector designated for affordable housing and five to 10 per cent of the commercial area set aside for community or non profit space.

Moloney said that would not be enough.

"It seems unlikely that a few rooms — which is what 5 to 10 per cent of the commercial space is likely to be, a few community meeting rooms — that won't meet our needs," she said.

Councillors are debating the issue Tuesday afternoon. Moloney hopes they chose to not follow the staff recommendation.

[Keith P.]

The Micmac Friendship Center is an unsightly dump and a drag on the area and should be demolished. As for the community health clinic, how can they need an entire school? That is a large building complex and to state that it should be handed over to them is bureaucratic empire-building at its best. Of course, they have no way to maintain something that large so they would soon be back knocking on the taxpayers door for more money. We don't need more run-down buildings in this part of town, thanks.

[someone123]

Yeah, this site seems far too large to hand over to a couple of local nonprofits. I'm sceptical of how they mention the use of the rest of the property, as if it were an afterthought that would just be sorted out eventually. More likely it would be Bloomfield II.

Two fundamental, related problems with this area are a lack of population density to support businesses/amenities and an excessive concentration of undesirable institutions and public housing. The way to fix this is to add more middle class residents.

[Empire]

Here is an article about the worth of Citadel Hill. The Feds say that because the lower portion can't be built on it is worthless.

The site should be assesssed in terms of lost revenue for the city. Potentially the site would represent millions and millions of $$$ in assessment if it wasn't there and developed as part of downtown.

Not only does the hill represent a major loss of tax revenue for HRM, the site itself causes reduced assessments for all properties from the hill to the harbour due to the viewplane legislation.

Point being for the feds ....don't complain as you are getting off easy.




Citadel Hill: What’s it really worth? December 12, 2011 - 4:37am By PAUL McLEOD Ottawa Bureau

Legal dispute over historic site’s tax value hits Supreme Court

Federal evaluators say Citadel Hill in Halifax is worth just $10. But provincial assess­ment authorities value it at $17.5 million. (TED PRITCHARD / Staff) .OTTAWA — The legal battle over whether most of Citadel Hill is worthless hits the Supreme Court of Canada today.

The decade-long dispute between Halifax and the federal government will likely set a precedent about whether national historic sites are valuable pieces of land or worth nothing from a tax perspective.

The federal government gives cash payments to Halifax Regional Municipality in lieu of property taxes for Citadel Hill. Ottawa claims that 18.8 hectares of the 19.4-hectare site have no tax value because nothing can be built there.

The federal government decided that Citadel Hill fortress is worth about $5 million. The grassy incline around the fortress is valued at little more than pocket change: $10.

"(It) has no development potential whatsoever," federal lawyer Reinhold Endres said back in 2010 when the case was before the courts in Halifax.

"You cannot put anything on it, you cannot excavate it, you cannot do a thing with it."

The municipality contends that the entire national historic site should be worth just over $20 million. Municipal lawyers say under their proposal, the city would receive an extra $500,000 in revenue each year.

There is also an outstanding tax bill worth more than $7 million if the municipality wins.

Municipal lawyers argue that even though nothing can be built there, Citadel Hill has intrinsic value as a national historic site.

The land that federal evaluators say is worth just $10 was deemed by provincial assessment authorities to be worth $17.5 million.

Ottawa argues that only Parks Canada offices, kiosks, a conference centre and some historic structures used for storage have taxable value.

Court documents filed by the municipality call this conclusion "startling and unreasonable" and say it "cries out for rectification."

Federally owned national historic sites are not taxed directly. But under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, the federal government provides grants to municipalities that are supposed to represent what the assessed value would be if the properties were taxable.

The court case now centres on whether the federal government can set its own assessment values when it makes payments in lieu of taxes or if it is compelled to consider outside property valuations.

"If the (federal government’s) discretion is unconstrained with respect to value, the result will bear no resemblance to taxes that would be payable if the property were taxable," reads a municipal filing with the Supreme Court of Canada.

Provincial property assessors calculate the value of all land in Nova Scotia, regardless of whether it is taxable. In 2005, the province assessed Citadel Hill at a value of $38 million. That figure is agreed to be too high because it includes improvements that are exempt under the act.

The Supreme Court hearing marks the last chapter to over a decade of litigation. The municipality first appealed the federal assessment 11 years ago.

In 2007, the case went before a dispute advisory panel, which ruled the land beneath the ineligible improvements had no value. The panel pegged the taxable value of Citadel Hill at just $4.1 million.

The municipality successfully appealed and had the ruling quashed by the courts. Ottawa then appealed that ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal and had the decision reinstated, with the court siding two to one in favour of the federal argument.

Another municipal appeal now has the case going to the top court in the land this morning.

( pmcleod@herald.ca)