General Updates and News

[OldDartmouthMark]

Fair enough, but I guess my use of "Boomer" isn't meant to be offensive; I just use it as shorthand to refer to the generation of people born after WWII, a large population boom, and the core demographic challenge for us between now and 2035.

When we say "Boomers", everyone knows what we're talking about, in the same way we also know who Generation X and Millennials, etc, are referring to (the latter are essentially the Echo Boomers, or children of Boomers).

I don't really like any of those terms because it generalizes people based on when they were born.

Think of it in these terms: if you substituted slang commonly used to describe race or sexual orientation, it would be deemed unacceptable and likely result in the poster becoming banned. In my view, "boomer", "generation X", etc. are not all that far off in concept and thus tend to dilute the discussion with derision and assigned blame. I realize that in some cases, particularly those that are related to history, there are fair uses for the terms, but I wouldn't be disappointed if I never heard any of them again.

That's just my 2¢ on the matter.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Opinion piece on the Doyle Block:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1322827-opinion-halifax-will-lose-character-with-city-block’s-demolition

Counterpoint published:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1323266-counterpoint-downtown-halifax-block-deserves-to-be-demolished

The argument seems pretty lame to me, actually. He seems to base most of his "article" on some idea that tearing down old buildings will keep young people from moving away. :shrug:

Regardless, I'm sure whatever makes the most financial sense for the developer is what will happen. I'm calling this one done - to be torn down and replaced with an underwhelming block of boredom.... ;)

[Drybrain]

I can be expected to say so, but that counterpoint is a bunch of fallacy-riddled nonsense. :2cents:

[Hali87]

Thanks for the well-thought out post, and sorry to hear of your employment situation. I feel that it is really becoming tough out there for young university grads to find work in their chosen fields. It is really challenging to find something that you have a passion for that also has jobs available. I actually know a few people who had graduated with university degrees and never really worked in their chosen fields, and that has been for many years now. It sounds like that hasn't improved at all since then.

I wish you the best of luck! :tup:

I'm actually optimistic; it's a growing field here and it's really just a matter of waiting for a job to open, or having enough unemployed friends in related fields that we can start our own firm or something. There are also plenty of jobs elsewhere in Canada, I'd just prefer to stay here, if I can.

[counterfactual]

Counterpoint published:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1323266-counterpoint-downtown-halifax-block-deserves-to-be-demolished

The argument seems pretty lame to me, actually. He seems to base most of his "article" on some idea that tearing down old buildings will keep young people from moving away. :shrug:

Regardless, I'm sure whatever makes the most financial sense for the developer is what will happen. I'm calling this one done - to be torn down and replaced with an underwhelming block of boredom.... ;)

Just to clarify:

counterpoint

Not to be confused with

counterfactual

I have no affiliation with the author(s) of said letter. :)

[counterfactual]

I don't really like any of those terms because it generalizes people based on when they were born.

Think of it in these terms: if you substituted slang commonly used to describe race or sexual orientation, it would be deemed unacceptable and likely result in the poster becoming banned. In my view, "boomer", "generation X", etc. are not all that far off in concept and thus tend to dilute the discussion with derision and assigned blame. I realize that in some cases, particularly those that are related to history, there are fair uses for the terms, but I wouldn't be disappointed if I never heard any of them again.

That's just my 2¢ on the matter.

All fair points, Mark.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Just to clarify:

counterpoint

Not to be confused with

counterfactual

I have no affiliation with the author(s) of said letter. :)

:haha: I hadn't thought of that angle!

I was being lazy and should have typed:
"The Counterpoint that was published in The Chronicle Herald:"

Let it be known that any perceived connection to the poster Counterfactual is purely coincidental. :cheers:

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'm actually optimistic; it's a growing field here and it's really just a matter of waiting for a job to open, or having enough unemployed friends in related fields that we can start our own firm or something. There are also plenty of jobs elsewhere in Canada, I'd just prefer to stay here, if I can.

You have a great attitude. Keep digging and it will work out for you. That's how you get it done in this world. :tup:

[IanWatson]

I can be expected to say so, but that counterpoint is a bunch of fallacy-riddled nonsense. :2cents:

I'll back you up on this one. It was pretty much bunk written by someone who doesn't (isn't around?) to see all of the progressive development that is happening in Halifax.

[Keith P.]

I'll back you up on this one. It was pretty much bunk written by someone who doesn't (isn't around?) to see all of the progressive development that is happening in Halifax.

But it was the original Drybrain article that was anti the development in question. The counterpoint was in favor of it.

[beyeas]

I don't really like any of those terms because it generalizes people based on when they were born.

Think of it in these terms: if you substituted slang commonly used to describe race or sexual orientation, it would be deemed unacceptable and likely result in the poster becoming banned. In my view, "boomer", "generation X", etc. are not all that far off in concept and thus tend to dilute the discussion with derision and assigned blame. I realize that in some cases, particularly those that are related to history, there are fair uses for the terms, but I wouldn't be disappointed if I never heard any of them again.

That's just my 2¢ on the matter.

While I don't disagree, slang terms are used on this forum all the time with explicit effect of diluting the discussion through derision and with a specific goal of belittling a perspective, and 99.9% go by without comment.

[OldDartmouthMark]

While I don't disagree, slang terms are used on this forum all the time with explicit effect of diluting the discussion through derision and with a specific goal of belittling a perspective, and 99.9% go by without comment.

True enough, and I'm not trying to tell people what to post or not to post. Just giving my :2cents: on the matter.

[JET]

But it was the original Drybrain article that was anti the development in question. The counterpoint was in favor of it.

My reading of Dry's article (which was excellent :tup: ) was not that he was antidevelopment, it was that he was anti tearing down historic features as part of planned development. The counter point article was written by a pompous arse; I mean really, the block is between Doyle and Brunswick. I bet he's a private school graduate with his head up his butt; no offense intended, of course. :shuffle:

[IanWatson]

But it was the original Drybrain article that was anti the development in question. The counterpoint was in favor of it.

Exactly. The guy's point was that Halifax cannot afford to be getting in the way of development... which completely ignores the fact that Halifax has all sorts of great development going on. We can afford to be somewhat choosy where it matters.

[IanWatson]

On a related note. Demo seems to have begun, or at least preparation for demo. When I walked by the other day the east side of the Rogue's Roost solarium had been ripped our.

[someone123]

Exactly. The guy's point was that Halifax cannot afford to be getting in the way of development... which completely ignores the fact that Halifax has all sorts of great development going on. We can afford to be somewhat choosy where it matters.

If a lack of suitable development sites is really a problem, we should be more concerned with freeing up publicly-owned and underutilized land in the core. The province, city, and universities collectively own a huge share of the underused land in Halifax's urban core.

Behind the library is a massive empty site that's been like that for about 10 years.

[Keith P.]

Behind the library is a massive empty site that's been like that for about 10 years.

Blame Dalhousie. They have been sitting on it all that time. Though I'm not sure we should be encouraging Dal to erect more monuments to their empire.

[LongDono]

The $7 million addition to Scotia Square is slowly continuing, today they added temporary stairs (so that the old ones that no one will miss on the right can be removed). Cut out a hole and add some doors and you'll enter through the old Tim Horton's location... eventually there will be escalators when everything is done.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cq1wm64ih209x5z/20151124_153518.jpg?raw=1


I don't know if anyone's discussed it before but I found their master plan document interesting.

http://www.halifaxdevelopments.com/images/ss-expansion-portfolio.pdf

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyv2htyrz1vwtu7/Downtown%20Halifax%20Master%20Plan.jpg?raw=1

[halifaxboyns]

Counterpoint published:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1323266-counterpoint-downtown-halifax-block-deserves-to-be-demolished

The argument seems pretty lame to me, actually. He seems to base most of his "article" on some idea that tearing down old buildings will keep young people from moving away. :shrug:

Regardless, I'm sure whatever makes the most financial sense for the developer is what will happen. I'm calling this one done - to be torn down and replaced with an underwhelming block of boredom.... ;)

My main issue with both articles is that it avoids the actual issue of what buildings are heritage value and who should determine that. Frankly; the only people who should be making the determination of whether a building should have historic value/meaning or be on any list should be council - just as they are decision makers at a public hearing. They have the legislative power/authority under the HRM Charter - so let them make the decision.

One of the things we have out here in Calgary which I found really interesting is different levels of heritage preservation. There is still the Provincial and Municipal Historic Designations but then we have an inventory of historic resources list. That is a list that Administration makes recommendations on (additions, removals, updates) to Council on.

So for example: Let's say Halifax wanted to establish the list - administration would create criteria which they could bring to Council for adoption of what makes the list (age, style, etc.). This would allow administration to flag certain buildings (based on the approved criteria) to be monitored so that when an application comes in; heritage would be involved in the process. It wouldn't be protected; but it would be flagged as the City having an interest to preserve it. Then; if things like tax credits for preservation were established (or heaven forbid heritage density transfers) - the City could be in a position to say to the developer: We want you to preserve the building and restore it in exchange we will transfer the density from the site to site X. Then the City could even provide tax incentives to help defer the cost of heritage restoration.

This wouldn't always ensure that historic buildings on the list wouldn't be demolished - each would be on a case by case basis. But at least it would give City staff the leverage to be able to do start discussing things rather than taking a wild guess on whether the building has heritage value or not. Then, if it could not be saved/restored, the heritage group could then provide direction on how the building should be commemorated. I dealt with such an application here in Calgary and the building had no heritage value left when the application came in (it had been gutted and altered way too much). We were able to preserve the sign from a business in the building and when the new building is built there will be plaques commemorating the building. The community wasn't terribly upset the building got torn down - they felt the commemoration was fine.

That to me is a way forward that allows the HT to feel involved (they can help contribute to the criteria for establishing any lists of buildings to monitor and buildings on the list); heritage gets some priority and everyone has the ability to work together to try to retain older buildings of heritage value.

[Keith P.]

I don't know if anyone's discussed it before but I found their master plan document interesting.

http://www.halifaxdevelopments.com/images/ss-expansion-portfolio.pdf

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyv2htyrz1vwtu7/Downtown%20Halifax%20Master%20Plan.jpg?raw=1


Well, that's interesting, in that it not only shows the long-proposed International Place, but a new/renewed replacement for the old Trade Mart, a new tower next to that and a couple of new low-rise buildings. But all of that is assuming the existing Cogswell interchange continues and that is not supposed to be the case. I wonder how realistic this is.

[LongDono]

Well, that's interesting, in that it not only shows the long-proposed International Place, but a new/renewed replacement for the old Trade Mart, a new tower next to that and a couple of new low-rise buildings. But all of that is assuming the existing Cogswell interchange continues and that is not supposed to be the case. I wonder how realistic this is.

Yes, I wondered as well. One wonders if there is a plan B or if they were completely unaware or highly skeptical about the removal of the interchange (something that we all really want to see, I'm sure). That said, there'll be lots of space for towers when the interchange goes...

[Empire]

On a related note. Demo seems to have begun, or at least preparation for demo. When I walked by the other day the east side of the Rogue's Roost solarium had been ripped our.

It's very unfortunate to lose the sandstone Maritime Life Building (BMO) and the classic brick building on the corner of Sackiville and Spring Garden. There are very few buildings left like this in Halifax. What is surprising is how quite the HT have been as this has been on the books for a few years.

It would be nice to keep these two buildings in exchange for some emergency density bonusing in the center of the block.

Brick Classic
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.643515,-63.5751552,3a,75y,334.98h,93.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2WYOn2nCslRf_-JCZo1ZCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[counterfactual]

It's very unfortunate to lose the sandstone Maritime Life Building (BMO) and the classic brick building on the corner of Sackiville and Spring Garden. There are very few buildings left like this in Halifax. What is surprising is how quite the HT have been as this has been on the books for a few years.

It would be nice to keep these two buildings in exchange for some emergency density bonusing in the center of the block.

Brick Classic
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.643515,-63.5751552,3a,75y,334.98h,93.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2WYOn2nCslRf_-JCZo1ZCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I actually don't find it surprising at all. The Heritage Trust aren't heritage focused. They really couldn't care less about heritage; or at least only care about it to the extent it helps them with their actual/genuine agenda, which is anti-development, but mostly in NIMBY areas.

[IanWatson]

They really couldn't care less about heritage;

I'm not actually sure that's quite true. If you read their newsletter it's quite clear that they care about heritage. I think where the disconnect comes from is that they seem to care very much about "people" heritage, whereas most people (including us on this board) think about architectural heritage. I think that explains why the heritage trust fights to protect otherwise "crappy" buildings; those buildings are attached to specific people from Nova Scotia's heritage. On the other hand, they don't fight to protect buildings that are architecturally important/beautiful if they're not attached to any special person.

The BMO building is a great example. It's only one of few buildings in Halifax with that level of style, but it's not all that old and I am not aware of any connections to important or special people. From an architectural and character-of-the-city POV it's a real shame to lose it and so many people on this board care about it. But from where the HT is coming from (in my view) that building just doesn't matter.

I think it shows a need to establish a Built Heritage group in Halifax.

[JET]

[QUOTE=Empire;7247514]It's very unfortunate to lose the sandstone Maritime Life Building (BMO) and the classic brick building on the corner of Sackiville and Spring Garden.

Now that's a whole nother definition of 'between'. :)

[halifaxboyns]

Yes, I wondered as well. One wonders if there is a plan B or if they were completely unaware or highly skeptical about the removal of the interchange (something that we all really want to see, I'm sure). That said, there'll be lots of space for towers when the interchange goes...

Wasn't this plan published before the decision had been made to demolish the Cogswell Interchange? If these guys are reasonable developers they will have a plan b and likely c.

[eastcoastal]

My main issue with both articles is that it avoids the actual issue of what buildings are heritage value and who should determine that. Frankly; the only people who should be making the determination of whether a building should have historic value/meaning or be on any list should be council - just as they are decision makers at a public hearing. They have the legislative power/authority under the HRM Charter - so let them make the decision.

One of the things we have out here in Calgary which I found really interesting is different levels of heritage preservation. There is still the Provincial and Municipal Historic Designations but then we have an inventory of historic resources list. That is a list that Administration makes recommendations on (additions, removals, updates) to Council on.

So for example: Let's say Halifax wanted to establish the list - administration would create criteria which they could bring to Council for adoption of what makes the list (age, style, etc.). This would allow administration to flag certain buildings (based on the approved criteria) to be monitored so that when an application comes in; heritage would be involved in the process. It wouldn't be protected; but it would be flagged as the City having an interest to preserve it. Then; if things like tax credits for preservation were established (or heaven forbid heritage density transfers) - the City could be in a position to say to the developer: We want you to preserve the building and restore it in exchange we will transfer the density from the site to site X. Then the City could even provide tax incentives to help defer the cost of heritage restoration.

This wouldn't always ensure that historic buildings on the list wouldn't be demolished - each would be on a case by case basis. But at least it would give City staff the leverage to be able to do start discussing things rather than taking a wild guess on whether the building has heritage value or not. Then, if it could not be saved/restored, the heritage group could then provide direction on how the building should be commemorated. I dealt with such an application here in Calgary and the building had no heritage value left when the application came in (it had been gutted and altered way too much). We were able to preserve the sign from a business in the building and when the new building is built there will be plaques commemorating the building. The community wasn't terribly upset the building got torn down - they felt the commemoration was fine.

That to me is a way forward that allows the HT to feel involved (they can help contribute to the criteria for establishing any lists of buildings to monitor and buildings on the list); heritage gets some priority and everyone has the ability to work together to try to retain older buildings of heritage value.

My understanding is that, in theory, the property owner does not have to apply for registration under HRM's heritage registration rules, and council can register something without owners' consent. In practice, I don't believe that's happened here.

HRM's website says "Heritage registation is a voluntary process which begins with the owner making a written request..." http://www.halifax.ca/Heritage-Properties/index.php

Provincial Act that enables the municipality's heritage property program says the Heritage Advisory Committee "may recommend... a building... be registered..." (14(1)). Then, the owner is notified of the recommendation (14(2)). Act only says that the owner must be given opportunity to be heard (15(2)).
http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/heritage.htm

Municipal bylaw says buildings are registered by Council, on advice of Heritage Advisory Committee, in accordance with Act - no mention of owners (7 (2)) http://www.halifax.ca/legislation/bylaws/hrm/documents/H-200.pdf

[Empire]

[QUOTE=Empire;7247514]It's very unfortunate to lose the sandstone Maritime Life Building (BMO) and the classic brick building on the corner of Sackiville and Spring Garden.

Now that's a whole nother definition of 'between'. :)

The BMO building would make an excellent tower base / lobby for a luxury hotel....Waldorf Halifax? min. 20 storeys either directly behind or cut half of the building and tie in leaving the rest of the block minus the brick building on the corner for retail.

BMO
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6433232,-63.5759881,3a,75y,24.26h,96.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_b_Btx-gDunwnF-1MGPrvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[JET]

My understanding is that, in theory, the property owner does not have to apply for registration under HRM's heritage registration rules, and council can register something without owners' consent. In practice, I don't believe that's happened here.

HRM's website says "Heritage registation is a voluntary process which begins with the owner making a written request..." http://www.halifax.ca/Heritage-Properties/index.php

Provincial Act that enables the municipality's heritage property program says the Heritage Advisory Committee "may recommend... a building... be registered..." (14(1)). Then, the owner is notified of the recommendation (14(2)). Act only says that the owner must be given opportunity to be heard (15(2)).
http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/heritage.htm

Municipal bylaw says buildings are registered by Council, on advice of Heritage Advisory Committee, in accordance with Act - no mention of owners (7 (2)) http://www.halifax.ca/legislation/bylaws/hrm/documents/H-200.pdf

https://www.halifax.ca/Heritage-Properties/index.php#GettingRegistered

The actual process is that owners submit applications to city staff, and staff decide whether it will proceed to the Heritage Committee. I have a 1905 house, and I couldn't get approved at the staff level; not enough 'points'.

[RoshanMcG]

Not really on the current topic but I just wanted to mention how I've seen a lot on here that Halifax is really one of the only cities of its size that has a skyline and the amount of tall-ish buildings that we have, but I stumbled upon a picture of Anchorage, Alaska and I think they are a pretty good comparison to ours.

They have a city population of 300,000 and a metro population of 396,000 and this is their skyline:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53bfffc8e4b0735041d2e25c/t/53c59478e4b0627010c54a9d/1405457542793/bigstock-Anchorage-Skyline-63689269.jpg?format=2500w

Source (http://www.akdashtraining.org/#about)

[Ziobrop]

https://www.halifax.ca/Heritage-Properties/index.php#GettingRegistered

The actual process is that owners submit applications to city staff, and staff decide whether it will proceed to the Heritage Committee. I have a 1905 house, and I couldn't get approved at the staff level; not enough 'points'.

the points system is probably pretty good way to evaluate, but i think to many points are given for age. - thats how more modern stuff slips through, and doesnt get registered - any why you typically need a compelling personal story to go with the building.

[counterfactual]

[QUOTE=JET;7247937]

The BMO building would make an excellent tower base / lobby for a luxury hotel....Waldorf Halifax? min. 20 storeys either directly behind or cut half of the building and tie in leaving the rest of the block minus the brick building on the corner for retail.

I agree. I think you could have a beautiful big development here, which preserved the BMO at its base.

[portapetey]

Not really on the current topic but I just wanted to mention how I've seen a lot on here that Halifax is really one of the only cities of its size that has a skyline and the amount of tall-ish buildings that we have, but I stumbled upon a picture of Anchorage, Alaska and I think they are a pretty good comparison to ours.

They have a city population of 300,000 and a metro population of 396,000 and this is their skyline:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53bfffc8e4b0735041d2e25c/t/53c59478e4b0627010c54a9d/1405457542793/bigstock-Anchorage-Skyline-63689269.jpg?format=2500w

Source (http://www.akdashtraining.org/#about)


Nice work. Anchorage is the first and only really good example of a city that is comparable to ours in both size and relative isolation from other major centres, and you're right, the downtown skyline is somewhat comparable. It actually reminds me a lot more of Saint John's skyline in that photo.

http://saintjohngospelhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/cropped-Saint_John_NB_skyline_at_dusk8.jpg)

Anchorage looks a lot more low-rise outside of the downtown than Halifax though.

Anchorage's data page:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=146

Halifax's:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=66

Glad to finally see a good comparison. I think we're doing pretty well.

[portapetey]

I actually don't find it surprising at all. The Heritage Trust aren't heritage focused. They really couldn't care less about heritage; or at least only care about it to the extent it helps them with their actual/genuine agenda, which is anti-development, but mostly in NIMBY areas.

Yup. They seem to be terribly off-mandate most of the time, and don't seem to do much at all to protect real heritage. It's a shame.

[portapetey]

[QUOTE=JET;7247937]

The BMO building would make an excellent tower base / lobby for a luxury hotel....Waldorf Halifax? min. 20 storeys either directly behind or cut half of the building and tie in leaving the rest of the block minus the brick building on the corner for retail.

BMO
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6433232,-63.5759881,3a,75y,24.26h,96.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_b_Btx-gDunwnF-1MGPrvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I also like this idea. I wonder if the developers would hear suggestions?

[counterfactual]

I'm not actually sure that's quite true. If you read their newsletter it's quite clear that they care about heritage. I think where the disconnect comes from is that they seem to care very much about "people" heritage, whereas most people (including us on this board) think about architectural heritage. I think that explains why the heritage trust fights to protect otherwise "crappy" buildings; those buildings are attached to specific people from Nova Scotia's heritage. On the other hand, they don't fight to protect buildings that are architecturally important/beautiful if they're not attached to any special person.

The BMO building is a great example. It's only one of few buildings in Halifax with that level of style, but it's not all that old and I am not aware of any connections to important or special people. From an architectural and character-of-the-city POV it's a real shame to lose it and so many people on this board care about it. But from where the HT is coming from (in my view) that building just doesn't matter.

I think it shows a need to establish a Built Heritage group in Halifax.

I mean, this is a fair riposte, and I've seen the newsletter, so I know what you're getting at.

But then, there are certain individuals involved with HT-- I won't name names but it's not difficult to figure out who-- that seem to be heavily involved in vocal opposition to pretty much every single development in key downtown parts of the city, and with respect to developments that are not at all impacting at all on "people" history. These same people seem to be involved with pretty much every local group that generally opposes really anything -- HT, STV, Friends of the Commons, Friends of Schmidtville, etc, etc. Same people, different pretext for anti-development aims.

I think there are people in HT that care about history and write it up in the newsletter. But they're not the same people litigating every single major development downtown, from affordable housing in the north end, to Nova, to Commerce Square. None of those concern people history. Nor does Save The View, but the STV are basically the HT.

All that being said, I definitely agree with the Built Heritage part. This should be started. Imagine a local Architectural Heritage group that had authority/recognition from Council and actually worked with developers to compromise.

For example, why not compromise on the Doyle Block? Convince Chedrawe to incorporate the BMO facade and, in return, he can build taller to make up for lost units at lower levels. Maybe even impinge a few meters into the idiotic "view planes".

[Keith P.]

For example, why not compromise on the Doyle Block? Convince Chedrawe to incorporate the BMO facade and, in return, he can build taller to make up for lost units at lower levels. Maybe even impinge a few meters into the idiotic "view planes".

It is a little late now. He has spent a lot of money on the proposal that is in place. Unfair to expect him to drop all that and pivot into asking for something that is expressly forbidden under current rules and would take years to change.

I just don't get the attachment to the BMO/Maritime Life building so many seem to have here. It has never struck me as particularly noteworthy. Imagine the image below with 20 storeys on top. Is that really all that great?

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/b76febb2-96cd-4a61-88af-f96b14d03524_zpsc4315ab0.jpg

[OldDartmouthMark]

It is a little late now. He has spent a lot of money on the proposal that is in place. Unfair to expect him to drop all that and pivot into asking for something that is expressly forbidden under current rules and would take years to change.

I just don't get the attachment to the BMO/Maritime Life building so many seem to have here. It has never struck me as particularly noteworthy. Imagine the image below with 20 storeys on top. Is that really all that great?

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/b76febb2-96cd-4a61-88af-f96b14d03524_zpsc4315ab0.jpg

With that proposal, it's what has been added on top and the continuation of the "Second Cup glass add-on" at SGR that is very underwhelming.

The current proposal is very disappointing as well. I honestly think that many would be OK with the Maritime Life building being demolished if it were going to be replaced with something better.

But I agree, it's a done deal, so we'll just have to live with whatever piece of garbage is built there. Hopefully I'm wrong and it will be beautiful. :cool:

[Keith P.]

In today's Herald, everyone's favorite here, Bev Miller, weighs in. Naturally she tries to defend the flawed viewplanes, making some contradictory arguments in the process, and thinks there is some alchemy that will turn sandstone into gold:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1324289-voice-of-the-people-nov.-26-2015

Viewplane excuse thin

Re: the proposed redevelopment of the Spring Garden Road/Doyle Street block in Halifax.

If only we had known. The developer blames viewplane legislation, which has been in place and supported by Halifax citizens and councils for more than 40 years, to justify the demolition of the entire Doyle Street/Spring Garden Road block because the legislation precluded building towers on the site.

The block includes two very attractive Victorian buildings and the Bank of Montreal, which is one of Halifax’s best pieces of Art Deco architecture. Rather than conserve and rehabilitate these existing buildings on the site and do an infill development, he must demolish the lot.

This, of course, also creates a commercial, environmental and social disaster area by setting up a demolition/construction space on a vital link between Spring Garden Road and downtown for how long? Three to four years?

Give me a break. The assumption seems to be that the developer didn’t know about the viewplanes when he bought the property, or paid too much for the property given the LUB and other restrictions? Poor developer.

At any rate, it is not his fault. As citizens, the responsibility for the loss of these buildings and the mess to be created on that site is clearly on our collective heads. For 40 or more years, Haligonians have consistently confirmed, for all sorts of reasons, the value of the views from the Citadel. Little did we know. Shame on us.

Beverly W. Miller, Halifax

[Ziobrop]

In today's Herald, everyone's favorite here, Bev Miller, weighs in. Naturally she tries to defend the flawed viewplanes, making some contradictory arguments in the process, and thinks there is some alchemy that will turn sandstone into gold:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1324289-voice-of-the-people-nov.-26-2015

ugh. no Im sure he knew about the viewplanes.
it comes down to what you want. he needs to make money, and to do it he either needs height, or the vacant land. if we gave up some height, maybe we could save a building or 2.

its called negotiation and compromise, but again, since we are unwilling to do that, we loose buildings.

I generally agree with the viewplanes - but the viewplanes are not continuous 360 degree views from the citadel. they are very specific wedges, and despite claims from the opposition, the nova center complies with the legislated views.

[Drybrain]

ugh. no Im sure he knew about the viewplanes.
it comes down to what you want. he needs to make money, and to do it he either needs height, or the vacant land. if we gave up some height, maybe we could save a building or 2.

its called negotiation and compromise, but again, since we are unwilling to do that, we loose buildings.

I generally agree with the viewplanes - but the viewplanes are not continuous 360 degree views from the citadel. they are very specific wedges, and despite claims from the opposition, the nova center complies with the legislated views.

The viewplane excuse from Chedrawe DOES seem thin (lots of developers have done much pricier historic restorations with no additional square footage, let alone a tower).

But I still find Miller's letter irritating. I think views TO the citadel from WITHIN the city are more important than views FROM the citadel to the water. Most of us spend our time on the streets, and the citadel is a major iconic civic space. It provides a real sense of locality and history when we see it.

But preserving a perfectly unobstructed view from the hill to the harbour is idiotic. There's no economic justification for it, nor a cultural justification I can imagine giving credence to. But it persists, and completely dominates our understanding of and discussion about heritage in the city. And contrary to Miller's assertion, I really doubt that a majority of Haligonians care very much about it. Few of us want to see a wall of highrises blocking off the harbour entirely, but the solution is not to maintain an 18th-century vista.

[someone123]

The thing is, people can wag their fingers all they want, but developers are generally out to maximize profit and current regulation puts buildings like these ones squarely in the way of that primary goal. Until this problem is fixed developers will tear down lots of buildings.

The city needs to create incentives such that demolishing good buildings is prohibitively expensive and preservation is the economically sensible path from the perspective of a property owner.

[Empire]

It is a little late now. He has spent a lot of money on the proposal that is in place. Unfair to expect him to drop all that and pivot into asking for something that is expressly forbidden under current rules and would take years to change.

I just don't get the attachment to the BMO/Maritime Life building so many seem to have here. It has never struck me as particularly noteworthy. Imagine the image below with 20 storeys on top. Is that really all that great?

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/b76febb2-96cd-4a61-88af-f96b14d03524_zpsc4315ab0.jpg

Check out the link. The BMO Centre would be our mini Rockefeller Center. Maybe we would get a Top of the Rock and actually have a place to see one of the best views in the world.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.7590638,-73.981041,3a,90y,127.36h,108.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3s1RDxKdRnJO2sQCnshmNw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D3s1RDxKdRnJO2sQCnshmNw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D128.73248%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

[Keith P.]

Check out the link. The BMO Centre would be our mini Rockefeller Center. Maybe we would get a Top of the Rock and actually have a place to see one of the best views in the world.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.7590638,-73.981041,3a,90y,127.36h,108.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3s1RDxKdRnJO2sQCnshmNw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D3s1RDxKdRnJO2sQCnshmNw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D128.73248%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656


They don't look even remotely alike though.

[counterfactual]

It is a little late now. He has spent a lot of money on the proposal that is in place. Unfair to expect him to drop all that and pivot into asking for something that is expressly forbidden under current rules and would take years to change.

I just don't get the attachment to the BMO/Maritime Life building so many seem to have here. It has never struck me as particularly noteworthy. Imagine the image below with 20 storeys on top. Is that really all that great?

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/b76febb2-96cd-4a61-88af-f96b14d03524_zpsc4315ab0.jpg

This is a fair point, Keith. I guess my idea of a compromise would have come far earlier in the process; when the developer would appreciate the view plane but would also take advantage of the "compromise".

[counterfactual]

In today's Herald, everyone's favorite here, Bev Miller, weighs in. Naturally she tries to defend the flawed viewplanes, making some contradictory arguments in the process, and thinks there is some alchemy that will turn sandstone into gold:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1324289-voice-of-the-people-nov.-26-2015

OMG. It's like she read my earlier post...

[counterfactual]

ugh. no Im sure he knew about the viewplanes.
it comes down to what you want. he needs to make money, and to do it he either needs height, or the vacant land. if we gave up some height, maybe we could save a building or 2.

its called negotiation and compromise, but again, since we are unwilling to do that, we loose buildings.

I generally agree with the viewplanes - but the viewplanes are not continuous 360 degree views from the citadel. they are very specific wedges, and despite claims from the opposition, the nova center complies with the legislated views.

Precisely, Zio. Though I don't agree generally with the viewplanes. As noted below, I think we should preserve only one or two key directional views.

[counterfactual]

The viewplane excuse from Chedrawe DOES seem thin (lots of developers have done much pricier historic restorations with no additional square footage, let alone a tower).

But I still find Miller's letter irritating. I think views TO the citadel from WITHIN the city are more important than views FROM the citadel to the water. Most of us spend our time on the streets, and the citadel is a major iconic civic space. It provides a real sense of locality and history when we see it.

But preserving a perfectly unobstructed view from the hill to the harbour is idiotic. There's no economic justification for it, nor a cultural justification I can imagine giving credence to. But it persists, and completely dominates our understanding of and discussion about heritage in the city. And contrary to Miller's assertion, I really doubt that a majority of Haligonians care very much about it. Few of us want to see a wall of highrises blocking off the harbour entirely, but the solution is not to maintain an 18th-century vista.

I can see preserving *some* aspects of the view. Mainly, the view from the Citadel to George's Island, and a view out towards the harbour narrows. Historically, those would have been the essential views for defensive/strategic reasons.

Beyond that, the viewplanes are useless, with those that cut through SGR the most useless of all, as this is one of the areas where we should have the most intense density/height allowances.

[kph06]

I don't know of any website's but I do have a progress photo from earlier this month;

http://40.media.tumblr.com/2b761353b2b4d1a668927445ee2a87eb/tumblr_nx5rszxSat1tvjdq8o1_1280.jpg
Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson) (http://urbanhalifax.tumblr.com/)

The crane for this is now halfway up. Same crane as Friesian Court. All Crane is setting it up with the crane used on Joe Howe. They are taking a bite into Irving and Leil's work.

[eastcoastal]

the points system is probably pretty good way to evaluate, but i think to many points are given for age. - thats how more modern stuff slips through, and doesnt get registered - any why you typically need a compelling personal story to go with the building.

I agree about the points related to dates... strong examples of modernism should be protected. The building (can't remember what it's called) with Durty Nellies and Starbucks in it, spanning Barrington/Argyle has been super-bastardized over the years. It's the first curtainwall of appreciable height in Atlantic Canada.

The points for compelling story are meant to allow buildings that have historic significance, but aren't architecturally noteworthy to be protected... the birthplace of so-and-so. I think all too often, the importance of former occupants and occasions are overstated and over-scored in a rush to protect anything old.

[Drybrain]

I agree about the points related to dates... strong examples of modernism should be protected. The building (can't remember what it's called) with Durty Nellies and Starbucks in it, spanning Barrington/Argyle has been super-bastardized over the years. It's the first curtainwall of appreciable height in Atlantic Canada.



I really like that building. A really classic bit of mid-century modernism. Definitely needs a major renovation though, at least on the exterior.

[Ziobrop]

I really like that building. A really classic bit of mid-century modernism. Definitely needs a major renovation though, at least on the exterior.

its actually pretty intact - though the lobby was changed, and its had a bad paint job.

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalifax/2013/06/canada-permanent-building/
http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalifax/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2013/06/IMG_9454-1024x787.jpg

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalifax/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2013/06/IMG_9456-1024x689.jpg

[Drybrain]

its actually pretty intact - though the lobby was changed, and its had a bad paint job.


Cool. (Yeah, I guess it's really just dirty and dingy-looking. More of a scrub-down needed, I guess, maybe not a wholesale reno.)

[bluenoser]

Holiday Inn to get $6.5m reno

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1324459-holiday-inn-to-get-6.5m-reno

Rooms at the Holiday Inn near the Angus L. Macdonald Bridge will be fully renovated, and the lobby and meeting rooms will also be updated, he said. Work is also planned for the building’s exterior.

[eastcoastal]

its actually pretty intact - though the lobby was changed, and its had a bad paint job.

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalifax/2013/06/canada-permanent-building/
http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalifax/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2013/06/IMG_9454-1024x787.jpg

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalifax/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2013/06/IMG_9456-1024x689.jpg

Thanks for that link and those images... I'd heard there was a metal screen of circles: looks like only on the lower level. The Durty Nellies faux paneled heritage crap on the Argyle side is disingenuous at best. I'd love to see it re-modernized to something more period appropriate.

[Hali87]

https://scontent.fyhz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12246948_10100717706762639_171573014624473679_n.jpg?oh=b0098936c5e02786918fa7a075bebe03&oe=56F87BE9
Source (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100717706762639&set=a.10100344618195119.1073741827.94805870&type=3&theater)

"FOR THE COMMON GOOD" :(


Should Doyle Block maybe have its own thread now?

Anyone know what point of the approvals process it's in? Is demolition good to go at this point or can minds still be changed here?

Something that gives me a shred of optimism here is that a lot of the sandstone panels from St. Pat's seem to have been salvaged. That's about it though.

[Drybrain]

https://scontent.fyhz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12246948_10100717706762639_171573014624473679_n.jpg?oh=b0098936c5e02786918fa7a075bebe03&oe=56F87BE9
Source (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100717706762639&set=a.10100344618195119.1073741827.94805870&type=3&theater)

"FOR THE COMMON GOOD" :(


Should Doyle Block maybe have its own thread now?

Anyone know what point of the approvals process it's in? Is demolition good to go at this point or can minds still be changed here?

Something that gives me a shred of optimism here is that a lot of the sandstone panels from St. Pat's seem to have been salvaged. That's about it though.

I think the only thing that could change it now would be a public-opinion campaign directed at Westwood. Chedrawe already has demolition permits, so even if the city were to step in (which I don't even think it could, legally, though other cities have that power) they'd have to rescind those permits first. All very unlikely. Technically he can get going whenever.

Anybody who cares may want to start writing to Chedrawe and making the case for including the building, at least partially, in the redevelopment.

[counterfactual]

I think the only thing that could change it now would be a public-opinion campaign directed at Westwood. Chedrawe already has demolition permits, so even if the city were to step in (which I don't even think it could, legally, though other cities have that power) they'd have to rescind those permits first. All very unlikely. Technically he can get going whenever.

Anybody who cares may want to start writing to Chedrawe and making the case for including the building, at least partially, in the redevelopment.

Dry, have you written to him? I mean, you could use your Herald Op-Ed as a convo starter. It wasn't a screed; but balanced and reasoned. He might appreciate your thoughts on how to re-design, save BMO facade (at least), and every is happy.

[Hali87]

But also (in theory) could Council, HTNS, etc. step in and fund the preservation of at least something? Something like a (much more rushed) Morris House rescue? I realize many are cynical about the HTNS, I just mean in theory.

I haven't really heard anyone make a good case for this happening, and there seems to be a ton of public opinion against it, and once it's gone, it's gone.

[Drybrain]

Dry, have you written to him? I mean, you could use your Herald Op-Ed as a convo starter. It wasn't a screed; but balanced and reasoned. He might appreciate your thoughts on how to re-design, save BMO facade (at least), and every is happy.

It might be a lost cause, but I'll do it, if others do. I think it needs more than one voice to be compelling.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It might be a most cause, but I'll do it, if others do. I think it needs more than one voice to be compelling.

I already have - twice - but received no response.

[Empire]

I already have - twice - but received no response.

What about writing to Andy Fillmore?

[Keith P.]

What about writing to Andy Fillmore?

He's the MP now. What would he be able to do?

[OldDartmouthMark]

What about writing to Andy Fillmore?

Probably would be a job for somebody with more eloquence than myself. I emailed a few people in higher positions regarding this project in particular and the weak heritage regulations in general, and have received zero responses from anybody.

I must not be communicating the situation well enough to illicit a response, so I will defer this job to somebody with a greater knowledge and higher skill level than myself, if they feel so inclined.

Otherwise, what will happen will happen, and maybe that's what the majority wants. After all, I am but only one voice and far be it from me to try to be the one person who is trying to dictate his wants to the majority.

[Empire]

He's the MP now. What would he be able to do?

He was always a promoter of good development co-existing with built heritage. He came here with a Boston mindset and really is the architect of much of the current development. In Boston or Montreal I would be willing to bet efforts would be made to perserve the BMO building. This building is important for many reasons and being art deco sandstone is one of them.

You will find the BMO building in this link along with other great buildings in the world: This building should be saved!

https://www.google.ca/search?q=art+deco+halifax+buildings&biw=1008&bih=560&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDqra4l7vJAhVI9mMKHcLoBlMQsAQIGg

[Drybrain]

In Boston or Montreal I would be willing to bet efforts would be made to perserve the BMO building.

Guaranteed.



Otherwise, what will happen will happen, and maybe that's what the majority wants.



I don't think it's what the majority would want--I don't even think the majority of Haligonians are aware of this, because it's not a big news item, when they walk by it as the dozers dig in, they'll say "What a shame!" or something like that.

I think most people support a reasonable degree of historic conservation, but will never make a fuss one way or the other about it. Maybe people think the have no right to weigh in since it isn't their property, but to a degree, the buildings on our streets--especially major public thoroughfares--affect everyone. The fact that heritage laws, and design guidelines, and public consultations exist at all testifies to that.

But all too often, a property owner merely needs to say "I'm gonna do this," and it's perceived as a fair accompli.

[Keith P.]

He was always a promoter of good development co-existing with built heritage. He came here with a Boston mindset and really is the architect of much of the current development. In Boston or Montreal I would be willing to bet efforts would be made to perserve the BMO building. This building is important for many reasons and being art deco sandstone is one of them.


It may or may nor be important (I would be in the group that would say the latter) but he quit being a planner and a local bureaucrat to become a federal politician. Nothing he can do now.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This is what the HT should be doing.

[counterfactual]

What about writing to Andy Fillmore?

I think this is an excellent idea. And having just been elected, and keen to cement his reputation in the riding (over popular Leslie), I bet you he would take this issue and run with it.

Dry: write to Filmore.

[counterfactual]

This is what the HT should be doing.

They don't like Andy Filmore. And, honestly, we should not affiliate in any way shape or form with their work, aims, or aspirations.

[Keith P.]

I think this is an excellent idea. And having just been elected, and keen to cement his reputation in the riding (over popular Leslie), I bet you he would take this issue and run with it.

Dry: write to Filmore.


What do you expect him to do? He has absolutely no jurisdiction or power here.

[Hali87]

Bob Bjerke is the current chief planner for HRM and might be a more logical person to contact. (Honestly may as well contact both - Fillmore might not have direct jurisdiction but he's extremely well-connected in the local development community and would have a very good sense of potential options)

[Empire]

You will find the BMO building in this link along with other great buildings in the world: This building should be saved!

https://www.google.ca/search?q=art+deco+halifax+buildings&biw=1008&bih=560&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDqra4l7vJAhVI9mMKHcLoBlMQsAQIGg

Maybe the Canadian Art Deco Society could have some input? Anyone want to contact them?

The Mandate of the Canadian Art Deco Society is:
•To encourage the study and understanding of the Art Deco styles in Canada on a local, regional, and national basis in terms of: 1.historical and cultural influences
2.contemporary issues

•To support the conservation of the Art Deco environment that we have inherited, such as structures, interiors and furnishings
•To promote public awareness concerning the Art Deco environment through lectures, publications, tours, and newsletters
•To collect and preserve records of Twentieth Century architecture and design

Canadian Art Deco Society:
http://www.canadianartdecosociety.org/about.html

[counterfactual]

What do you expect him to do? He has absolutely no jurisdiction or power here.

As a freshly elected MP, who likely has a relationship with Chedrawe, he has a platform/bully pulpit. If he says something, media will pick it up.

[Keith P.]

As a freshly elected MP, who likely has a relationship with Chedrawe, he has a platform/bully pulpit. If he says something, media will pick it up.

My recollection is that they were not friendly.

Fillmore could end up looking like an idiot. I think he has far better things to do right now.

[stevencourchene]

does any one have any updates on the scotia square mall, park lane mall Halifax shopping center redevelopment and their progress or prospective tenants?



:notacrook::worship:

[someone123]

The small building under construction on Maitland Street went up in flames. Unfortunate:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVmuXZHU8AEqpDS.png:large
Source (https://twitter.com/HaliBreaking/media)

Half the fires in the city seem to be in this part of town.

[macgregor]

does any one have any updates on the scotia square mall, park lane mall Halifax shopping center redevelopment and their progress or prospective tenants?



:notacrook::worship:

Check out Crombie's conference call

[eastcoastal]

Apparently Chedrawe has assembled approx. 4 acres of land on Almon St. (former Acadia bus terminal and Metro Self Storage sites) and is planning a development "bigger" than his Gladstone development. Hopefully he's learning more about healthy development as he goes along (Doyle's not particularly promising). I like the urban nature of the semi-detached and detached houses in the Gladstone development, but feel it really turned the parking garage exit on Clifton into a blank wall and decreased the viability of that street to develop into a healthier part of the neighbourhood. With sidewalks and luxuries like that.

[Hali87]

Apparently Chedrawe has assembled approx. 4 acres of land on Almon St. (former Acadia bus terminal and Metro Self Storage sites) and is planning a development "bigger" than his Gladstone development. Hopefully he's learning more about healthy development as he goes along (Doyle's not particularly promising). I like the urban nature of the semi-detached and detached houses in the Gladstone development, but feel it really turned the parking garage exit on Clifton into a blank wall and decreased the viability of that street to develop into a healthier part of the neighbourhood. With sidewalks and luxuries like that.

Having lived at Gladstone and Summit for about a year, I personally didn't notice or care whether or not that section of Clifton had sidewalks. It's a very low-traffic street, even for that area, basically just a small "crescent" off North that doesn't really go anywhere except that one specific small loop.

I'd give Gladstone overall a 6.5/10. The overall site plan looks like something you'd see in Bedford South, but each individual element is pretty good. The best part of the whole development IMO was the last multi-unit building that went up at Gladstone and Almon.

[Drybrain]

Gladstone is a chintzy looking piece of trash. Doyle Block is going to be an absolute crime. Chedrawe is making the city uglier one development at a time, and I'd prefer him to just go away. It pains me to think of how he might squander the chance to do something great with that under-used chunk of Almon Street.

(Maybe he's a nice guy and all, but as a developer, forget it.)

[Colin May]

Apparently Chedrawe has assembled approx. 4 acres of land on Almon St. (former Acadia bus terminal and Metro Self Storage sites) and is planning a development "bigger" than his Gladstone development. Hopefully he's learning more about healthy development as he goes along (Doyle's not particularly promising). I like the urban nature of the semi-detached and detached houses in the Gladstone development, but feel it really turned the parking garage exit on Clifton into a blank wall and decreased the viability of that street to develop into a healthier part of the neighbourhood. With sidewalks and luxuries like that.
May 30 2014 purchased 6017 St Albans, 6027 St Albans, 6040 Almon, 6034 Almon for $3.95 million

Nov 30 2015 purchased 6070 Almon and 6100 Almon for $6.6 million

I found the recent purchase on PVSC - the DTT was due to be paid today.

If you don't like his designs I'll repeat what I wrote re SGR/Doyle block : Contact him and express your opinions or ask to meet with him.
Why are people so afraid to speak to a person they disagree with ?

[Hali87]

Many of us have contacted him and as far as I know no one has gotten a response.

[Colin May]

Many of us have contacted him and as far as I know no one has gotten a response.
That sounds like a story a journalist may be eager to pursue. Contact CBC News and also CTV. This is Halifax - be bold !!

[Aya_Akai]

Gladstone is a chintzy looking piece of trash. Doyle Block is going to be an absolute crime. Chedrawe is making the city uglier one development at a time, and I'd prefer him to just go away. It pains me to think of how he might squander the chance to do something great with that under-used chunk of Almon Street.

(Maybe he's a nice guy and all, but as a developer, forget it.)

I know a family member of his, and to his immediate family he's a great guy.. if you're outside of that circle.. acquaintance or more distant family, or even worse.. random member of the public trying to contact regarding a development.. you'd better watch out cause he really couldn't care any less about you :(

[curnhalio]

May 30 2014 purchased 6017 St Albans, 6027 St Albans, 6040 Almon, 6034 Almon for $3.95 million

Nov 30 2015 purchased 6070 Almon and 6100 Almon for $6.6 million

I found the recent purchase on PVSC - the DTT was due to be paid today.

If you don't like his designs I'll repeat what I wrote re SGR/Doyle block : Contact him and express your opinions or ask to meet with him.
Why are people so afraid to speak to a person they disagree with ?

Heh, I worked in 6100 Almon several years ago. There were rumours back then that someone had bought or was about to buy the building. That all represents a parcel the size of a couple city blocks. I'd rather wait and see what he proposes here before I pan a development that hasn't even been designed yet.

[portapetey]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1326944-doyle-street-changes-slowing-project-developer

[Drybrain]

Mason's comments in that article are completely correct: Chedrawe saying that he needs ten storeys to make preservation of the BMO building economical is probably nonsense, given some of the much more ambitious restoration projects going on (Green Lantern, for one). Chedrawe has owned these buildings for many years, and he's putting up a seven-storey high-end commercial/residential project. Are his profit margins really so slim he can't renovate one old building? Give me a break. People will believe him though.

That's pretty typical for Chedrawe and a number of other local developers, who have a history of going to the press to complain about red tape and development restrictions, and generally getting a very sympathetic ear. Chedrawe and Jim Spatz of Southwest Properties were also vocally against HRM by Design, trying to convince people that it was a terrible burden for developers. I think it's part of the reason people seem to have this idea that Halifax is especially or uniquely anti-development--though there's a very good chance that if he tried to pull something like the Doyle Block in another city, he'd face much stiffer opposition from locals and City Hall.

Anyway.

[counterfactual]

Mason's comments in that article are completely correct: Chedrawe saying that he needs ten storeys to make preservation of the BMO building economical is probably nonsense, given some of the much more ambitious restoration projects going on (Green Lantern, for one). Chedrawe has owned these buildings for many years, and he's putting up a seven-storey high-end commercial/residential project. Are his profit margins really so slim he can't renovate one old building? Give me a break. People will believe him though.

That's pretty typical for Chedrawe and a number of other local developers, who have a history of going to the press to complain about red tape and development restrictions, and generally getting a very sympathetic ear. Chedrawe and Jim Spatz of Southwest Properties were also vocally against HRM by Design, trying to convince people that it was a terrible burden for developers. I think it's part of the reason people seem to have this idea that Halifax is especially or uniquely anti-development--though there's a very good chance that if he tried to pull something like the Doyle Block in another city, he'd face much stiffer opposition from locals and City Hall.

Anyway.

You could be right, but Chedrawe is definitely right about the pointlessness of view planes in this direction.

For me, I think the best way to preserve the BMO, and actually to make it more grand, would be for it to be incorporated into a larger tower development. It would be podium for a higher tower. Would be great here.

Until some mayor or provincial government comes along who has the guts to finally take on, and reign in, the idiotic view planes, we will have worse developments, and developers will still have an excuse to hide behind.

[ILoveHalifax]

Amazing how some people in planning have the idea that the developers are all filthy rich and have no right to determine their profit.
Just a note the guys who were going to build the twisted sisters are or have been in deep financial trouble.

[Drybrain]

You could be right, but Chedrawe is definitely right about the pointlessness of view planes in this direction.


Definitely agree with that. I would have no problem if a ten or 12-storey building went up here.

I don't think, however, that he's bulldozing BMO because of height restrictions--he just doesn't wish to preserve the building, and he gets a dig in at the height restrictions in the process.

I know I'm getting ranty, but it's really infuriating.

We have second-rate developers constantly bending the ear of an uncritical, unsophisticated local business press with frequent complaints about how they're just trying to do business, but City Hall and its tangles of red tape stifle them. Sometimes these complaints are justified, sometimes they're exaggerations or outright lies, and either way, there's little examination of it in the media.

I'm no fan of the Heritage Trust or other single-issue obstructionist types either, but in reality, these days, they're not nearly as powerful as the development lobby. Yet developers have somehow successfully painted themselves as the underdogs, despite winning a lot more than they lose.

To be clear, I know we have many good developers, but they're pretty much all guilty of this.

[Keith P.]

Sorry, but I think this is all misdirected. The BMO building isn't particularly worthy of saving IMO. The two old dormered brick structures at the other end of the block would have a much stronger argument for saving, it seems to me.

[Drybrain]

Sorry, but I think this is all misdirected. The BMO building isn't particularly worthy of saving IMO. The two old dormered brick structures at the other end of the block would have a much stronger argument for saving, it seems to me.

That's interesting. I think they're both worth keeping, but if I had to choose, BMO would be the one...

[Jonovision]

Update for the Scotia Square expansion.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/277a4c8d9e87ac1927da49ecd88d936c/tumblr_nz8zgzesY71sk8kjeo2_1280.jpg

[Phalanx]

There was another piece in the CH the other day talking about some of the history of the Doyle Block http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1328940-block-a-reminder-of-residential-history

[someone123]

There was another piece in the CH the other day talking about some of the history of the Doyle Block http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1328940-block-a-reminder-of-residential-history

The historical facts are interesting but the commentary around the old infirmary and parking lots being the two "pillars" of Spring Garden Road is pretty dubious. There was nothing particularly amazing about 90's-era Spring Garden before the infirmary was closed down, and without any evidence there isn't much reason to believe that the infirmary was driving fur coat sales at Mills circa 1995 or whatever. He dismisses the library as a similar asset to the area without any explanation. Strange.

[bluenoser]

Merry Christmas, SSP Halifax forumers! :cheers:

[curnhalio]

The historical facts are interesting but the commentary around the old infirmary and parking lots being the two "pillars" of Spring Garden Road is pretty dubious. There was nothing particularly amazing about 90's-era Spring Garden before the infirmary was closed down, and without any evidence there isn't much reason to believe that the infirmary was driving fur coat sales at Mills circa 1995 or whatever. He dismisses the library as a similar asset to the area without any explanation. Strange.

Yeah, I'd love to see statistics that indicate shopping traffic is down because of fewer parking spots and the library...

Spring Garden Rd is packed every time I drive down. Heck, even with Christmas being yesterday there were still a handful of stores open and plenty of people milling about.

[someone123]

Yeah, I'd love to see statistics that indicate shopping traffic is down because of fewer parking spots and the library...

I am having trouble finding new counts but the DHBC used to publish pedestrian counts for areas like Barrington Street. Generally speaking the counts went up every year, and foot traffic used to be much lighter than it is today. Rents along both Barrington and Spring Garden have increased a lot.

I find it frustrating how the local media in Halifax tend to conflate reminiscing about the past with statements of how busy or commercially successful these areas are. I think what a lot of these authors mean is that they miss the way things were because they like to drive, want easy parking, and maybe the older stores catered more to them specifically. Expensive parking and business turnover don't tend to be caused by urban decay. They've been writing these articles for years and years regardless of what's actually been happening on the ground.

Spring Garden used to be mostly mom and pop stores, fast food, etc. in the 90's. I'm not sure there were any Lululemon, Urban Outfitters, or even MEC type businesses downtown by the late 90's.

[someone123]

Merry Christmas, SSP Halifax forumers! :cheers:

Merry.. erm, Boxing Day to everyone? :)