KeithP can finally breath a sign of relief that something is happening with this building :P

Judging from his comments, I'm not sure he'll be happy unless it ends up being accidentally destroyed during construction.

Yes, that would be a shame. :cool:

I like their ideas. Finally it gets the attention it deserves.

Apparently the plan is to start construction in a matter of weeks, assuming the DRC meeting next month goes well.

Development agreement sign is up in the doorway. Not sure if this is was there for the old proposal or if it is new:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/9...ae864715_o.jpg
Source

They should leave the building as a homage to the stangent era, the HT had a strong hand in of Halifax downtown development. I kid, but what a joke it would be.

I've always thought of the same thing, leave a plaque with something along the lines of "this facade exists as it does today, as a useless empty shell, representing the former downtown city of Halifax, stagnated for many years, thanks to our neighbours next door at the "heritage trust""

What? And make the Save The Whatever crowd feel like they've won something? Never! :notacrook:

Good Lord, I know you're just joking, but let's just let them build it and see how it turns out. I for one am happy that they saved the facade and that something finally is being done with it. To me, it's kind of like a sigh of relief where I can feel the winds of change to a better, more vibrant Halifax.

For all the browbeating of the Heritage Trust that goes on here, I can't help but think if somebody stepped up and made a better version of the HT that actually functionally interacted with development and promoted good use of Heritage Properties we would just be so much further ahead. IMHO, every older city needs some type of Heritage building advocacy to help preserve what is left of the significant historical buildings, rather than just ripping 'em down like they used to do in the sixties.

Regardless... I'm looking forward to seeing how this one will turn out.

Now, if we can just get some kind of action on all those empty lots downtown so it looks less bombed-out...

exactly.

Leaving the eyesore as-is would leave open the possibility of my dream of a rogue Cat D-8 taking it all out one night. If the development goes ahead we are going to be stuck with this mess for generations more.

My biggest bone of contention with the HT is within their name. They are a trust to preserve building of significance. I would like to see a print out of all monies spent by the HT on legal fees verses buildings saved and preserved because I can think of 3 Victorian mansions the the developer said he would help save and move, that the HT did nothing to save them short of lip service of how action would be taken if locations became available.

If the numbers show they have spent more on lawyers, than on buildings, or for that matter compared to the amount of possible tax revenue lost out on by their obstructionis efforts, there could be a case for misappropriation of public funds.

I think the Heritage Trust gets its legal council pro-bono...

I don't believe the Heritage Trust receives public funds.

I took a look at their website - they have a strategic plan that's supposed to guide their activities... http://www.htns.ca/pdf/Strategic.pdf

I've said it before, but: One big problem with the Heritage Trust is that they're actually terrible at what they do.

For example: Someone from Heritage Canada got in touch with me over a post I made about about the Dennis Building, and said they were interested in putting the building on their top-ten endangered list. When Heritage Canada contacted the Heritage Trust for more background, the HT apparently told them not to kick up a fuss with the government, since the building wasn't in super-imminent danger (!?). (Heritage Canada's position is that it's better to include buildings on the list before the wrecking ball is looming, as it increases the chance to saving them).

Anyway, I doubt the HT has ever cost any developers or anyone else any significant amount of money. Any stagnancy in Halifax in years past was due to economic conditions. You can't lay the lack of development at Phil Pacey's feet--he's too ineffectual.

I disagree. There's more construction now than in past years but the economic fundamentals in the city aren't necessarily much better than in the last decade or the late 90's. The planning regime and public tastes have changed more than the strength of the economy.

Pre-HbD it used to be very common for development approval to drag on for (3, 4, 5) years. St. James Place for example started out as a 19 storey proposal circa 1997 I believe and was finally built as a 10 storey building in 2006 or so after years of tweaking and opposition. The city's terrible development rules created this situation but the Heritage Trust and a few other related groups played a major role in terms of moving appeals forward. It is hard to say what the real cost of all this was but I could see it being in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over the last few years once you take into account the cost of the approvals themselves, the loss of tax revenue, and the diversion of development out to more permissive suburban areas.

I also blame some members of the Heritage Trust for contributing to the adversarial "heritage vs. developer" atmosphere that has held the city back so much. Instead of working with developers they decided to dig in their heels and oppose as much construction as possible, and instead of sticking to preservation the HT's primary goal was subverted by NIMBYism.

Halifax has already improved somewhat but it still hasn't struck the right balance of heritage preservation, public realm investment, and friendliness to quality urban development. And this is just downtown. The suburbs are a total disaster and transit is a disaster too.

Mmm, I probably overstated the case, now that I think on it. I guess what I meant was that Pacey et. al. may have contributed to a mutually hostile discussion between developers and heritage advocates, but all by themselves, can't be held responsible for major developments not going through---the city's poor planning regime bears much more blame. But yes, the HT crew have not helped the public discussion at all, framing things entirely in adversarial terms.

THAT's what I meant.

My apologies for my bellicose bluster then. I was under the impression the we're funded by the province.

Doesn't make their activities any more effective/useful

The Heritage Advisory Committee has voted unanimously to support this project.

It would be great if construction for this could get started this year.

Great! :tup:

Andy Fillmore posted before/after photos of this on his twitter account: https://twitter.com/FillmoreNorth

The description says this development is now approved.

I hope that the rendering is incorrect or that they don't proceed if it is correct.

The rendering shows a cheap precast fake façade with all of the lintels, keystone arches, cornices, granite base and column detail destroyed.

I think it's just a lazy rendering. If you look at the neighbouring buildings, none of the detail on their facades is depicted either.

The is the report to the heritage committee, in which they actually discuss the necessity of retaining and where necessary restoring all the cornices, lintels, sills, , pilasters, columns, and window treatments. It's pretty detailed, and it seems pretty good to me on a quick read.

Surely someone must have a stray Cat D7 that isn't being used that can knock this thing down in the middle of the night??? :runaway:

I think this is a case of lame-Sketchup-work.

This. I mean, its a 16 unit building, so you can't expect a picasso for the rendering.

The whole facade is being retained, though some large sandstone blocks are so deteriorated they need to be replaced. The mansard roof is a modern interpretation on the original roof, with the same symmetry but modern different window treatments. I think it will look pretty good.

Is that a skateboard jump above the top-middle window? :yuck::notacrook:

At one point in time the exterior had been painted, including the details. Then it was sandblasted to remove the paint, this did incredible damage to the sandstone. It will look great if some is replaced.

So this thing won't even be the original facade, but a replica? What are we preserving here, an idea or a memory of what was there? Certainly we are not preserving an actual building. What a waste. This block has been a cancer on Barrington forever and we finally have an opportunity to do something with it. Instead we are keeping the disease.

C'mon, Keith, you know that's not the case. A few deteriorated bits will be replaced, and the vast majority will be the original material, refurbished. The report to the heritage committee I linked to above indicates as much.

I don't really get how creating a 16-unit apartment building with a commercial storefront, while improving the street-facing appearance, constitutes "keeping the disease." But we know by now that we disagree on this project!

Even a replica facade adds to the streetscape. All of the facade on Summer Gardens was replicated, and it looks very good. I like the NFB buiding, I remember the day of the fire. I look forward to this being restored.

The disease you are really trying to reference is called "vinyl-concrete-alitis" and affects 90% of new construction in HRM. It generally wipes out quality and replaces it with cheap non-descript garbage.

The cure is a knowledgeable design review process with authority, plus bans on vinyl and concrete cladding.

Vinyl isn't what we are talking about here. This is a site that has been a scar on Barrington for over 20 years. Part of the reason was the slavish and irrational desire to maintain this ugly facade. A modern, new design would suit this area just fine. Instead we are going to get stuck with a replica of something that should have had an appointment with the wrecking ball 20 years ago. Shameful.

It's not a replica, not a replica, not a replica...read the heritage committee report.

Okay, not arguing anymore.

OK folks... move along... nothing to see here... this horse is already dead...

:haha:

Hey Keith.... bear with it, it'll look good when it's done. Trust me... :yes:

That said, though I am a proponent of this project, the humour of your D7 comments has not escaped me...

:cheers:

Letting it continue to sit there and deteriorate would be "keeping the disease". Using it as part of a new building is making things better. It's nice to see the revival (slow as it may be) of Barrington continue.

Obviously, KP, the parts that are NOT THERE ANYMORE will be replicas or replacements or equivalents. The facade is being retained and restored.

It's too bad the original cupola isn't being rebuilt.

Page 9
http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/hac/...hacnfbjl24.PDF

edit.

Agreed.

The original as shown in the architectural drawing posted by Empire looks quite nice. I guess it's a matter of opinion whether or not a modern-looking building would be better, but there is no modern-looking building on the table. It's either the restored facade or the status quo. Just about anything would be a huge improvement over what's there now.

There have been a couple of false starts with this site. I hope the current owner starts construction really quickly; it would make a big different to the street.

A vacant lot would be better than what's there now.

This is a sorry excuse for a development - a faux-Victorian replica facade on what is Halifax's main street. Complete with styrofoam detail work no doubt. Shameful.

This is what is shameful on Barrington St. 80's garbage.

80's garbage
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifa...12,318.95,,0,0

That is far better than this mess.

You mean a whole in the ground? It takes very little to be better than a hole in the ground. (Though it does take more than tuxedoed mannequins. *pokes fun at Nova Centre*)

It's also better than this: https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifa...,,0,-8.82&z=18

Oh, that thing is the worst. I weep to think what it replaced. The giant blank wall along Morris is just criminal. After the empty lots are all filled in downtown, the city should figure out some way to incentivize developers to tear down this kind of stuff.

I think this is the worst:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifa...,,0,-3.39&z=15

It's definitely the worst thing on Quinpool. It's nothing compared to the blank wall - and sidewalk grates - of Scotia Square.

Ech. Also terrible. But I'm still gonna go with Renaissance, just because of the incredible disrespect it shows to what should be a tightly-woven urban environment (and probably was, until Renaissance was set down like an invading Borg-building).

'Course, that Superstore is a pretty terrible way to kick off the westbound stretch of Quinpool. Looking forward to seeing the strip mall across the street given the boot, that's for sure.