Tearing down old buildings after deferred maintenance.
 

I hadn't really heard of this much before I started to read this forum, but since then I have become dismayed to see this happening quite a bit in various places.

Some examples of buildings in Halifax that come to mind are:
- The Dennis Building, a classic case of the provincial government failing to maintain a historical landmark (IMHO) in Halifax, and then threatening to tear it down because it will be "too expensive to repair it" (this is a common theme).
- The Green Lantern building, which apparently had little to no maintenance and no repairs after Hurricane Juan did some damage to it. The owner was talking about tearing it down until it changed hands and now will have a new lease on life: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218265
- The Roy Building, now gone with the hope of perhaps a façade recreation on the new building.
- Historic Saint Patrick's Church, which the Catholic church (one of the wealthiest institutions in the world) has apparently not wanted to spend the money on maintenance and repair. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/archbishop-patrick-church-brunswick-1.3487848
- The Khyber building, which the city had deferred maintenance on for years, now needing a number of repairs (basically a complete renovation). For a while it looked like it would probably be sold and possibly demolished, but for now its fate appears to have turned a corner. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/khyber-building-preservation-council-1.3505723

It's not just Halifax, either, as St. Stephen NB has voted to tear down its historic Town Hall.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/st-stephen-town-hall-demolish-1.3419848

I don't want to sound like some heretic; I do realize that it is expensive to maintain and repair these historic buildings, but I am dismayed that so many of them are being allowed to fall into disrepair and then be torn down. I realize that sometimes it is a matter that the money just isn't there, but I also realize that sometimes it is a strategy that owners and developers use circumvent weak heritage rules to allow the building to be torn down for various reasons.

Regardless of the reasons, a lot of our built heritage has disappeared and will continue to do so because of this practice.

The purpose of this post is just to have a discussion on the practice and perhaps how to prevent it from happening.

There are some good projects out there that allow development while retaining the character of the original building. The Green Lantern project mentioned above and The Dillon http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=207604 are two that come to mind. They leave me to wonder why this isn't done more often.

Any thoughts?

Personally I think the Dennis building is a good example of a building not given the care it deserves but that has the great potential to come back to life. I think if someone really wanted to turn it into an interesting building; they turn it into a hotel. It seems to me to be the ideal site to do it. Right in the heart of downtown - has the old character and could be the most impressive renovation if done right. The parking could be provided in the parking lot provided and perhaps with an adjacent parking lot. Just have a drop off area done on the outside. Maybe even call it The Dennis Hotel?

I can't imagine the Dennis is in any worse than Toronto's Gladstone Hotel was in 2001, or Jilly's is now. In that last link, note how the story says heritage buffs may not love the changes to the hotel's facade. This is where the discussion of heritage sits in most other cities in this country: not "should we just knock it down," but "how can we best preserve and accommodate new development." Preservation of SOME kind for these sort of buildings is a given, even with most developers.

Several years ago during the brouhaha over MLA expenses I suggested the province convert it to apartments for out of town MLAs to use while the House is in session so that there would be no need to rent houses/apartments, charge expenses, etc. I still think that is an idea worth considering.

That is indeed a pretty good idea. It might convince the MLAs to spend the money to do the restoration right; they'd be living in it!

About 20 years ago there used to be a wooden apartment building (Greenvale Apartments) just east of the current Greenvale lofts, it was owned by Sobeys and they put in for demolition due to dangerous conditions, one of the most glaring items in the safety report was a missing 9volt battery in a smoke detector. It had to come down, it could have put the entire downtown at risk. It was a nice old building and looked quite solid.

Yes, it's interesting that the question isn't whether it should be done or not, but how should it be done. The developers who take on these projects definitely seem to be able to turn a decent profit from it, so maybe that just says that many of our developers in the Halifax area are looking for the quick easy buck rather than taking on a more difficult project that will yield a nicer end result? Or maybe it's just that they are all of the same mindset and haven't broadened their horizons to see what's going on in some of the larger areas of the country? They obviously have no concern whatsoever for Halifax's built heritage.

I think that's a great idea. Perhaps turn the Dennis into a boutique hotel as suggested by halifaxboyns, including a number of suites that have booking priorities for MLAs when they are in town. As mentioned, it's in a prime location right across from Province House and in the middle of the business district (and the pub/restaurant district...) which would make it ideal for MLAs and a highly desirable location for visitors who like to stay in interesting places.

Build up on all that wasted surface parking space surrounding it, adding some underground parking for tenants/hotel customers and it could be a real gem. Wasn't there a proposal posted here with a similar scope?

Sounds like it could be an amazing project, but all we really need is for the provincial government to do something before the building becomes too far gone - I can't think that pissing away money sitting on it (presumably heating an empty building all winter) is the best way to be spending our tax dollars. Partner with a developer and let's get it done.

I have to say if I had a business/construction background I'd be tempted to get into the development business just to do some of these projects and re-purpose some of the built heritage that our forebears built/worked/lived in, before it's all gone...

I remember that building well, from attending Greenvale School when I was a kid and even delivering newspapers there at the time. A classic case of a good building being torn down for 'business reasons', with no regard to its history or its contribution to the neighborhood. As if an empty lot overgrown with weeds is better than having the building there. Didn't it have some function related to the school as a boarding house for teachers or something along those lines?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6697734,-...16_qUkCe2GbcfsF3UYRyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Don't get me started on the Starr Manufacturing buildings and what was allowed to be built in their place... :hell:

That story about the St. Stephen town hall would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

To justify the demolition of a national historic site, the mayor says: "If it did happen to deteriorate to the point where it wasn't stable anymore, it could possibly fall on the Royal Bank," (i.e., if we let it get a lot worse, it would be dangerous) and "there's even a little bit of asbestos" (like in virtually every building in the country built or renovated prior to the mid-70s, most of which are perfectly safe).

What a twit.

Yes, that's a great idea. Although if they don't do that for the MLAs - then I'd suggest selling it on condition of becoming an apartment/condo building or hotel. In my mind that's probably the best re-use of the building. Office space in Halifax is pretty plentiful; I doubt that enough money could be invested to make it class A space. Character office space maybe - but that may not be enough to rent it.

This also shows the lack of understanding about heritage restoration and preservation in Canadian planning. In the US, Cities can provide a property owner all sorts of tax credits and differed property tax incentives to restore; improve and designate buildings of heritage value. HRM is probably ahead of the curve with it's grant program in the heritage districts, but I doubt that's enough. We need to be really inventive here and think outside the box. If that means heritage density transfers (of the un-used 'density' on the site), tax incentives, etc. then what are we waiting for? Have the conversations with the Province, get the charter changed and lets get going.

Let Council decide on a list of buildings which aren't designated heritage but would be the 'nice to have designated' list and get these incentives set-up so we can at least try to achieve retention of some built heritage.

I'd note that here in Calgary if the heritage planning staff see that there is no heritage value to preservation of the building; they require commemoration of the building be incorporated into whatever new building is built. The Lido is a building I did and part of it was the former Anthill Building which had no heritage value left. It will be commemorated with a plaque in a prominent location along 10 Street NW (I think right where the dead centre of the former Anthill building was).

ODM's suggestion of underground parking for the Dennis might be challenging, but I was thinking keep the surface parking lot there - but maybe spruce it up? Use patterns or paintings on it to make it colourful and mural - I've seen this done where the parking spots are still clear, but there is a mural painted on the surface too. I'm trying to think where I saw it...but it's not coming to me. Maybe when the coffee kicks in? But this is an example of collaborative thinking about an outcome (restoring/preserving the building) that seems to be lacking. If underground parking was possible - then maybe that's part of reason to support grants/tax relief - if doing these grants helps ensure the building is restored, and designated as a heritage building.

I hate that parking lot. It is cramped, awkward to move around in, and keeps a fairly prominent corner on Barrington barren. If you were redeveloping the Dennis there is no reason why that area could not be included with new construction and underground parking developed, perhaps even under the Dennis as I doubt it goes very far down.

Excellent ideas, and doable, from the sounds of it. We need that kind of thinking around here. :tup:

From the parking perspective, I was thinking 'underground' more as a disguised parkade with 2 or 3 levels of stacked parking, and hotel or other usable space built above it, complimentary to the existing Dennis. The parking would not necessarily have to be below grade on Granville (though it mostly would be on the Barrington side).

Keep the Granville parking entrance the same as the current lot but otherwise disguise the parking area by keeping the facade constant. I'm thinking that some kind of decorative garage opening would be in keeping with the upscale quirkiness of a boutique hotel and hide a typical ugly folding garage door - like how about a dark garage door hidden behind some kind of funky wrought iron gate?

Your idea would be good as well, if the current surface parking was maintained.

Look up the Daily building in Ottawa

Turn of the century department store,turned federal offices on a Historically Well preserved corner. Deferred maintenance caused the need for massive renovations. roof gets removed, Feds fire contractor. Building sits uncovered for 2 winters, now has mold and moisture issues - has to be demolished.

Site sits empty for years, until a proposal for a mixed use building with an aquarium. gets go ahead, developer takes to long, contract pulled, and re-tendered. gets awarded to same developer, for same building minus the Aquarium.

Has anyone walked along Carlton Street lately. I had an apartment there 20 years ago and the buildings were well maintained. Now it seems to be mostly student rental, and the exterior decline is very discouraging. Give it a few more years, and most people on this forum will say 'might as well tear them down, they're falling apart.

I'm fairly open to anything at this point with regards to the Dennis - I just want to see the building preserved and retained. If it can go underground and there is a way to support that (help) then, I'm all for it. Because if there could be something at grade on that corner that would make it even better but retain the building; why not go for it!? It's a fairly prominent corner!

Now that I think about it - that might be a good way to actually turn it into a hotel. I was pondering the challenge of getting a gym space and banquet room in there without having to change ceiling heights. If the parking went underground, a sizeable building addition could happen on the ground and second (potentially third) floors over the parking area entrance and parking stalls. That might be the way to solve a number of issues - getting an event room space, gym and dealing with that corner from an urban design perspective. My only concern would be a ramp into parking - might be tight for turning radius and ramp distance needed.

Found this on a google search would gives you the idea of the rise/run needed for a typical parkade ramp. Each Municipality has it's own standards - I don't know what HRM's are. When I use HRM's GIS to measure the site from Granville Street to Barrington Street (PL to PL) - it's roughly 37 metres. But from George to the edge of the PL where the mural is - 42 and change. So it might be that the access would have to be changed to George street depending on the angle of attack of the ramp - I think it's doable. Not sure how much the turning radius from the ramp would require in distance - I think either access would be doable depending on the standards.
http://www.floridabuilding.org/fbc/workg...res/flcomplete_2007_1_files/image024.gif

I believe there are 30 out of town MLAs that expense an apartment. I also would guess the average amount for each is about $1500/month. They retain those apartments even though the House only sits a few months of the year. If instead you let them check in to a suite in a newly-developed Dennis Suites Hotel, you would eliminate about $500-$600K in expense claims annually, less the cost of running the place. But you would also have the opportunity to rent out those suites when the MLAs do not need them. The financial argument needs more work and I would not want the province to run a hotel, but the case seems strong on the surface.

Aside from the historical/heritage bits, sounds a lot like the Imagine Bloomfield debacle.

Good lord, someone email this to Labi Kousoulis and tell him that he can have the idea: the province can partner with a private developer on a for-profit business that will help revitalize downtown, respect the province's architectural heritage, AND save taxpayers (because "taxpayer" is the only way this government understands "citizen") $600,000 a year.

How could he refuse...

I agree with the NS shouldn't be running a hotel. But this might be good financials to help support selling the building (the Province would make some $) to a private developer who could then come up with a plan to save the building and make some $ too. Adding a ball room on the back to spruce up the corner, with a gym (maybe even a pool) and some additional rooms on a few levels would be great. Could even persuade the hotel to provide a small pocket plaza on the Barrington/George corner to retain the public art and street piano already there. To me; that's not a hill to die on for a pocket plaza; but a nice to have.

Reminds me a bit of The Albert @ Bay in Ottawa (http://www.albertatbay.com). It is a "hotel" made up basically of small apartments/suites. I had a 1-bedroom there for a week (bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living/dining room) when I was on a review panel last year. It is privately run, and is operated like a standard hotel, but also has contracts with various federal government agencies in which they get a preferred rate to put people up there. I could imagine a similar thing here with Dennis, where they could rent suites to MLAs at preferred rates during times when the house was sitting, and then outside of that they are basically just a typical suite-oriented hotel (especially since the house doesn't usually sit in the summer anyway).

interesting skyscraper thread on demolitions:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7213621

That is an interesting thread. Where's all the detractors that usually chime in here?

Great post by someone123 about this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/pierceys-halifax-demolition-1.3324084

I was appalled that there was no opposition to it whatsoever.

Can't say I miss the Piercey's building at all, BUT that kind of old factory building is always ripe for conversion to all kinds of commercial and living space - it could have been transformed into a hipster heaven.

The amazing thing that I've noticed since moving to Halifax is that although the city has a reputation nationally as a heritage-rich city, and a reputation locally as filled with extremist heritage nutbars, no serious opposition ever occurs concerning any demolition. Certain people practically have an emotional breakdown if a viewplane is threatened, and there are the "it's too tall!" types we find in every city, but I haven't actually seen much if any protesting when it comes to actual demolition of actual historic buildings.

This is odd. I can think of a lot of examples of neighbourhood or city-wide opposition to demolitions in other cities, sometimes resulting in victories.

Good observation. I wonder if there's a collective belief that the Heritage Trust is fighting for it, and the fact that they don't accomplish much means that it's too difficult to affect change.

I have to say, when the Doyle demolitions came to light I contacted the developer and municipal government on different occasions and did not receive one reply - not even an acknowledgement. Pretty frustrating and disheartening, I have to say.

Then there's other groups that get media coverage, like the Schmidtville people - who just got labelled as heretics. I don't think they were able to accomplish much either.

Hey, any suggestions would be appreciated....

The Heritage Trust should be disbanded or turned into something more like Heritage Toronto, which actually engages people, reaches out to the public through advertising, social media, and events (rather than HT's Griffin newsletter). They work with developers, host annual awards celebrating conservation projects and heritage-sensitive development. In short, and not to sound too harsh, it's not just a bunch of senior citizens with a hate-on for tall buildings.

Another issue is that it's the Heritage Trust of NS, i.e. their mandate has to do with more than Halifax, and they seem to have a fairly rural or small town outlook. They're also fairly focused on history as such whereas a lot of people in Halifax are interested in preserving and enhancing urban character, which is not quite the same thing.

I mostly look at heritage preservation in Halifax as a good way to improve neighbourhoods and streetscapes by making them more architecturally interesting and physically desirable. Having the odd new building on Barrington doesn't bother me as long as the new buildings are of a high quality and the best of the old buildings are preserved. The HT on the other hand seems to view preservation as an end in an of itself; their ideal is areas that look how they might have looked in 1760 or 1860 and have a connection to notable characters from those periods. Again I think this ties in with the rural or small town outlook because that approach is a lot more viable in a place like Lunenburg than it is in a place with the level of development pressure that downtown Halifax has.

A much more nuanced than my own! But yes: HTNS is not about city-building, so for them to be the defacto heritage advocates in a city facing significant development and urbanization is maybe not the right fit.

A much more nuanced perspective than my own! But yes: HTNS is not about city-building, so for them to be the defacto heritage advocates in a city facing significant development and urbanization is maybe not the right fit.

I believe the HTNS takes positions that are unreasonable and as a result they loose thier place at the table. They may get engaged in a process but I suspect they don't get invited back again.

They certainly don't engage the public - I never hear them interviewed on talk radio, the website is out of date. Though they do have a Twitter presence within the last year

The loss of the infants home at SMU is a perfect example. They failed in thier behind closed door efforts, and only were able to rally public support once the building was lost. Smu has a very prominent archeology program, and may thesis from thier Canadian studies programs have focused on heritage issues, so there should have been a certain level of organizational resistance to the demo.

I haven't heard anything about the buildings around 1343 Barrington. My impression is that the developer has applied for demolition permits for 3 buildings, two of which are registered heritage buildings. The only reason why the third isn't registered is that its facade was already destroyed in a bad redevelopment. The side of the building makes it obvious that it was originally a brick Victorian like the other houses nearby. That streetscape, what's left of it, is one of the nicest of its kind in the city, and it's right next to landmarks like Government House.

Regional council has considered (maybe has moved forward with?) turning this southern end of Barrington into a heritage district.

Nearby there are many buildings like 1360 Hollis that could be great heritage buildings but are covered in beige vinyl and, from the perspective of their owners, are probably just being rented out for a few years until they're town down and redeveloped. It's pretty tragic. There are very few neighbourhoods like the old South End in Canada. As a heritage resource it's of vastly more value to the city than a few new apartment buildings would be.

This is the last thing I heard about that. Sounds positive, but it's not for certain.

Also, the idea that a developer would apply for demolition just to "get the ball rolling" is despicable. The number of really good heritage commercial streetscapes downtown is down to a few blocks, and the fact they there's no civic leadership on this just seems to prove that as a city we're willing to squander what remains. It's bullshit.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...nis-building-interest-heritage-1.3573453
Looks like the province is trying to offload the Dennis property and Acadian Recorder building properties to developers, if the facades are maintained. There was also mention on CBC radio that the parking lot would also be bundled in.

That sounds promising, as long as there is some legal stipulation in the sale that at least the facades have to be kept and restored. The government certainly wasn't going to do anything with them.

I have guarded optimism that these will turn into great projects that will maintain the uniqueness and character of the original buildings while affording them a new life and usefulness for the future.

This has been the plan for ages, I think. I met with Labi Kousoulis regarding the Dennis Building like two years ago, and they were working on this.

Offloading public costs to the the private sector is pretty typical of this government, but given that private developers have expressed interest in actually retaining the Dennis Building, whereas the province just wanted to tear it down, it might be for the best.

Also: the whole thing with council trying to get a last-minute heritage designation at 851 Young is making me wonder if the same thing could be done with the Dennis, in order to direct a better development there. I'd like to find the RFP, but I think the government might just be counting on developer goodwill to retain the Dennis' facade. As far as I'm concerned, retaining the facade isn't enough; it should to retain the building's current massing as well. With the Recorder building, the Dennis Building, and the empty lots between and behind the two, there's ample room for a big development without turning the Dennis into glorified wallpaper for a taller tower).

Perhaps a step in the right direction?

HRM to look at heritage protection

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1363815-hrm-to-look-at-heritage-protection

That one didn't go so well...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-s-cleveland-estate-demolition-continues-1.3573864

But I agree that the Dennis should be more than just saving a facade. The massing was assumed but not articulated by me in my previous post.

Leaving anything to 'developer good will' is not a good idea, IMHO.

I also noticed the other day that one of the two Bloomfield buildings is in some places open to the elements. It looks like a few dozen pigeons are roosting inside the second storey of one. I'm starting to get worried that when this development finally happens, the province will be like, "Can't salvage these buildings; too far gone."

Wow, that is disconcerting. Can't say that I'm holding our provincial government to high regard in how it's dealing with its building stock.

They have never been any good at maintaining buildings. They let Province House deteriorate to an alarming state before finally deciding to try to rehab it in the '90s. The dank, moldy smell in that place was almost overpowering at times. And many parts of it were downright shabby. If you were to look at more prosaic buildings they owned it was even worse. Public Works (now DTIR) never has enough budget for maintenance. They see it as the easiest thing to cut.

yikes

I doubt if Bloomfield could be any worse than Greenvale was before it was reno'ed; good thing it was mostly concrete and brick, and the roof beams were massive.

They had an RFP out the other day for replacement of the Bloomfield roof.

Yeah, I've thought of Greenvale.

And the Lister Block in Hamilton. Before:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k201/sugarton/UE/lister-cliche2.jpg~original

After:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7295/8728009504_42f6af842b_b.jpg


But even though I'm sure the Bloomfield building can still be re-purposed, it's totally possible, especially with this government, that they'll decide it's too difficult or expensive and just say "screw it." And nobody will hold them to anything different, especially with Imagine Bloomfield disbanded.

All 'cause some idiot didn't board up the windows properly.

I think that was for a different "Bloomfield Centre", at St. FX.

bloomfied is HRM's responsibility At The Moment.
The Deal with Housing NS Hasent closed.

and Remember Housing NS, went looking for partners, since they cant do what they promised when they won the bid.

Meanwhile, in Sydney:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/bank-museum-historic-preserved-1.3578996

I stand corrected.

I'm not sure if me being wrong on this one is a good thing (we're not spending money twice on Halifax's Bloomfield), or a bad thing (we're not maintaining Halifax's Bloomfield in the interim).

An article in the Herald:

Future of Imagine Bloomfield project uncertain