The URB is exactly where an appeal of this one belongs, not in Province House. I do find it somewhat rich of Ben McCrea to pour it on about respecting council. Hasn't he sued council several times in the past? He's making a simple business solution to appeal and should say so instead of this I respect council and have been pressed by people to appeal nonsense.

I really fail to see why people want this building. It is squat, the quality is Burnside at best and it destroys a block of buildings that are of much greater value then the proposed. When it is built it will be no better than the green toad or that abysmal squat office building beside the liquor dome on Argyle. This building is a huge mistake and to tear down the wooden part of Sweet Basil today was a gutless move by the Armour Group.

Heres the article on this from the CH:

Halifax developer begins downtown takedown
Armour Group appeals council ruling, N.S. premier asks for status at hearing


A Halifax developer began clearing the way Friday for a nine-storey building that was rejected by city council last month.

Workers removed the windows from 1870 Upper Water Street, the former home of the Sweet Basil Restaurant, and knocked down a shed as well as a patio.

The building is part of the Armour Group’s Waterside Centre project, which would have unified the six existing buildings on the block bordered by Duke, Hollis and Upper Water streets and put a six-storey glass office tower on top of them. Halifax regional council rejected the plan with a 9-9 tie vote on Oct. 21.

Doug MacIsaac, president of the Armour Group, issued a statement Friday announcing it will appeal council’s decision to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

“This is an unprecedented decision for our company. Armour has historically respected the decisions of council viewing them as reflections of public opinion,” the statement said.

But Mr. MacIsaac said there has been a “public backlash” against council’s decision and many people have urged Armour to appeal to the UARB.

Last week, Ben McCrea, chairman of the Armour Group, said the Sweet Basil building would come down “forthwith” and the others would remain in limbo during the required one-year waiting period. The Sweet Basil building is not a registered heritage property.

Premier Rodney MacDonald has repeatedly vowed the provincial government will find a way to get the project reinstated and even raised the possibility of bringing in legislation.

On Friday, the premier said the province plans to apply for intervenor status with the UARB.

“The way it is now, everybody loses,” Mr. MacDonald said in an interview Friday afternoon. “The developer can’t build and the heritage buildings will be torn down.”

He said HRM council should give “serious consideration” to revisiting its decision.

Valerie Payn, CEO of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, said McCrea’s action underscores the need for the province to fast-track passage of HRM by Design, a design plan for the downtown core.

She said the plan has been in the consultation phase since July 2006 and “it is time to move beyond planning and onto action.”

“From discussions with developers, we know that a clear, efficient and predictable approval process is critical to ensuring that development happens in Halifax. If HRM by Design does not move forward in the House, development opportunities will be lost.”

Stephen Dempsey, head of the Greater Halifax Partnership agrees, said in the last four years uncertainty in the development process has cost the city tens of millions in potential tax revenue from projects like the Twisted Sisters condominium and hotel development that have yet to proceed.

Halifax Mayor Peter Kelly said Friday that council can’t just revisit its decision, but said Mr. McCrae can submit another application for the newly elected council to consider. The mayor said that process would take two or three months.

New Democrat MLA Howard Epstein said he thinks the premier is using the project as a way to try to get more votes in metro Halifax.

“Ben McCrae has one vote. There are thousands of voters out there who have quiet a different view than the premier,” Mr. Epstein told reporters at Province House.

“And if he thinks he is going to win seats in metro on the basis of this, he’s just wrong.”

Phil Pacey, president of the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, said the Sweet Basil building, which was built in about 1840, had heritage status for 26 years until Armour found a clerical error was discovered in the registration process. Even without the status, the building - which has served as a liquor store, confectionery, boarding house, grocery store and restaurant- is still an important part of Halifax history, Mr. Pacey said.

Well considering it is in a view plane the building couldn't be taller. If it could be allowed to be constructed taller it would certainly look better.

Good for the Armour group. Hopefully the appeal doesn't take long and we can get this project moving along.

The building that Sweet Basil was in wasn't worth saving and was not surprized to see it go today.

Negative. For one, it is not destroying a block of buildings, as the Morse Tea building is not being touched, so claiming it as such is misleading hype no better than what the Heritage Trust tries to do. Second, it isn't destroying the buildings, it is saving the facades. We already know that not approving this will result in the total destruction; which do you prefer?

That and the other thing to keep in mind is the heritage property act only deals with the exterior. Property owners can do what ever they want to the interiors.

Anyhow this development is surely a mess now.

It's destroying a "block of buildings" as in a group of buildings not an entire block of buildings.

I would prefer that the buildings become part of hisroric properties and restored like the Morses Tea building. If the owner wishes to tear them down in a fit then he clearly has no respect for the city than has provided a base for his company.

The exterior includes the front, sides back and roof so to chop off 75% of the building is altering the exterior.

It's in the developer's interest to play a kind of game of chicken with the city, HT, etc. If they had said that they would not demolish the buildings then they probably would have done even worse in council. Maybe their threats are genuine, maybe they're not. For better or worse, I believe this will simply be approved by the URB.

This project does not amount to destroying the buildings since the facades will be maintained. The buildings along Prince Street were hardly "destroyed" as a part of Founder's Square. In fact, they are in much better shape than they would have been otherwise.

I would also prefer for these simply to be part of a heritage district but the city (HRM) has made this really difficult by underinvesting in and overtaxing the core. Heritage buildings need a lot of money and this either comes from the government or from niche demand for special types of space. Unfortunately we've seen a total of zero major new buildings downtown to generate spinoff demand for these other buildings.

Founder's Square is an excellent development. The buildings at Founder's Square (Hollis St.) were in much worse condition than at Waterside. Also the site is much larger and there was room to work with the facades and keep the Old Triangle building and the one on the corner of Prince & Hollis almost entilely. Founders Sq. is not in the middle of Historic Properties and this method of development works well as it could with some buildings on Barrington St.. Waterside will see mouch more demolition and the likelyhood of saving any original facades on that small site is slim at best.

This is our last chance for a true historic district and once it is gone one small plain 80,000 sq ft. office building will not prove to be the better choice.

Do you know this fo a fact EMPIRE? or is this more pessimstic speculation as usual?

Speculation, I would say, otherwise I would like to see his source. I'm no expert on the subject, I only have what the actual experts say to go on.

I'm curious to know one thing empire. You say you would rather see the buildings restored as is without any additions. I would agree with you. However, if given the choice between the total destruction of these buildings (and turning the site into a parking lot) and seeing the proposal by Armor go ahead as proposed - which would you prefer? You only have those two options to pick from, because reality is those are the only two options on the table right now.

It is pessimistic speculation and no experts have assessed the site! As for the options I am willing to gamble to see the buildings preserved as they are. The system should not allow the threat of demolition of registered heritage buildings to be the best weapon a developer has. This needs to change and this is a good place to start. The options can change because there is a year wait period. If Ben Mcrea wants to go on rocord as a developer willing to destroy the historic heart of Halifax then that will be his legacy.

Yeah, theres no keeping the buildings in their current state. From your posts, your really being both anti heritage and anti development. It makes absolutely no sense for this project not to go through.

Did not Mr McCrea save historic Properties and Granville street mall?

Its completely gone now. The remainder of Sweet Basil was taken down today.

Yeah and there is a completely useless story about it in the Herald (this one was coming down in either case). For posterity.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2...sbistrona9.jpg
It's kind of a shame. It's wasn't terribly remarkable, but it was a definite maritime type building and it definitely had a pleasant kind of style/feel to it. I really think we need to change the rules regarding demolitions to stop this kind of senseless destruction (knock it down to make a vacant lot).

I see nothing wrong with tearing down this building.

I wouldn't mind if something was going to happen to the site. Tearing it down to create a vacant lot, that doesn't work for me. If Waterside Centre never gets built we're left with a vacant hole. If circumstances change and Armour were to off load the block, the new owner might have found a use for the structure. Demolition should come when a building is A. condemned or B. when a project is ready to proceed and there should be no tax reduction for vacant lots.

There should actually be atax increase for creating a vacant lot to sit for years. Not only is HRM losing tax revenue but the system has created dozens of small vacant lots. Birks, Kelly's luggage, corner of Blowers & Granville, Sweet Basil and dozens more. This is the root of the demolition crisis....the incentive to demolish has not gone unoticed by developers. Also, no demolition permit should be issued on a heritage property ...period!

I agree. If a heritage property cannot be maintained by the owner then it should be expropriated, and maimtained by someone with an interest in such properties. For undeveloped property, (for example lets say the Sobeys wasteland on Gottingen Street (20 years a vacant lot?)) some cities with backbone increase the land tax each year on such properties, as an "incentive" to not let it go wild. There's not a lot of old properties in the downtown. Be nice to hold on to remaining heritage. JET

Addendum:
http://www.halifax.ca/council/minutes/1998/c981215.pdf
page 16; on December 15, it will be 20 years that there has been discussion about the Sobeys property. 10% increase in land tax/year might have resulted in some development there. JET

REFORM PUNCH LIST:

- no demolition permit issued for registered heritage properties
- generous tax reduction for registered heritage properties
- neglected registered heritage properties will be expropriated and sold at fair market value ...owner will get up to the assessed value and the remainder deposited into a heritage trust fund
- timeline for development on a development agreement set at 3 years max. after which time the agreement is null and void
- tax rate increases by 10% for a property where a building has been demolished...after the property has been developed the tax rate will be reassessed
- current vacant lots subject to surcharge of 10% per year in CBD until developed

That sounds like a good list to me.

Does anyone know if HRM by Design will help adress any of these problems? They must have something in the Heritage Corridors (Districts) to adress these problems.

Interesting points, however how would you deal with;

No demolition, what happens when a building is uneconomical to fix? Under that rule even if it was uneconomical to fix it can't be torn down?

Neglect?, that is subjective, and what happens if a property owner doesn't have the finacial capacity to perserve? they should lose their property rights and be short changed on their investment? So does this mean the city should be accountable for the neglect on the field house on sackville street, which is now recently become a heritage property and is BOARDED UP?

Current vacant lots subject to surcharge of 10% per year in CBD until developed? Well the province tax rates are going up as they own the most amount of downtown (vacant) lots.

Ask me it is what makes a building a Heritage building is the root of the problems. Just because something is OLD doesn't make it heritage, nor does some of the features make it heritage.

Under the current system, and If this keeps up, we are going to consider Scotia Square, fenwick, and Maritime Centre etc as a heritage building?

Of course not, but the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbo, Spain (to pick the first random modern example that came to mind) will be a "heritage" building.

The "Sweet Basil" building was old, but I wouldn't consider it significant. It was just a simple wooden box. I think it actually looks better with it gone. It didn't fit in being surrounded on all sides by masonry buildings.

I agree that if a building is registered (and as well all know, the "Sweet Basil" building was not), it should not be allowed to be torn down. What's the point otherwise?

It takes a lot of decline for an old building to be uneconomical to fix. My house is 100+ plus years old. It's the only one on our street with the original outside detail. It takes work to keep it up, but that's why we bought it.
With a lot of old buildings, neglect is cosmetic, and a relatively easy fix. Most of the old buildings will last a lot better than new construction. The Grammer school took over tower road school; it's a building that could be around a lot longer than a new school built today.
The field house wasn't in bad shape ten years ago. It's not a particularly nice building, and not in a great spot, but with some vision... Sweet Basil was a nice building, it had some charm. The proposed building for that site.. well I can't remember many people on this site saying that they liked it.
Undeveloped lots. Incremental tax, 10%, 15%, 20%.. if it keeps going up, it will be developed or sold to someone who will develop it. 20 years for the sobeys lot on Gottingen. That's a crime.
Heritage is related to when something started. it's fairly easy to see that we won't have to worry about the heritage status of the buildings you mention; they'll fall down long before that. JET

That will just force people to build outside the core, and make developments uneconomical.

Remember developments are market driven, if there isn't a market all your doing is penalizing persons for things they can't control.

I underlined issues.
Worthy, doesn't that go back to the problem we currently have; buildings that shouldn't be heritage, but are?

Depending on economic business plan? who reviews and determines if it is economical? People who don't have invested interest?

Furthermore, what happens when there is structural issues? What if the building can't be occupied cause it doesn't meet codes and or no one wants to rent it?

Oh and it think this stuff should be posted under heritage section on the board as it may promote others to post their views

Then somebody torches it in the night, and we have another repeat of the NFB building; just a wall, held up with supports.
But at least the tourists will think it's real and take pictures of the shell of our past :)

What are your favourite five buildings built anywhere in HRM in the past ten years?

No, you will find very few registered buildings that don't adhere to strict guidelines under the heritage act before they are accepted.

HRM by Design is formulating a heritage segment just as they are a design review committee.

Then you fix it up, apply for heritage fund assistance or sell it to someone who will fix it up.

Does not HRM by Design allow the facades of Heritage buildings to be kept? and roof top additions allowed? I believe the last copy states that.

Under your rules that couldn't happen, correct?

Complete demolition would not be allowed such as the Armour group is threatening to do with the remaining buildings at Waterside. Also renovations could include incorporating the facade in new developments but the Waterside proposal would not qualify because it would involve completely demolishing the Imperial Oil Building and then rebuilding to a lesser architectural detail. For example the copper dentil roof detail would be lost. The Harrington building that is now completely exposed due to the demolition of the wooden part of Sweet Basil is a perfect example of what wouldn't qualify for gutting and leaving the facade. The building fronts on Hollis and Upper Water St. and has a completely intact ironstone wall that mirrors the Morse's Tea building and should remain intact.

I suggest you check your facts as they conflict what i've read and have seen.

Empire..."what are your favorite 5 buildings from the last 10 years?" well I have to say empire, halifax really missed out on landmark projects over the last 10 years, but there would have been some impressive stuff built if it where not for the Pil Pacey crowd and the backwards approval process.

1- The Martello - top of Park Lane
2- The Inglewood - renovation on Inglis St.
3- Tex-Park (not started)
4- International Place (not started)
5- The Trillium (not started)
6- Time & Space building Agricola
Garden crest and the gladstone are not bad but still a bit on the fake material side..........

The rest are cheap garbage!

One thing we can all agree on is that the system is seriously flawed.

I actually do like some buildings that have gone up. The Martello is quite impressive and I think that the Waterton towers are quite nice. Armoury Square was a bit of a let down, but there has been half-decent development where is has been allowed.

This being said, things have to change downtown. The Heritage Trust doesn't accomplish ANYTHING.

Don't try to argue this fact, we have seen how ineffective they are and how they "promote heritage" but do not effectively save it.

Empire what about the salter street block and the Alexander...those don't make your top six???

"the rest are cheap garbage"...you think salter street is cheap garbage?:haha:

Empire, the sweet basil building was cheap garbage! it was just old cheap garbage! I do agree the rest is worth saving though

Yes the Alexander is a great example of what we should be doing and definetly should be on the excellence list....building dense with an attractive tower and renovating heritage buildings "Keith Hall" in their entirety. Salter on the waterfront should be on the list as well. Salter's Gate is good at street level but the upper precast floors don't seem to work.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2...sbistrona9.jpg

Not sure how this building was old cheap garbage. Old yes,....being a good thing in this case at almost 170 years old, and as a Bistro added a lot to the gateway to historic properties. It's too bad buildings like this aren't valued more.

:koko:

What does your question have to do with my comment?

If you don't think shells of buildings from the past are worthy of picture taking then I was wondering what you thought was? Something built in the last five-ten years maybe, as these are the buildings replacing the demolished ones.

And those structures (5-10years) will ironically be picture worthy when they are old too. When some of the now heritage buildings were new do you not think people thought their looks to be less then the ones they replaced?

I personally think Salter's Gate is a huge letdown. The courtyard down by the Brewery turned out rather well and looks sharp, but the it fell apart on the Hollis side. The precast stuff that dominates on that side doesn't look very good, the stores are separated from the street by a poorly done arcade and a change in elevation (they're kind of down in caves) and the dome above the main entrance on Hollis and Salter is so small it is barely visible (they really shouldn't have bothered). I'm hopeful the Alexander will turn out better.

One I really like that I didn't see on the list was the Lexington. I know it embodies po-mo but it has a lot of visual interest and fits its corner setting quite well. I honestly think it's one of the better modern buildings in this city. Of what's upcoming, the Trillium is the one I'm the most excited about... assuming it does eventually get built.