Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16
Here is a story about the fire that broke out in this building back on January 12, 2010 - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/01/12/ns-fire-south-street.html . The picture (below) is from the story. Another story indicated that the fire had spread to the second story floor joists - https://groups.google.com/group/hfx.general/browse_thread/thread/ce35c3f792e30221?hl=en.
Based on the story reports, it sounds as though the building would have required a complete rebuild (maybe the bricks could have been saved). Once a historic building is completely rebuilt then it doesn't maintain much of historic significance, it would just be a duplicate of a historic building (in my opinion).
Many old buildings are destroyed by fire because the construction is not up to today's standards. A building like this with multiple units, if built to modern standards, would have kept the fire contained to one unit because of modern fire wall construction that is intented for that purpose.
 |
-----------------------------------------------------
Restoring a building lies with the will of the developer and the council of the day. All of the structures that fall into the category of these row houses potentially can be wiped out by any hosts of excuses.
In terms of renovating, any building can be restored. Here is a link for the restoration of St . George's round church on Brunswick St. that was over 75% destroyed by fire.
http://www.timberhart.com/pages/timberframersstgeorgesanglican.html
In this case you had an owner with the will to make it happen. No one disagrees that it is more economical to demolish a building and start over. This has been the practice in Halifax for the most part for the last forty years. Halifax has/had some very unique architecture and it is a feature that makes it a great city even for the people who don't appreciate it. Someone has to start recognising the importance of the architecture we have and this casual attitude of let's get rid of it because it's not up to code needs some rework. The common issue I hear for vacant buildings is that they are unsafe and homeless people are living in them. Ironically the homeless people are no doubt safer in a vacant building than on the street. The cry comes from developers who want to demolish the building instead of preserving it and seems to find great acceptance with our city planning machine.
Here are a few lost in the last couple of years....Photos by Empire:
