View Single Post
Old Posted Dec 3, 2015, 2:49 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,908
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Mark, my comments were not at all directed at you. I know, and trust, your concerns are sincere. That when you speak of heritage, you really do mean that. If it was you quoted in the Herald story I read on this, I wouldn't include you in my generalization.

My comments were directed toward others opposing the development, which I don't think are sincerely about heritage. I don't think the "Schmidtville Conservation Proposal" is at all about heritage. It's about conservation, but mostly property values.

I get your concerns about the Victorian houses that may be lost in this development. But I guess my thought on this, is there are a very limited number of areas in the city where the overall planning objective is higher levels of density, with taller buildings *and* where viewplanes are not also hindering things.

This is one of the areas, where there are already huge towers nearby. If there is anywhere in the city for another tower, it's a location like this, even if a few heritage-valued homes were lost. I think they were actually lost in 2009, when HRMxD was put in place.

On the other hand, I think the value of the BMO at the Doyle block is much greater, and could be such a great feature of a bigger development that preserves/incorporates...

But to be clear, just because I'm critical of the NIMBY property owners quoted in newspapers, don't take that as suggesting *you* should "move along" and leave concerns to "experts". You concerns are reasonable, but I think that this is just an area where we should have this kind of development.
Hey CF,

No, I didn't feel your comments were directed at me. In fact, your posts are always well thought out and presented, and always respectful. I, personally, really appreciate that. In retrospect, I should not have responded directly to your post, and I apologize for that.

Recently, I have disobeyed one of my cardinal rules, and that's not to take anything I read on an internet forum too seriously. Time to dial back on that.

Regarding your points, I guess in a fit of naivete, I felt that the Schmidtville people were being genuine, and didn't consider that they might have motives other than to preserve those Victorians, which are disappearing bit by bit in our city. Although I'm not personally involved, I didn't feel that the group deserved the condescension they were receiving in some of the posts, as though they didn't have a right to express their concerns. Regardless, I'm still looking at it from the outside in, so perhaps I should not get involved in something that's not my fight.

Also, I don't disagree that this type of development should happen here, I just wish that there were some more thought towards treating 100+ year old buildings with more respect. Ideally, as mentioned, if there were some incentives for the developer to move them, or even be really creative and build around them or somehow find a way to incorporate them into the structure (though I recognize the level of difficulty in doing this) - I would applaud that. Alas, I know that none of these options will occur, but I personally think that at least, discussions like this need to happen.

And, I don't live in a vacuum. The BMO building issue is affecting my opinions on this case, along with other issues like the 'application to demolish' signs on those Barrington heritage buildings (discussed in another thread in which I also expressed frustration). There are other cases as well, too numerous to mention here.

The lack of effectiveness by the seemingly misdirected HT combined with apparent lack of concern by our municipal politicians and local developers, wears away at anybody who values heritage structures. I realize that they can't all be saved, and that doesn't bother me - it's the attitude that hasn't changed in 50 years that bothers me, especially when I travel to other places that have ventured to save interesting old structures, or have combined them with new construction to create interesting, viable structures that are respectful to history. This is not some dark art, it's actually happening elsewhere, and is often commented upon by several posters here.

While I generally post from the heart, I don't work in the planning or building fields, and really just have an interest in our city in general. There are many here who bring a lot more expertise to the table and I defer to their knowledge and experience. While I have a vision on how I'd like to see things go, I am only one person who comes here purely out of interest and really probably shouldn't be adding my 2ยข or responding to some chronically-negative posters as much as I do - I can step back and see how this only dilutes the conversation or even worse, knocks it off track.

So to be clear, I don't oppose this development. I'm not crazy about the architecture, but I don't feel it shouldn't happen. I would like to see something positive done about the Victorian structures, but I don't expect to see it.

...and I'm not PO'ed at anybody, just genuinely frustrated about certain aspects of our city's developments.

CF, thanks for taking the time to consider my writings, and responding to my thoughts. I appreciate the discussion.
Reply With Quote