[OldDartmouthMark]

That decision document is a lot of reading, for which I was not able to devote the time to complete.

What does stand out to me is that there was plenty of time for the owners to apply for heritage designation before Dalhousie bought it, but it probably wasn’t done as that would affect the saleability of the property. Thus, Dalhousie was justified in feeling that it was being treated unfairly in the process in that it only purchased the property to demolish and leave empty until an undisclosed time that it decided to do something with it.

It does seem suspect that HRM’s heritage scoring was so different from the firm that was hired by Dalhousie. No surprise that the finding of each side benefited the cause of that side as there is some subjectivity in the process.

I can’t say that I’m impressed with Dalhousie’s intent of demolishing the 120-plus year old building with no plan in place for the property, even though the law is on their side. The claims of work required to keep it occupied seem exaggerated and unsubstantiated, but maybe the details were included later in the decision document (it was becoming painful to read through on my phone…).

Regardless, it seems a shame to tear this one down to leave an empty lot, but unless there is some mechanism in place to fund its renovation and protect by heritage value (I mean some actual legislation that can functionally protect it), we have to accept that you can’t save them all.

I am sometimes struck by how fine the line is between NIMBYism and protecting old architecture for the benefit of future generations, but IMHO the mechanisms for defining the difference are obviously inadequate. So we will continue to see heritage structures torn down with empty lots left for “future considerations” or replaced with stubby multi units that only add marginal density benefits over what was removed.

Regarding this particular building, it’s time to say goodbye, unless it can be moved as suggested above - which would clearly be a win-win as I see it…