[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It's an interesting argument you are presenting, given that you've asserted in the past that the Argyle Street area is a failure and recent improvements would result in massive traffic headaches (which has proven to be false).

I believe the more accurate statement is that the various attempts made to "enhance" Argyle St were largely a waste of money and I stand by that. It was vibrant before the blacktop was painted like an argyle sock or replaced by paving stones, and it is just as vibrant now. HRM's war on the private vehicle has meant it is now useless for that purpose although the true believers continue to post shots of delivery or service trucks intruding upon what they perceive as their own private plaza. Where they expect to get their burgers and nachos from without such deliveries remains a mystery. The long-term will tell if the businesses there survive once the weather turns cold and stormy, and people are not wandering around as much.

Regardless, if you are saying that the reason that Argyle Street is successful and vibrant (which it is, especially since the streetscaping project that was funded by the city) is because of the newer buildings, I think there is no logic to your argument. In fact, since you are only presenting opinions, I will do the same in that I think that Argyle Street would be equally or more successful if the old buildings had been preserved or restored to their former glory while maintaining the same business mix that exists currently.

In terms of your response to my post, I have the impression that many locals enjoy the vibrancy of Old Montreal, as I spoke to many people enjoying the area who were locals. And everybody seemed to appreciate, and be drawn to the old architecture combined with fantastic restaurants, cafés, bars, etc. It could be argued that those same businesses in newer buildings would be successful, and I agree, but being surrounded by the history and elegance of the old buildings is a drawing point that brings people in, and enhances their experience.

What old buildings? Please identify some memorable stone or masonry buildings with architectural detail that would stop visitors in their tracks which have been removed from Argyle St.. The answer is that there were none. Halifax is not a city that ever had very many of those. Aside from the old stone church where TD Canada Trust now resides I can think of none. It was always a very workmanlike city with wooden buildings of minimal character for the most part. You are making a false analogy comparing it to Old Montreal.

It's not all about federal money, which seems to be a popular misconception among detractors. The municipal government in places like these can step in and create rules, guidelines, and assistance to make it all work, but first they need to have a 'eureka' moment and realize the value of their heritage properties, especially in a city (such as Halifax) that has such a deep and interesting history. As an example of this, here is an older document from Montreal, providing support to property owners for restoring and maintaining their heritage properties:

http://patrimoine.ville.montreal.qc....glais_1-26.pdf

Halifax has improved in this respect, in recognizing the historical importance of Barrington Street and providing financial assistance for improving the streetside appearance of their buildings, but they have fallen down in many other areas.

Certainly what has occurred in Quebec is indeed all about federal money. They receive an endless river of it.

I am not sure I want my municipal property taxes being routed to preserve old run-down buildings of dubious architectural value just because they are old (if there ever were any).