General Updates and News

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Navy Island in Bedford Basin. An abandoned ship broke away from its mooring in March of 2020 and went aground on the island. Apparently the ship could not be pulled back into the water so it's being dismantled where it sits and hauled away via a barge. The coast gaurd is heading the operation.

IMG-20220717-WA0001 by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr



20210621_135905 by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

IMG-20210621-WA0002 by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

20210621_135902 by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

[Hadrian Laing]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

One of the principals named in the article is a member of this forum.

Keith my friend, I'd prefer to be called "new generation of loonies."

My association with Development Options Halifax (which I do unpaid and in my limited spare time), is to push 3D modeling forward as part of the cities application process. I produced accurate models to visualize upcoming developments to practice and test workflows. They use them to better understand the developments and make their points known which they seem to do very loudly. Did one for PLANifax's video released yesterday, same reason.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That's what I'm talking about!

My goal is for models to be impartial, modeling doesn't care what your perspective is. If anyone wants to form a Friends of Urbanization group, you can hit me up, just like other groups do. I bet there are some wicked things we could pump out!

Just let me know.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

My association with Development Options Halifax (which I do unpaid and in my limited spare time), is to push 3D modeling forward as part of the cities application process. I produced accurate models to visualize upcoming developments to practice and test workflows. They use them to better understand the developments and make their points known which they seem to do very loudly. Did one for PLANifax's video released yesterday, same reason.

I, for one, can see the value of what you're doing, and I applaud it. When looking at the SGR/Robie developments as separate entities, with each rendering showing the remaining neighbourhood structures as they now are, you get an impression. However, this totally changes when you show massing models for both projects together, as it will be in the real-life case. I think this really adds to the understanding of what is being done there.

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

My goal is for models to be impartial, modeling doesn't care what your perspective is. If anyone wants to form a Friends of Urbanization group, you can hit me up, just like other groups do. I bet there are some wicked things we could pump out!

Just let me know.

Well, it won't be me doing it, as my views are always somewhere in between the extremes of the "Friends of" groups, and the 'urbanization at the expense of all else' crowd. I like the checks and balances that groups like Development Options Halifax offer - it gets another point of view out there and helps people to actually think about what's happening in their city.

I was, however, pointing out that for all the complaints I read here about Peggy Cameron's media events, nobody has publicly presented the opposite case for 'tear them down and build to the sky' point of view. It's not going to be me, because I'm not 'all in' for complete urbanization of Halifax at the expense of heritage buildings or anything else, for that matter, but was thinking out loud that perhaps some of the folks on here with the loudest voices might consider creating their own counter-group to fight for the urban cause that they believe in so strongly.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hadrian Laing

My goal is for models to be impartial, modeling doesn't care what your perspective is. If anyone wants to form a Friends of Urbanization group, you can hit me up, just like other groups do. I bet there are some wicked things we could pump out!

I don't usually agree with those groups but they're entitled to share their opinions, like everybody else. I was happy to see your models and I think they add to the debate in a positive way.

One thing you see sometimes is people leave out the wider context and either don't realize or avoid acknowledging that there may be buildings of similar height not far away that have not ruined the neighbourhood in the way people sometimes say the new buildings will.

In the past we would sometimes see "MS Paint" style renderings that were pretty misleading, showing the profile of buildings in bright red or black elevation style (no perspective) shown looming over historic buildings.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Anyway, I think this is the site of the new building that will have the funky clock hangy thing on the Gottingen/Macara corner. The green building to the left in the pics is the site office for NRTH. I'm not sure what will happen to it but I doubt it will remain.

The clock proposal is one block over, next to the gas station.

I haven't seen any proposed design for this site that I'm aware of.

[someone123]

It is hard to keep all of these developments straight. It will be interesting to see how they all turn out. I think NRTH will be one of the better ones. Curious to see what the clock one looks like; it is a quirky design and could either add some nice colour and character or come off as cheap or strange. A lot of them once built end up being scaled back from how they look in renderings, with less colour and less prominent distinctive visual elements (closer to a simple box shape with more monochromatic finishes).

I'd rate the completed ones around there (e.g. building with Almonak) as maybe a B- or C so far. They are okay from a basic massing and urban design standpoint with street orientation and some storefronts. The low height and small scale makes for a lot of garage door entrances and a lot of demolition and replacement of historic stock which the city still doesn't really seem to have a plan to coordinate outside of a few heritage districts which have already seen lots of demos and bad infill projects.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'd rate the completed ones around there (e.g. building with Almonak) as maybe a B- or C so far. They are okay from a basic massing and urban design standpoint with street orientation and some storefronts. The low height and small scale makes for a lot of garage door entrances and a lot of demolition and replacement of historic stock which the city still doesn't really seem to have a plan to coordinate outside of a few heritage districts which have already seen lots of demos and bad infill projects.

I'd agree with that. I live a few blocks north, and overall they're a huge boon for the area. The massing and scale are generally good, but the actual architectural quality/finishes/signage are often lacking and skew to the cheap side, which is unfortunate. (The Bilby is particularly meh.) Still leagues better than the dreck being constructed in the 90s or early 00s at least.

I'm not sure there's been much of a heritage impact, though. The sites that have been torn down and replaced have been, within just a few blocks, this one, and this, this, this, this.

I think for the most part the attractive/valuable historic buildings were replaced a long time ago by autobody shops and squat one- and two-storey mid-century jobs.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think for the most part the attractive/valuable historic buildings were replaced a long time ago by autobody shops and squat one- and two-storey mid-century jobs.

The problem is that developers buy buildings and let them fall apart for years or even decades in preparation for land flipping and demolition. That shot with the 3 storey vinyl-clad building is a good example.

If nothing changes I think we will just find that a new generation of currently nice but somewhat run down buildings will get the same treatment and in 2030 the owners will argue that they have no heritage value. Eventually these areas will have no historic character left except for the streets and block patterns.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The clock proposal is one block over, next to the gas station.

I haven't seen any proposed design for this site that I'm aware of.

Macara Presidio despite the dead thread is still active. Case 24304 has the current application to increase the unit count. The approved building is 66 units and 8 floors on three lots (furniture store, Marco Group site office, and a house on Macara).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

The problem is that developers buy buildings and let them fall apart for years or even decades in preparation for land flipping and demolition. That shot with the 3 storey vinyl-clad building is a good example.

There is seldom a business case for restoration of any of these old working-class wooden box buildings. They are no different than an old jalopy of a car - at some point they simply wear out and become too expensive to repair, and there is no architectural or historic value associated with them.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There is seldom a business case for restoration of any of these old working-class wooden box buildings. They are no different than an old jalopy of a car - at some point they simply wear out and become too expensive to repair, and there is no architectural or historic value associated with them.

Not really a good analogy, as there are many old cars on the road that people spent a lot of time and money to restore - in many cases they would have been considered junk by some but others were able to appreciate the historic value of them enough to bring them back to life. There's no real "business case" for it, it's done out of appreciation of historic value and realization that once they are gone, they are gone forever, existing only in writings and photographs.

The main difference in your analogy is that a restored antique car will usually no longer be used as a transportation appliance - they will typically be stored away in a garage and only taken out for recreational drives or special events. Houses, however, are still still kept functional for residential or business uses, plus they are stationary, so there is value to the business community in that they can be profit-generators through rent/lease income, and the location/land that they are on also holds value that is independent of the structure that's on it. There is also value to the community in the form of historical characteristics, as well as adding visual interest and character to a neighbourhood.

So, while a person who has appreciation for an old structure can buy it and restore it for their own gratification (which is more difficult and expensive than restoring a vehicle, FWIW), there are not many people capable of doing that on their own. And, as land values increase, they have to compete against business entities who have more investment money available to them than the average individual, and can create a business case for doing the opposite of what the enthusiast owner would want to do. So, rather than spend money on upgrades that will restore the original character and attractiveness to the building, they will take the cheapest route to keep it functional and maximize the income to investment ratio. If their plan is to eventually tear it down and profit from developing the land, then the business case is focused on achieving this without regard to any intrinsic value that the structure may hold.

As someone123 indicates, once the attractiveness of the original structure has been stripped off, and the overall condition of the building is allowed to deteriorate, then it's a lot easier to tear it down, as folks will no longer see it as a historical structure, but just an 'old box with siding on it' - an eyesore that will not be a loss to the community (as drybrain has indicated).

While this really comes down to personal opinion, i.e. whether you think that retaining some historical character of a city is important or not, there's no disputing that it does change the character of neighbourhoods over time, and if the attrition is allowed to happen long-term, then you will arrive at a point where none of the historical character of the area will remain. And maybe that's alright, if nobody cares... future generations will not know what they missed, and will adapt to whatever is there. They may look at old photos and realize what was lost (as I have done many times), but there will be nothing to be done about it at that point, because it will be gone.

[Keith P.]

Well, Mark, unless you want to make most of peninsula a historic district with bureaucracy making the decisions about what you can and cannot do with your property and what it must look like, and determining what you need to spend to make it come up to their arbitrary standards of what it was like 150 years ago, what you describe isn't going to happen. The car analogy is quite applicable, because the people who restore those do it as a hobby, a labor of love, and cost is not the big issue. When you are in business, you need to make a profit. You cannot do that by spending millions on a building that is worth a fraction of that when you are done.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I think you missed the point that it is an apples/oranges comparison, but I said what I wanted to say. I also realize that my views are not among the views of the majority, so let's leave it at that.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, Mark, unless you want to make most of peninsula a historic district with bureaucracy making the decisions about what you can and cannot do with your property and what it must look like, and determining what you need to spend to make it come up to their arbitrary standards of what it was like 150 years ago, what you describe isn't going to happen.

I don't think this is true. There are a few different tools, registration, historic districts, and unsightly property rules among them. The city needs to get serious about registering important properties even if the owners aren't always on board, and in some cases simply invite the owners to register even with lower scores. The heritage districts should also be expanded. And I wonder how much work could be done if the municipality simply had more bandwidth and took a more active role in encouraging good development and property stewardship along with offering a menu of incentives like tax rebates.

These policies cover a tiny proportion of the building stock and it would still be tiny even if they were expanded to cover 2x or 3x the buildings. We are not talking about most of the peninsula, and the peninsula is but one part of the city.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think this is true. There are a few different tools, registration, historic districts, and unsightly property rules among them. The city needs to get serious about registering important properties even if the owners aren't always on board, and in some cases simply invite the owners to register even with lower scores. The heritage districts should also be expanded. And I wonder how much work could be done if the municipality simply had more bandwidth and took a more active role in encouraging good development and property stewardship along with offering a menu of incentives like tax rebates.

These policies cover a tiny proportion of the building stock and it would still be tiny even if they were expanded to cover 2x or 3x the buildings. We are not talking about most of the peninsula, and the peninsula is but one part of the city.

And so we once again circle around to the actual issue. These are not "historic" buildings, nor are they of great architectural merit. The buildings in question are simply old working-class stick-built wooden boxes. They weren't particularly special when new and with over a century of wear and alteration they are not good now. Decrying their replacement now with something new defies logic.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And so we once again circle around to the actual issue. These are not "historic" buildings, nor are they of great architectural merit. The buildings in question are simply old working-class stick-built wooden boxes. They weren't particularly special when new and with over a century of wear and alteration they are not good now. Decrying their replacement now with something new defies logic.

The history of some of these houses being demolished is circulating on Twitter. I think many would be protected in other cities, before even getting to questions of character. Much of the peninsula actually is protected heavily from development, it's just not the more historic parts, it's the residential areas farther west. If I were to complain about restrictions I'd start there, not argue that 80% of the most historic parts of town should be redeveloped instead of 70%, the ballpark where Halifax is headed right now. Sometimes it's desirable just to have some stable high quality streetscapes.

As an example of the where Halifax stands compared to other cities, Victoria has 13 heritage conservation districts, and it has comparatively few buildings older than 1880 or so (if you moved the Dennis Building to BC, those bottom floors would be one of the oldest structures). There are a lot of heritage properties around here in Vancouver that are wooden houses from around 1890-1920. Vancouver is also bad at heritage preservation, but Halifax is much more historic and architecturally distinctive. Not many people will agree with this (mostly not knowing the history of the buildings), but Halifax is a clear #3 for historic architecture in Canada and a lot of very old and rare buildings there are in a relatively precarious state. And there's very little cost to preserving what's left since they're such a tiny proportion of the building stock and in many cases they're on sites that are not zoned for much density anyway.

[someone123]

Not saying this is perfect but this is where a lot of other municipalities are.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Two 12-storey mixed-use buildings (one residential and one office building, each with commercial uses, and including 80 condo units, 36 seniors units with 50% as affordable rental; 89,500 SF of strata office space and 21,600 SF of retail space and a daycare. 6.3 FSR. Local architects, and the project includes a Heritage Revitalization Agreement to retain the Martha Johnston Residence and convert it into a medical office.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

And so we once again circle around to the actual issue. These are not "historic" buildings, nor are they of great architectural merit. The buildings in question are simply old working-class stick-built wooden boxes. They weren't particularly special when new and with over a century of wear and alteration they are not good now. Decrying their replacement now with something new defies logic.

Sometimes these circular arguments make me feel like I'm stuck in Groundhog Day...

Your comments about the working classes of Halifax are curious, to say the least. After all, their lives and the neighbourhoods they lived in make up the fabric of the city. To say that their dwellings aren't "historic" is ridiculous. WTF is history, if it's not about the people who lived here?

I'm not even sure what you're arguing about, as nobody has suggested that every building should be or would be saved. Nor has this ever been the case - in fact it has been quite the opposite, actually. Demolitions to 100+ year old buildings are happening regularly in Halifax. Business cases always take priority over everything else around here, and I don't see that changing anytime soon (even though, as someone123 points out, there can be successful business cases for projects that respect heritage structures during development, but that involves thought and skills over and above the default action of getting it done as cheaply as possible).

[Empire]

I'm surprised the trick of stripping a historic building of all architecturally significant features and then allowing the building to deteriorate through neglect fools so many people. You often hear the cry that a building is beyond repair and it’s an eyesore. Why not build a plastic looking stubby apartment building with some fake brick at street level instead? No building is beyond restoration. The Charles P. Morris house is a prime example of how more effort needs to be made in save and restore historic structures in the downtown area. (don’t want to hear the…what about all the $$$/poor business case to restore it argument) The block where the Morris house was located (Morris & Hollis) contained a row of historic homes and a large wooden apartment building similar the Elmwood Hotel on South St. The Elmwood may now be saved as part of the new development. One of the buildings demolished beside the Morris House was one of few remaining examples of Italianate design in Halifax. This is what we demolish and so many people ask why, of course knowing the quick answer of “$$$ to retain”.

I would suggest the real expense to Halifax and NS is the removal of these significant structures that we should be proud of and not ashamed of.

Charles P. Morris House restored:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.655699,-...zCBk6e6hVktBHqjLsxsoQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Charles P. Morris House saved from demolition:
https://unravelhalifax.ca/morris-houses-rebirth/

[KMcK]

Originally Posted by someone123

Not many people will agree with this (mostly not knowing the history of the buildings), but Halifax is a clear #3 for historic architecture in Canada and a lot of very old and rare buildings there are in a relatively precarious state.

Would you care to elaborate on this? I'd prefer not to be one of the uniformed to whom you refer.