Tearing down old buildings after deferred maintenance.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Wow, that is disconcerting. Can't say that I'm holding our provincial government to high regard in how it's dealing with its building stock.

They have never been any good at maintaining buildings. They let Province House deteriorate to an alarming state before finally deciding to try to rehab it in the '90s. The dank, moldy smell in that place was almost overpowering at times. And many parts of it were downright shabby. If you were to look at more prosaic buildings they owned it was even worse. Public Works (now DTIR) never has enough budget for maintenance. They see it as the easiest thing to cut.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I also noticed the other day that one of the two Bloomfield buildings is in some places open to the elements. It looks like a few dozen pigeons are roosting inside the second storey of one. I'm starting to get worried that when this development finally happens, the province will be like, "Can't salvage these buildings; too far gone."

yikes

[JET]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

yikes

I doubt if Bloomfield could be any worse than Greenvale was before it was reno'ed; good thing it was mostly concrete and brick, and the roof beams were massive.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I also noticed the other day that one of the two Bloomfield buildings is in some places open to the elements. It looks like a few dozen pigeons are roosting inside the second storey of one. I'm starting to get worried that when this development finally happens, the province will be like, "Can't salvage these buildings; too far gone."

They had an RFP out the other day for replacement of the Bloomfield roof.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

I doubt if Bloomfield could be any worse than Greenvale was before it was reno'ed; good thing it was mostly concrete and brick, and the roof beams were massive.

Yeah, I've thought of Greenvale.

And the Lister Block in Hamilton. Before:



After:




But even though I'm sure the Bloomfield building can still be re-purposed, it's totally possible, especially with this government, that they'll decide it's too difficult or expensive and just say "screw it." And nobody will hold them to anything different, especially with Imagine Bloomfield disbanded.

All 'cause some idiot didn't board up the windows properly.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

They had an RFP out the other day for replacement of the Bloomfield roof.

I think that was for a different "Bloomfield Centre", at St. FX.

[Ziobrop]

bloomfied is HRM's responsibility At The Moment.
The Deal with Housing NS Hasent closed.

and Remember Housing NS, went looking for partners, since they cant do what they promised when they won the bid.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Meanwhile, in Sydney:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...rved-1.3578996

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think that was for a different "Bloomfield Centre", at St. FX.

I stand corrected.

I'm not sure if me being wrong on this one is a good thing (we're not spending money twice on Halifax's Bloomfield), or a bad thing (we're not maintaining Halifax's Bloomfield in the interim).

[OldDartmouthMark]

An article in the Herald:

Future of Imagine Bloomfield project uncertain

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...tage-1.3573453
Looks like the province is trying to offload the Dennis property and Acadian Recorder building properties to developers, if the facades are maintained. There was also mention on CBC radio that the parking lot would also be bundled in.

[someone123]

It would be great if the province found a private developer to build on this lot. They should also register the Dennis Building; it's clearly an important character building downtown (how many 100+ year old large stone office buildings are there in total?), and it should not have been allowed to deteriorate as it did.

The Acadian Recorder building is also a gem. There aren't many commercial buildings from the 1900-1910 period in Halifax. It is probably registered largely because of the newspaper but it should qualify on architectural merit alone. The Dennis Building has a similar history to go along with the architecture.

The development potential of this site is a bit limited by the viewplanes but there's lots of building room on the Barrington side and there's height above the Acadian Recorder for a treatment similar to Barrington Espace.

If the province partnered with the developer they could also lease some underground parking spots, put the entrance on Granville, and then landscape the northern Province House grounds. Someday hopefully that will happen along with a development on the empty lot below the art gallery building, Queen's Marque, and then some streetscaping to connect the waterfront, Barrington, and the Grand Parade. Those are all modest improvements that would have a big impact as far as making the downtown area more cohesive and attractive.

[someone123]

The view is tightly cropped but this shows what George Street used to be like. There was a 7 storey CN building from circa 1910 to go with the Dennis, the old Custom House, the Royal Bank head offices, and stately five storey H. C. Silver building. Farther down near the water everything was torn down; those buildings were more modest but look at what they add to the scene in the picture below.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdb466/26774632086/

Had this area been preserved in the 1960's it would have been a gem of a heritage district with quality similar to what you find in Old Montreal or Quebec City (Halifax even used to have cobblestones). What's left is still impressive but the losses have been enormous. The well-preserved heritage district, in retrospect, would have been much more valuable than the bland 70's and 80's office buildings and parking lots that ended up here (the city wouldn't even have had to do without the office buildings; they could have just gone somewhere else). Hopefully the city will learn from its mistakes and preserve what's left rather than squandering some of the last bits of the architectural legacy it was lucky to inherit.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Hopefully the city will learn from its mistakes and preserve what's left rather than squandering some of the last bits of the architectural legacy it was lucky to inherit.

Given the government's previous rhetoric on the Dennis (which they've backtracked on a bit, thankfully), and the behaviour of developers like Westwood or Dexel, there's still a lot of cause for concern...

EDIT: See the 5189 South Street thread for more heritage follies.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Had this area been preserved in the 1960's it would have been a gem of a heritage district with quality similar to what you find in Old Montreal or Quebec City (Halifax even used to have cobblestones). What's left is still impressive but the losses have been enormous. The well-preserved heritage district, in retrospect, would have been much more valuable than the bland 70's and 80's office buildings and parking lots that ended up here (the city wouldn't even have had to do without the office buildings; they could have just gone somewhere else). Hopefully the city will learn from its mistakes and preserve what's left rather than squandering some of the last bits of the architectural legacy it was lucky to inherit.

That's an interesting thought - Halifax being in the same playing field as Old Montreal or Quebec if previous generations of politicians/planners/developers/business people had thought clearly enough to see the possibilities of what the future could have been. Of course, like many city planners of the time, they were starry-eyed over a 'modern' vision of superhighways and sterile office towers, and a downtown that turned into a ghost town at night.

FWIW, this was the basis of my Halifax-behind-the-times comment in the South St. thread. We may have kept up with the times and even been leaders in some aspects, but from an historical building standpoint we are still mired in the 1960s - losing more 19th century structures and further eroding our stock of such buildings, which has really been a charm of Halifax. And not just 19th century buildings, as the recent BMO/Maritime live demolition has proven. They're ripping them down as quickly as they can have demolition permits issued.

Interestingly enough, I was talking to two young women (in their 20s) last night about what they like most about Halifax, and I was surprised to hear both of them say it is the old architecture. I found this interesting as I had assumed it was mostly the older generations that appreciated heritage buildings. It's nice to see that younger people have developed such an appreciation yet disturbing to know that we are doing little to protect and preserve much of this architecture for future generations to enjoy - once it's gone, it's gone. Forever.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Interestingly enough, I was talking to two young women (in their 20s) last night about what they like most about Halifax, and I was surprised to hear both of them say it is the old architecture. I found this interesting as I had assumed it was mostly the older generations that appreciated heritage buildings. It's nice to see that younger people have developed such an appreciation yet disturbing to know that we are doing little to protect and preserve much of this architecture for future generations to enjoy - once it's gone, it's gone. Forever.

It's funny because in my experience it's often the opposite (although certainly there are no hard-and-fast rules). I find older generations are often quite willing to write off demolitions as the price of progress, but among people in their 20s and 30s, there's a real value placed on the historic character of place.

I'm 35 (so getting to the end of youth!) but I've always cared about this stuff, and so does almost everyone I know.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It's funny because in my experience it's often the opposite (although certainly there are no hard-and-fast rules). I find older generations are often quite willing to write off demolitions as the price of progress, but among people in their 20s and 30s, there's a real value placed on the historic character of place.

I'm 35 (so getting to the end of youth!) but I've always cared about this stuff, and so does almost everyone I know.

Most people I know in their forties and older tend to care about the history and architecture of the older structures. Some don't care so much, but I don't ever hear anybody saying that they prefer to have the old stuff torn down for the generic new stuff that's being put up. Typically, even if it's not on the forefront of their thoughts, if you bring up the subject of an old structure being razed they think it's a shame at the very least.

That said, my social circle doesn't intersect much with the business sector, and I expect that the percentage of business-oriented people who favour tearing down old buildings would be much higher than average, as their priorities would tend to be more focused on creating revenue rather than preserving history. IMHO.

If it's true that younger generations prefer the preservation of older architecture, then perhaps AGBANS would be well-served to recruit from that age group and promote activism for this very activity among them. After all, once the older generations have torn down their built heritage and have passed on, it's the younger generations, their children and grandchildren, that will have to live with the results of our current society's misdeeds.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Had this area been preserved in the 1960's it would have been a gem of a heritage district with quality similar to what you find in Old Montreal or Quebec City (Halifax even used to have cobblestones). What's left is still impressive but the losses have been enormous. The well-preserved heritage district, in retrospect, would have been much more valuable than the bland 70's and 80's office buildings and parking lots that ended up here (the city wouldn't even have had to do without the office buildings; they could have just gone somewhere else). Hopefully the city will learn from its mistakes and preserve what's left rather than squandering some of the last bits of the architectural legacy it was lucky to inherit.

I think that is a vast overstatement. That view still retains the Dennis, the Merrill Lynch, Province House and the AGNS building. The TD replaced the unimpressive building on the left and the Royal and BMO buildings near the bottom of the street which are difficult to see in this pic likely were an upgrade at the time. We have the Granville Mall and Founders Square blocks which are largely unsuccessful commercially and one suspects that is the fate of many of these attempts at preservation that ignore market realities. Be careful what you wish for. The reality is that most old Halifax buildings are not impressive in any way, and only a few are have stonework and architecture worth saving. Most are stick-built, wooden-shingled, run-down and totally unimpressive even from new.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Most people I know in their forties and older tend to care about the history and architecture of the older structures. Some don't care so much, but I don't ever hear anybody saying that they prefer to have the old stuff torn down for the generic new stuff that's being put up. Typically, even if it's not on the forefront of their thoughts, if you bring up the subject of an old structure being razed they think it's a shame at the very least.

That said, my social circle doesn't intersect much with the business sector, and I expect that the percentage of business-oriented people who favour tearing down old buildings would be much higher than average, as their priorities would tend to be more focused on creating revenue rather than preserving history. IMHO.

If it's true that younger generations prefer the preservation of older architecture, then perhaps AGBANS would be well-served to recruit from that age group and promote activism for this very activity among them. After all, once the older generations have torn down their built heritage and have passed on, it's the younger generations, their children and grandchildren, that will have to live with the results of our current society's misdeeds.

It's like most things in life - it depends. Few people would want architectural masterpieces torn down. There are damn few of those in Halifax though. Things like the Dennis fall into the middle ground - old, stone-built (a plus), mildly interesting architecturally, but not well kept up and as anyone who has been sentenced to work in it for any length of time can attest, a lousy, totally obsolete building from a functional standpoint. You can argue that case either way. But when you get into the majority of buildings that are getting torn down, it is an improvement. The reality is that economically it is not practical to save every old structure and restore it. That is the thinking that led to downtown not having anything built in over 20 years, and it is the reality that even those now-old buildings were constructed in during the 1800s and early 1900s - they replaced stables, older buildings from the 1800s whose use had been outlived, etc. You cannot stop progress.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's like most things in life - it depends. Few people would want architectural masterpieces torn down. There are damn few of those in Halifax though. Things like the Dennis fall into the middle ground - old, stone-built (a plus), mildly interesting architecturally, but not well kept up and as anyone who has been sentenced to work in it for any length of time can attest, a lousy, totally obsolete building from a functional standpoint. You can argue that case either way. But when you get into the majority of buildings that are getting torn down, it is an improvement. The reality is that economically it is not practical to save every old structure and restore it. That is the thinking that led to downtown not having anything built in over 20 years, and it is the reality that even those now-old buildings were constructed in during the 1800s and early 1900s - they replaced stables, older buildings from the 1800s whose use had been outlived, etc. You cannot stop progress.

Certainly you fall under the category that Drybrain was referring to in his post. I definitely don't ever expect you to post an 'agree' smiley whenever I post about heritage buildings, so that is that.

I don't think it's accurate, though, to state that heritage preservation is the reason that little was built in the downtown in over 20 years. Simply stated, if there had been a good business case for it, the construction would have occurred. With little to no heritage protection laws and an ineffective HT, there was nothing to stop it from happening in the name of heritage protection.