[Halifax] Promenade Robie South | 90 m | 31 & 30 fl | U/C

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

The structure had to be separated from the foundation and lifted off to be set on the flatbed for the move. I understand Leil has done lots of these transfers over the years and had never lost one before. It's always a risk with structures this old which have been modified (and potentially compromised) over the decades.

Not an expert on house moving, but I've always seen them jacked up in stages, which is very slow and deliberate. I'm not about to question the experience of Leil, but engineering is all about getting the necessary information to avoid catastrophic failure that could result in injury or death. There should be no "let's see what happens"... they need to know the condition of the structure before lifting, or... well... this can happen. Somebody screwed up.

[Drybrain]

My guess would be that someone at some stage made a major error or miscalculation, or there was some kind of equipment malfunction or crane-operator mistake during moving. I'm sure the house was sturdily constructed in the first place, but being 100+ years old, it's obviously possible that some bad renovation or other damage over the years compromised some aspect of the structure. But I also have to assume that the house was thoroughly investigated for anything like that before this process, so that seems unlikely to be the issue? Anyway, I can imagine this will delay things a little on this project as they clean up the mess and figure out what went wrong before trying the same on the remaining houses to be moved.

[OldDartmouthMark]

That was really my point. That moving it by crane seems like a more aggressive (and ultimately time-efficient) way of moving it than slowly jacking it up, and if you are going to do it that way then extensive checking would/should have been done to make sure it was viable. Ultimately, if it wasn't structurally sound enough to move, this should have been known before any lift attempt ever happened, and a decision to either demolish or strengthen up the structure would have to be made.

That said, I'm not going to pretend to know the intricacies of such a move. Plus, seeing a picture of a pile of rubble that used to be a house doesn't really tell the story of what happened. Sometimes even when things are most carefully planned, stuff just goes wrong. I defer to Saul Goode's take on this over an above my own - he seems to have some background knowledge about this. I always value knowledge, such as his, over speculation, such as mine.

I am also a little confused on the house, though, as it doesn't appear to be one that was going to be part of the development, unless something changed in the project that wasn't mentioned in this thread.

Regardless, it appears that there will be a change of plan, and perhaps a different house will be chosen, or more likely there will just be one less saved. Too bad, but that's the way it goes. Progress moves forward even when things go wrong.

[Jreeb]

From what I've heard, the DA relied on these heritage properties being moved. Apparently the developer has 2 back-up properties in case something like this happened...not sure what back-up properties they are referring to but I am guessing this project will be further delayed until a new DA is agreed upon.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Jreeb

From what I've heard, the DA relied on these heritage properties being moved. Apparently the developer has 2 back-up properties in case something like this happened...not sure what back-up properties they are referring to but I am guessing this project will be further delayed until a new DA is agreed upon.

Like they have additional old houses earmarked here or there that they can slide into the Carlton Street spot in case of a house-moving disaster?

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Jreeb

From what I've heard, the DA relied on these heritage properties being moved.

From what you've heard? It's all a matter of public record - moving the houses was part of the agreement.

Apparently the developer has 2 back-up properties in case something like this happened

Seriously, that sounds like something you heard from Anthony Crispino (apologies for the dated SNL reference).

Why not just reproduce (as nearly as possible) the one that was lost?

[Dmajackson]

Housing Accelerator Fund proposed changes for this site;

• This is a registered heritage property, the FAR values are guided by Centre Plan policy.
• Although the FAR value has not changed for this site, staff are proposing a policy change to Policy IM-42 which will enable a heritage DA as an option for this area. This will allow a site-specific application for additional density over the proposed zoning.

Regional Centre Development Requests

[Drybrain]

According to Sam Austin's recent newsletter, council on Tuesday approved a sustantial alteration to the heritage property at 1452 (the house that was drppped from a crane on Carlton Street). The staff report and relevant detail is here, but the gist is that 1377 Robie, a house which was otherwise to be demolished, will instead be moved over to Carlton Street as a heritage replacement.

It seems ridiculous that this took nearly a year and a half (and judging from the staff report, a lot of time and cost on the part of the developer and the municipal government) to basically say "let's swap that wrecked house for this intact one." At least it seems like the project hasn't died, as I'd feared. No timeline for re-commencing construction.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

According to Sam Austin's recent newsletter, council on Tuesday approved a sustantial alteration to the heritage property at 1452 (the house that was drppped from a crane on Carlton Street). The staff report and relevant detail is here, but the gist is that 1377 Robie, a house which was otherwise to be demolished, will instead be moved over to Carlton Street as a heritage replacement.

It seems ridiculous that this took nearly a year and a half (and judging from the staff report, a lot of time and cost on the part of the developer and the municipal government) to basically say "let's swap that wrecked house for this intact one." At least it seems like the project hasn't died, as I'd feared. No timeline for re-commencing construction.

Who do I charge for my Idea to move the Dalhousie house to replace the dropped one? Common sense apparently has to jump through some hoops.

[ArchAficionado]

Glad to see the heritage being well thought out, but ghee, they've gotta actually get going with this project. It feels like it's been years and years of stalling at this point, with the only news being the occasional cranky nimby decrying the height of the proposed towers, or a certain subpar chinese food restaurant owner aghast that their lease isn't being renewed 5+years after the building in which they are operating was slated to be torn down.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Glad to see the heritage being well thought out, but ghee, they've gotta actually get going with this project. It feels like it's been years and years of stalling at this point, with the only news being the occasional cranky nimby decrying the height of the proposed towers, or a certain subpar chinese food restaurant owner aghast that their lease isn't being renewed 5+years after the building in which they are operating was slated to be torn down.

Yeah c'mon let's get going! Enough with the delays.

[Drybrain]

According to this CBC story, the new development agreement is expected to come to council next spring. Which if true will mean a delay of more than two years. It also sounds like in addition to accidentally destroying one building, they removed historic elements from another. I think the developer ought to be penalized for that, but it also seems nuts that the whole thing has been held up for this long, especially when we're in desperate need of new housing starts. Some sort of expedited process to get the thing back on track would have been more appropriate

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

According to this CBC story, the new development agreement is expected to come to council next spring. Which if true will mean a delay of more than two years. It also sounds like in addition to accidentally destroying one building, they removed historic elements from another. I think the developer ought to be penalized for that, but it also seems nuts that the whole thing has been held up for this long, especially when we're in desperate need of new housing starts. Some sort of expedited process to get the thing back on track would have been more appropriate

Seems like a case ripe for ministerial intervention.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by kzt79

Seems like a case ripe for ministerial intervention.

It certainly seems like unncessary busywork. Amend the existing DA to swap the Robie House for the Carlton one, and otherwise proceed as planned. I'm sure councillors and/or city staff would cite all kinds of procedural reasons as to why they aren't doing that but, cripes, surely if we really want to we can just override those and move things along. This isn't that complicated.

Of course, and I just thought of this, perhaps the developer has revised the project to be larger, in keeping with the greater density now allowed due to the HAF. If so that would probably mean more substantive changes to the whole design/construction process/etc, and perhaps that's what's behind the delay as well.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It certainly seems like unncessary busywork. Amend the existing DA to swap the Robie House for the Carlton one, and otherwise proceed as planned. I'm sure councillors and/or city staff would cite all kinds of procedural reasons as to why they aren't doing that but, cripes, surely if we really want to we can just override those and move things along. This isn't that complicated.

Of course, and I just thought of this, perhaps the developer has revised the project to be larger, in keeping with the greater density now allowed due to the HAF. If so that would probably mean more substantive changes to the whole design/construction process/etc, and perhaps that's what's behind the delay as well.

We can only hope these multi-year delays at least yield some kind of improvement in the finished product.

[terrynorthend]

I think they've already maxed out the density even though the HAF allows 40 storys here they gave it a FAR of 8 rather than 10.

That being said, they were originally operating under a site specific DA from before the centre plan. If HAF is "by right", why couldn't they just proceed immediately under HAF, disregarding the original?

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It certainly seems like unncessary busywork. Amend the existing DA to swap the Robie House for the Carlton one, and otherwise proceed as planned. I'm sure councillors and/or city staff would cite all kinds of procedural reasons as to why they aren't doing that but, cripes, surely if we really want to we can just override those and move things along. This isn't that complicated.

Of course, and I just thought of this, perhaps the developer has revised the project to be larger, in keeping with the greater density now allowed due to the HAF. If so that would probably mean more substantive changes to the whole design/construction process/etc, and perhaps that's what's behind the delay as well.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

According to this CBC story, the new development agreement is expected to come to council next spring. Which if true will mean a delay of more than two years. It also sounds like in addition to accidentally destroying one building, they removed historic elements from another. I think the developer ought to be penalized for that, but it also seems nuts that the whole thing has been held up for this long, especially when we're in desperate need of new housing starts. Some sort of expedited process to get the thing back on track would have been more appropriate

It is important to point out that the project originally appeared in these pages in 2018 and undoubtedly was being planned and designed long before that. So it will be well over a decade of navigating the labrynthine HRM development process and the roadblocks thrown up by the Peggy Camerons of the world before we see any evidence of progress. Shameful, and proof that despite the claims of municipal politicians and staff, there is absolutely zero urgency within the halls of HRM on these sorts of projects.

[OldDartmouthMark]

What I find surprising is that it seems as though the prospect of moving an old house, something that had been perfected at least a century ago, is holding up this project. Goddamn, guys, get your act together and find somebody who knows how to do it, if you’re incapable. Getter goin’!!