Halifax's booming population puts a squeeze on performance venues

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Here’s a pic of the interior of the Capitol Theater found on FB. Approximately 2,000 seats, demolished in 1974 to allow for construction of Maritime Centre.

Wow... I think this may be the first colour pic I've seen of the theatre. Makes its loss even more painful, as it was spectacular. Lots of nice stuff around here didn't survive the sixties, seventies, and eighties.

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

It's not true that Halifax has never had a great medium-sized facility. The Capitol Theatre (1930-1974) on Barrington at Spring Garden was a venue of 1,980 seats with superb acoustics and grand appointments. I think of its loss as Halifax's Penn Station moment (Penn Station being the New York City landmark lost in 1963, spawning the historic preservation movement in that city.) Sadly the city had the opportunity to protect the Capitol, and ensure the auditorium was incorporated within the new Maritime Centre. In fact, city council voted to do so, before reversing itself.

Cynthia Henry, the unofficial historian of the Capitol Theatre, sheds some more light on this today in a short documentary piece for CBC. She suggests the reason the Capitol auditorium was not preserved is that owner Famous Players insisted as a condition of sale that the auditorium had to go, to protect its 1200-seat Paramount theatre down the street. Of course the sad irony is that the Paramount itself was shuttered 14 years later.


[Keith P.]

While that is an interesting theory, surely the real reason is simply that MT&T, who had a smallish modern building next door, wanted to consolidate its operations and management in a large new modern tower on that site and needed the theater property which was adjacent to do so. Without saving the theater building there would be no saving the theater - although in retrospect, it might have been a good thing to abandon the dream of a downtown mall in the bowels of Maritime Centre and use the space instead for a new 2000-seat performance theater using some of the artifacts from the Capitol.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Wow... I think this may be the first colour pic I've seen of the theatre. Makes its loss even more painful, as it was spectacular. Lots of nice stuff around here didn't survive the sixties, seventies, and eighties.

That is a great Picture and man that would a jewel in the City now. Halifax has always had enough wealth and things going on that money can be found to retire or demolish things but not enough wealth to go to the next level. Yet in other communities that are not as wealthy as Halifax you see things like the Saint John Capital theatre still around not to mention Glace Bays. Not enough money around to demolish things. That has really worked out for Saint John as its late 19th Century restoring up Town is actually quite impressive.

[Keith P.]

In the video on CBC referenced above, it is stated that the owner of the Capital, Famous Players, had been losing money on the place for many years and wanted out of the location. It seems a bit odd since IIRC the building was not just a theater but also had rental tenants to provide a bit of a revenue stream. But they insisted apparently as a condition of selling the building that it could not continue to be used as a theater since that would compete with their other property, the Paramount theater, just down the street.

[IanWatson]

That's exactly what Cineplex did when they sold the Oxford Theatre - restrictive covenant prohibiting it from being used as a theatre.

[OldDartmouthMark]

One would think that there must be a way around these restrictive covenants, specifically when it involves an historic theatre in an area that contains no other theatres. Especially in this day where movie theatres are not exactly a booming business. I'm not sure how market share would be taken from Ciniplex by allowing this to continue as a performance venue/movie theatre in this day and age.

Meanwhile, the city loses a really nice, historic theatre that now only serves those who might want to participate in indoor climbing (which I can't see as being any sort of benefit to the neighbourhood, as it's surely a niche market).

One would think that the councilor for the area might have wanted to tackle this one, but it appears that wasn't the case.

If there is no public need/want for a performance venue in the area, then so be it, but if the only reason was some aged-out standard corporate protection clause, then it needs to be changed, IMHO.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

if the only reason was some aged-out standard corporate protection clause, then it needs to be changed, IMHO.

Restrictive covenants are not standalone contracts. They are actually tied to title to the land and run with that title (i.e., binding successive owners) and therefore can be very difficult to remove without assent of the current holder of the title (whoever the current owner of the old Oxford is) and the grantor for whose benefit it was attached to the title (in this case, Cineplex). There are limited circumstances in which courts will lift them, but the short answer in this case is that if Cineplex still benefits from it and wants it in place, it'll be next to impossible to remove.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

One would think that the councilor for the area might have wanted to tackle this one, but it appears that wasn't the case.

If they were rogues daring to sell late-night pizza slices to their clientele, he would unleash the vast deadfall weight of the HRM bylaw enforcement battalion to descend upon them!

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If they were rogues daring to sell late-night pizza slices to their clientele, he would unleash the vast deadfall weight of the HRM bylaw enforcement battalion to descend upon them!

Probably...but to no avail. They'd be powerless to deal with it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Restrictive covenants are not standalone contracts. They are actually tied to title to the land and run with that title (i.e., binding successive owners) and therefore can be very difficult to remove without assent of the current holder of the title (whoever the current owner of the old Oxford is) and the grantor for whose benefit it was attached to the title (in this case, Cineplex). There are limited circumstances in which courts will lift them, but the short answer in this case is that if Cineplex still benefits from it and wants it in place, it'll be next to impossible to remove.

The question is, does Ciniplex still benefit from it? For the life of me, I can’t imagine how (not that I’m familiar with the inticracies of the cinema business). To the outsider, it appears that it might possibly have remained because nobody felt compelled to change it. Which is why my line of thought brought me to the conclusion that if someone in the position to look after the best interests of the community had dug into the issue, maybe they could have had it changed.

Or… maybe not.

[Keith P.]

Since such covenants are tied to a plot of land in a specific location it would seem straightforward to amend the Land Titles Act to limit their use to a certain geographic area surrounding the property and for a specific period of time. They have an anti-competitive and negative tendency on an area around them when the original business operator abandons an area for greener pastures.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Since such covenants are tied to a plot of land in a specific location it would seem straightforward to amend the Land Titles Act to limit their use to a certain geographic area surrounding the property and for a specific period of time. They have an anti-competitive and negative tendency on an area around them when the original business operator abandons an area for greener pastures.

This would be amazing. It's one of those things that isn't high on most people's radar, but hugely affects amenities in the city. A theatre is one thing, but where restrictive covenants on sale are really pernicious is former grocery stores and drug stores. The big grocers all put restrictive covenants prohibiting new grocery stores and drug stores when they sell land.And the end result is food deserts, like Gottingen Street and Pleasant Street.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Since such covenants are tied to a plot of land in a specific location it would seem straightforward to amend the Land Titles Act to limit their use to a certain geographic area surrounding the property and for a specific period of time. They have an anti-competitive and negative tendency on an area around them when the original business operator abandons an area for greener pastures.

The Land Registration Act (the Land Titles Act was repealed some years ago) already specifically allows for a court to discharge a covenant where it's proved to the court's satisfaction that "the condition or covenant offends public policy or is prohibited by law". I don't think that section's been tested in this context.