Heritage preservation and reconstruction

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'm torn on this. I hate to see well-maintained and attractive Victorian houses go (they aren't an infinitely renewable resource), but Robie is one of the main thoroughfares of the city, and urban development and growth inevitably leads to greater density. The Back Bay comparison doesn't entirely work for me because most of Back Bay is residential streets, and this is a mixed-use main arterial. If there's a comparison to anywhere in Back Bay, it would be Commonwealth Avenue, and, well, look. This is already metropolitan in scale. The Robie buildings are single-family houses. It's hard to compare.

I think part of the problem is that there are distinct Halifax styles in older buildings but the newer buildings tend to be generic. If the new buildings along Robie somehow expressed these older styles on a bigger scale, maybe with a colourful ornamented podium and tower above, it would be easier to let go of these houses and the final result would be much better. Instead it's a dilemma between pleasant low density wooden houses or characterless boxes.

It's also possible to add "gentle density" while enhancing character by adding floors and traditional detail. There are lots of opportunities for this but it's pretty rare. A street like Agricola would look great if it were mostly 3-4 floor wood apartments with bright colours. It would be nicer than it is now and denser.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's also possible to add "gentle density" while enhancing character by adding floors and traditional detail. There are lots of opportunities for this but it's pretty rare. A street like Agricola would look great if it were mostly 3-4 floor wood apartments with bright colours. It would be nicer than it is now and denser.

There are a few of these that come to mind. This one, and I feel like this one is probably an example of this. (Impossible to get a streetview look that isn't obscured by a tree.) More substantially, this traditional-looking apartment building was actually built by conjoining two pretty standard Victorian box-style houses and adding a story. It would be interesting if we could do this at a greater scale, but I imagine the costs are fairly high and the financial rewards lower than simply building to the permitted maximum, so it'll probably remain a rare and boutique kind of thing, unless there's some municipal strategy to do "character densification" or something.

[Empire]

[QUOTE=Drybrain;10321355] The Back Bay comparison doesn't entirely work for me because most of Back Bay is residential streets, and this is a mixed-use main arterial. If there's a comparison to anywhere in Back Bay, it would be Commonwealth Avenue, and, well, look. This is already metropolitan in scale. The Robie buildings are single-family houses. It's hard to compare.

Your Back Bay example is not a good one. The point is, the architecture in Back Bay is protected and ours is not. Robie is a main throughfare and in this particular area the street cannot get any wider as it is a 4-lane boulevard. There is density in close proximity and destroying significant architecture to add 50 more people in a mundane glass / composited sided building is a disservice to the area. Below is more in line with Robie street given the obvious scale factor.

Back Bay
https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.3534132,-...MTExMy4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExMjM0SAFQAw%3D%3D

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It would be interesting if we could do this at a greater scale, but I imagine the costs are fairly high and the financial rewards lower than simply building to the permitted maximum, so it'll probably remain a rare and boutique kind of thing, unless there's some municipal strategy to do "character densification" or something.

I feel like the public benefit must be there because the buildings that do have this kind of character are so popular, like the rows of colourful houses on Morris or Agricola. There just isn't much incentive for the owner aside from a desire to give back to the city or own a nice looking property.

I bet that some small competition to reward the top 10 new character renos or something like that would have an impact while barely registering in the HRM budget. Maybe there should also be an incentive and standards for wood siding and painting instead of vinyl. If half of the vinyl siding were replaced with nicely painted wood siding that alone would make a noticeable difference.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by someone123

I feel like the public benefit must be there because the buildings that do have this kind of character are so popular, like the rows of colourful houses on Morris or Agricola. There just isn't much incentive for the owner aside from a desire to give back to the city or own a nice looking property.

I bet that some small competition to reward the top 10 new character renos or something like that would have an impact while barely registering in the HRM budget. Maybe there should also be an incentive and standards for wood siding and painting instead of vinyl. If half of the vinyl siding were replaced with nicely painted wood siding that alone would make a noticeable difference.

Tax break, tax break, tax break! HRM should catalogue architecturally significant buildings and then award massive tax breaks for these properties to maintain and / or restore, irrespective of heritage designation. It would be a small investment for a massive return.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

Tax break, tax break, tax break! HRM should catalogue architecturally significant buildings and then award massive tax breaks for these properties to maintain and / or restore, irrespective of heritage designation. It would be a small investment for a massive return.

I wonder if it is even a net loss for municipal coffers. Presumably well-maintained heritage buildings increase assessments.

We are not talking about rebuilding grand European cathedrals here but in many cases replacing some siding and painting things nicely.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

[There is density in close proximity and destroying significant architecture to add 50 more people in a mundane glass / composited sided building is a disservice to the area.

Well, our leaders on Council wilfully chose to destroy single-family areas on many parts of the peninsula and central Dartmouth to upzone small single-family lots to allow 4 and 6-unit buildings, thereby destroying the character of those areas in return for a sack of JT gold. That is a far greater disservice to a much larger group of taxpayers.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, our leaders on Council wilfully chose to destroy single-family areas on many parts of the peninsula and central Dartmouth to upzone small single-family lots to allow 4 and 6-unit buildings, thereby destroying the character of those areas in return for a sack of JT gold. That is a far greater disservice to a much larger group of taxpayers.

Allowing for the construction of small apartment complexes in residential areas as of right will not suddenly "destroy the character" of those areas. Classic suburban NIMBY rhetoric. What it will allow for is for the areas to gradually densify as demand sees fit, imrpoving the viability of those neighborhoods in a growing city.

I believe that historically protected structures will be exempt or somehow protected from the as-of-right upzoning, such that at the very least architectural continuity will be required if a building is added on to turn it from a sfh to a 4-plex, for example.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Allowing for the construction of small apartment complexes in residential areas as of right will not suddenly "destroy the character" of those areas. Classic suburban NIMBY rhetoric. What it will allow for is for the areas to gradually densify as demand sees fit, imrpoving the viability of those neighborhoods in a growing city.

I believe that historically protected structures will be exempt or somehow protected from the as-of-right upzoning, such that at the very least architectural continuity will be required if a building is added on to turn it from a sfh to a 4-plex, for example.

Unfortunately with no design policies in place for historic structures and the increased allowance for 8 units we may be looking at more alterations as shown below.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6535272,...MTExNy4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExMjM0SAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6507346,...MTExNy4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExMjM0SAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.653899,-...MTExNy4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExMjM0SAFQAw%3D%3D

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

I feel like the public benefit must be there because the buildings that do have this kind of character are so popular, like the rows of colourful houses on Morris or Agricola. There just isn't much incentive for the owner aside from a desire to give back to the city or own a nice looking property.

I bet that some small competition to reward the top 10 new character renos or something like that would have an impact while barely registering in the HRM budget. Maybe there should also be an incentive and standards for wood siding and painting instead of vinyl. If half of the vinyl siding were replaced with nicely painted wood siding that alone would make a noticeable difference.

If the city can’t bring itself to just ban vinyl siding, some kind of incentive to replace it might actually be effective. A tax break, or even a subsidy to encourage the switch. Say the city created a $10 million beautification fund over five years, paying 50 percent of the cost to install cedar shakes on the front facade of a house—or an entire house to a certain maximum. At a 10k max per house, you could hypothetically do 1,000 houses, which would have an enormous impact on the aesthetic of the city.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

If the city can’t bring itself to just ban vinyl siding, some kind of incentive to replace it might actually be effective. A tax break, or even a subsidy to encourage the switch. Say the city created a $10 million beautification fund over five years, paying 50 percent of the cost to install cedar shakes on the front facade of a house—or an entire house to a certain maximum. At a 10k max per house, you could hypothetically do 1,000 houses, which would have an enormous impact on the aesthetic of the city.

Great idea. Maybe tax vinyl siding sales to contribute to the fund?

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

If the city can’t bring itself to just ban vinyl siding, some kind of incentive to replace it might actually be effective. A tax break, or even a subsidy to encourage the switch. Say the city created a $10 million beautification fund over five years, paying 50 percent of the cost to install cedar shakes on the front facade of a house—or an entire house to a certain maximum. At a 10k max per house, you could hypothetically do 1,000 houses, which would have an enormous impact on the aesthetic of the city.

It's a great idea. The province should bad vinyl and use it as an opportunity to allow forestry jobs and output to fix the aesthetic across the province. It also will lead to new jobs for the people who do the installs. Subsidize it all, as it gets taxed.

It's not a stretch to say that his could be justified under environmental concerns.

[OldDartmouthMark]

IMHO banning vinyl siding seems a little extreme, since most new homes are built with it. I don’t think it would accomplish much other than making people’s lives more difficult. I would like to see incentives for general restoration of houses/buildings, say, 75 years old or older. You could make it a tax break on property taxes, or some other fund. Maybe even get the private sector involved by working out a deal with Kent or some other building supplies chain whereby they give a discount on materials in exchange for some advertising and good will buzz. You could set up requirements of original style siding with perhaps bonuses for adding decorative elements from the building’s time period. Just noodling here, but it seems that there could be many ways to improve the situation with a little creative thought.

The main thing is to not make it a matter of course to buy any historic building just for the lot. Tearing them down only happens once, and can’t be reversed.

[Keith P.]

Is anti-vinyl siding a course taught in planning school right after the cars-are-bad curriculum? Really, gang, give your heads a shake.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Is anti-vinyl siding a course taught in planning school right after the cars-are-bad curriculum? Really, gang, give your heads a shake.

Also, the issue of disposing of tons of vinyl siding vs wood siding after demolition should be considered.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Empire

Also, the issue of disposing of tons of vinyl siding vs wood siding after demolition should be considered.

Well, vinyl is plastic, so pretty bad for the environment and will take eons to decompose. Wood is wood.

[OldDartmouthMark]

You can probably tweak the argument to favour whatever material you prefer.

Vinyl siding can be recycled when it’s no longer wanted but in the meantime it will last decades with minimal maintenance. Wood siding may not last as long, as it’s susceptible to rot, mold, and insect damage, and it needs to be refinished approximately every 5 years, give or take.

Vinyl siding requires energy to manufacture but wood also requires energy to harvest and process, plus it removes trees from the environment that take half a century to regrow.

Vinyl is created from chemicals, but so is paint or stain used to regularly refinish wood. Wood siding is covered with paint when it is removed, and it still has to be disposed of responsibly and painted wood cannot be recycled as far as I know.

One would have to take a deep dive into the data to determine which is worse for the environment, and there are a lot of variables to consider. Maybe there’s data out there, I don’t know.

In the end, modern human lifestyles are generally bad for the environment, so unless we all switch to some form of ancient living we’re probably not doing the environment any good - we’re only making justifications to make ourselves feel better about our choices. That’s why I suggest that rather than ban the material that we don’t like, perhaps incentives can be created that favour the appropriate materials for the type of home that we are building.

For my money, if I had a choice, it would be clay brick and mortar, as it can last centuries with some repointing of the mortar every 50 years or so. Makes me wonder why we don’t see more brick structures being built nowadays.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You can probably tweak the argument to favour whatever material you prefer.

Vinyl siding can be recycled when it’s no longer wanted but in the meantime it will last decades with minimal maintenance. Wood siding may not last as long, as it’s susceptible to rot, mold, and insect damage, and it needs to be refinished approximately every 5 years, give or take.

Vinyl siding requires energy to manufacture but wood also requires energy to harvest and process, plus it removes trees from the environment that take half a century to regrow.

Vinyl is created from chemicals, but so is paint or stain used to regularly refinish wood. Wood siding is covered with paint when it is removed, and it still has to be disposed of responsibly and painted wood cannot be recycled as far as I know.

One would have to take a deep dive into the data to determine which is worse for the environment, and there are a lot of variables to consider. Maybe there’s data out there, I don’t know.

In the end, modern human lifestyles are generally bad for the environment, so unless we all switch to some form of ancient living we’re probably not doing the environment any good - we’re only making justifications to make ourselves feel better about our choices. That’s why I suggest that rather than ban the material that we don’t like, perhaps incentives can be created that favour the appropriate materials for the type of home that we are building.

For my money, if I had a choice, it would be clay brick and mortar, as it can last centuries with some repointing of the mortar every 50 years or so. Makes me wonder why we don’t see more brick structures being built nowadays.

Very good synopsis. However, you didn’t mention that siding fades and in many cases is painted or that it rips and blows off a building leaving an ugly mismatched repair. Additionally, vinyl siding is susceptible to mold. Siding must be pressure washed to remove the black / green buildup that is not as prevalent on wood siding.

For the people who don’t want to paint their siding, they, in many cases, must live with a colour they dislike.

For the vinyl pundits it should be noted that in no cases will you see vinyl adorning buildings of historic significance as a cladding of choice. Don’t ban vinyl, provide tax incentives to clad buildings that best reflects its prominence in its immediate surroundings.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Is anti-vinyl siding a course taught in planning school right after the cars-are-bad curriculum? Really, gang, give your heads a shake.

Objectively, vinyl siding is a horrible aesthetic. It's the crocs of building materials.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Objectively, vinyl siding is a horrible aesthetic. It's the crocs of building materials.

Since vinyl siding was here long before Crocs we could say that Crocs are the vinyl siding of the shoe industry