Development Rumours

[OldDartmouthMark]

I find the discussions on this forum surrounding the heritage activist groups to be a little strange. They have been seen as a threat to development, but really there have been very few “wins” from the perspective of heritage fans. Yet if you read here one might think that there would have been little to no development in Halifax had there not been systems in place to guarantee development on some sites. Yet how many heritage structures have been lost over the past 20-30 years, that continue to this day? I challenge anyone to try to count them, as it would be an extremely difficult task to come up with an accurate tally. Then some might point to the number of projects where the facades (or in some cases just the cladding) were saved with a new building built behind it - not really a “save” but admittedly a little better than nothing.

There have been some reasonably good outcomes, but those are credits to the few developers involved in such projects, who in those cases chose the more difficult business plan to save the old structure and incorporate it into the new, rather than just raze it. I almost feel like these happened despite the city’s development rules and not because of them. Influence from heritage groups may or may not have contributed in a small way, but we’ll never really know.

What never gets any consideration is that there never would even be a “need” for heritage protection if people en masse had an appreciation for the old buildings and what they add to a city’s character. Which brings me full circle to the idea that if nobody cares, it doesn’t matter. It’s pretty clear that the business side wins every time. We ask what would we do if we saved those buildings, almost as if to say that there is only one outcome that will work. What confounds me a little is with all the building and virtually no heritage preservation, it seems perfectly acceptable that every new building is asking premium pricing, so we lose our heritage to the business case, but don’t really expect anything (in terms of affordable rent for the average person) in return.

And yet we only complain about the heritage groups despite constant “wins” for the development community. The floor seems a little slanted, but I guess it is a pro-development forum, so not a surprise.

[Dmajackson]

Demolition Permit submitted for 1588 ROBIE STREET. Probably just some more land-banking.

Google Streetview

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Demolition Permit submitted for 1588 ROBIE STREET. Probably just some more land-banking.

Google Streetview

Another one bites the dust!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And yet we only complain about the heritage groups despite constant “wins” for the development community. The floor seems a little slanted, but I guess it is a pro-development forum, so not a surprise.

There are a lot of objections to demolitions on here as well of praise of well-done privately-led heritage projects like the Green Lantern.

I think it is more nuanced than "development vs. heritage" and for what it's worth I disagree with black and white thinking in one direction or the other, whether it's people saying nothing should be built or people saying we just have to accept destruction of history because of the housing crisis. Property owners are the ones doing the bulk of the preservation. Some owners and developers are better than others. For the Robie demolitions, this owner has been doing this for years and HRM council debated Young Ave years ago, yet there wasn't an effective policy change.

A lot of it seems to come down to HRM and maybe, to the extent you agree with the buck passing, the province. HRM does obviously have control over some things like allocating money for conservation, which they don't do much.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

There are a lot of objections to demolitions on here as well of praise of well-done privately-led heritage projects like the Green Lantern.

I think it is more nuanced than "development vs. heritage" and for what it's worth I disagree with black and white thinking in one direction or the other, whether it's people saying nothing should be built or people saying we just have to accept destruction of history because of the housing crisis. Property owners are the ones doing the bulk of the preservation. Some owners and developers are better than others. For the Robie demolitions, this owner has been doing this for years and HRM council debated Young Ave years ago, yet there wasn't an effective policy change.

A lot of it seems to come down to HRM and maybe, to the extent you agree with the buck passing, the province. HRM does obviously have control over some things like allocating money for conservation, which they don't do much.

FWIW, I think that you and I are on the same page mostly about heritage preservation, even if we sometimes disagree on minutiae.

My main disappointment is that the City has long taken a “hands-off” approach to heritage conservation, with the optics being that they don’t want to appear to be labeled as anti-development, or be known as the ones who chased developers out of town (which would never happen) because of potentially having a non-ideal situation for development to happen. IMHO, in their views, there are no votes tied up in heritage preservation, but people will sure notice if a development doesn’t happen (note all of the hype surrounding the “Twisted Sisters” site). Ironically they also wanted to have control over each and every development, lest an influential voice might object to it. The result was slow processes, lacklustre buildings, and little to no heritage preservation. The Centre Plan improved things, but IMHO was very half-hearted in that it restricted heights in areas where heights would have vastly improved the situation.

Now, with the housing crisis, some of the restrictions have been thrown out, but nothing has improved regarding heritage preservation. If anything, it has become worse. I imagine that there are people in some depts that are delighted to not have to deal with heritage “problems” anymore. They now have the excuse that we’re in a housing crisis, and all’s good. Forget that land-banking does nothing for immediate relief from the housing crisis, but it does reduce the number of mostly decent heritage buildings from 100-plus years ago… forever (once they are gone they are gone).

One thing we don’t seem to agree about is the heritage activist groups. I agree that they often seem a little off-target, and that there might even be some self-serving NIMBYism involved, but mostly it’s groups of people working on their own time trying to raise awareness with the deck stacked against them. Fighting against money and power is always daunting, and especially in this day and age, almost guaranteed to be a winless battle. On top of that, it’s usually older people who are involved, which makes them easy to dismiss by the other demographics. It’s not obvious to me whether the public at large is aware enough to understand the importance of preserving a portion of their history, and again if they don’t care to listen and engage, nothing happens. As I said, I believe that there should be enough awareness among all, including our politicians, that these groups should only have to function to remind us of what we should already realize, but if it’s not going to work that way, then we reap what we sow. Perhaps several decades into the future, some children are going to be asking their parents and grandparents why an old city like Halifax doesn’t have many old buildings left, and the answer will be shrugs. Or maybe they will say that they were all knocked down in the Halifax Explosion (if that’s still in the collective memory by then).

[someone123]

It depends on how you define the heritage groups. If you are talking about the Heritage Trust of NS then I think they do good things, like preserving the Morris House. However, they have a province-wide scope and seem to be interested more in quaint older structures and less in urban character. They don't/didn't seem to have a vision that incorporated growth in a modern urban setting.

The "friend" groups skew almost all NIMBY and often they advocate for smaller buildings. They didn't seem to be arguing to preserve the office building at the Willow Tree for example, they just didn't like that the new one was tall, and I think their views are often on balance harmful. For Spring Garden Rd I think they also would have been more or less okay with some ugly short building replacing the storefronts there.

I don't have a problem with these groups existing and promoting their own views in a democratic city, but I also don't think they have been somehow underrepresented in the media and municipal affairs.

I think the real disconnect with heritage preservation is probably a lack of democratic participation (low turn-out in municipal elections which makes niche interests powerful) and a cultural problem around people not appreciating how aesthetics, history, and local character impact the lives of everyday residents.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

It depends on how you define the heritage groups. If you are talking about the Heritage Trust of NS then I think they do good things, like preserving the Morris House. However, they have a province-wide scope and seem to be interested more in quaint older structures and less in urban character. They don't/didn't seem to have a vision that incorporated growth in a modern urban setting.

The "friend" groups skew almost all NIMBY and often they advocate for smaller buildings. They didn't seem to be arguing to preserve the office building at the Willow Tree for example, they just didn't like that the new one was tall, and I think their views are often on balance harmful. For Spring Garden Rd I think they also would have been more or less okay with some ugly short building replacing the storefronts there.

I don't have a problem with these groups existing and promoting their own views in a democratic city, but I also don't think they have been somehow underrepresented in the media and municipal affairs.

I think the real disconnect with heritage preservation is probably a lack of democratic participation (low turn-out in municipal elections which makes niche interests powerful) and a cultural problem around people not appreciating how aesthetics, history, and local character impact the lives of everyday residents.

Can’t really disagree with this. The “friends of “ groups have been largely disappointing… agreed.

There was a group championing for good architecture and heritage preservation that included some members of this forum that seemed to get off to a good start but fizzled out at some point. I’m thinking of groups like this who would have had a balanced perspective on how to improve the built environment in the city, but obviously they didn’t receive the support or momentum that they needed. But then it comes back to the idea that they shouldn’t have to operate in a hostile environment, but instead should have the support of the city. It seems that council is mostly clueless as to who they should be listening to, or that they already have set agendas. The end result is the same.

[ngunda]

Originally Posted by someone123

It depends on how you define the heritage groups. If you are talking about the Heritage Trust of NS then I think they do good things, like preserving the Morris House. However, they have a province-wide scope and seem to be interested more in quaint older structures and less in urban character. They don't/didn't seem to have a vision that incorporated growth in a modern urban setting.

I think they’ve done pretty well as a non-profit with limited resources, but I agree the state of heritage preservation might be better if someone was focusing more on the big picture. Of course, it would need some buy-in from the city/province to amount to anything. Their approach was imperfect but just about adequate through the decades where there were relatively few viable developments, but now things are proceeding at a scale where the Heritage Trust seems completely irrelevant.

[Empire]

Enough is enough. HRM holds all of the cards in terms of allowing development. If HRM could realize that they don't have to give away the farm to have development then a rational plan could be formulated to protect our built heritage. HRM / province of NS should apply for the south peninsula to be designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

If Lunenburg can do it, Halifax can do it. Yes, major development would still continue.

[ngunda]

Originally Posted by Empire

Enough is enough. HRM holds all of the cards in terms of allowing development. If HRM could realize that they don't have to give away the farm to have development then a rational plan could be formulated to protect our built heritage. HRM / province of NS should apply for the south peninsula to be designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

If Lunenburg can do it, Halifax can do it. Yes, major development would still continue.

[Drybrain]

I think the only UNESCO criteria such an application would be elgible under would be number iv here, and Halifax is simply too much of a mish-mash/palimpsest of differing eras and architectural/cultural traditions to qualify. There are plenty of other east-coast North American communities representing similar eras, and containing similar or even superior historical architecture, all the way up the coast of New England and even here in Canada (Uptown Saint John, and St. John's within Merrymeeting Road, would be better candidates, though I still don't think they'd qualify).

I think this is fine. Lunenburg is a museum-piece town, and that's its strength. The only urban-scaled UNESCO site in Canada is Old Quebec, which is similarly museum-y, much more intact and architecturally distinctive, remarkably so on this continent. It would be extraordinarily unlikely for Halifax to achieve that recognition. If we had actually retained a larger old town, it'd be possible, but we didn't, and the whole south half of the peninsula would be overkill anyway.

[OldDartmouthMark]

On the theme that Empire was suggesting though (and mentioned by someone123 in the past) would be more/expanded/improved heritage districts, with stronger rules that actually protects heritage properties and areas. Not just things like a 3 year delay on demolition permits for heritage designated properties (as completely ridiculous as that sounds, it’s the reality), but actual protection with stiff penalties for developers who don’t follow the rules and incentives for owners to maintain their properties in keeping with the district.

So maybe the UNESCO route might be a little overkill, but Empire is right. Something can and should be done. The pendulum has swung too far in the “wild west tear ‘em down and let’s see what happens” direction. We can’t depend upon developers to do the ‘right thing’ to protect the character of the city, they will always do whatever is most profitable (as business often does). We need more than that.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

On the theme that Empire was suggesting though (and mentioned by someone123 in the past) would be more/expanded/improved heritage districts, with stronger rules that actually protects heritage properties and areas. Not just things like a 3 year delay on demolition permits for heritage designated properties (as completely ridiculous as that sounds, it’s the reality), but actual protection with stiff penalties for developers who don’t follow the rules and incentives for owners to maintain their properties in keeping with the district.

HRM has talked about this a lot and has some heritage conservation districts which have come with some funding, but the extent and results seem modest.

There's obviously low-hanging fruit along Barrington like the weirdly unfinished NFB and Tramway facades, the metal awning, and various buildings that have had bad renos over the decades. The area has wonderful bones and could be very attractive but is strangely run down. Of course there's also the problem of very loud and frequent bus traffic.

The successes and failures mostly seem to come down to the developer, like Keith Hall vs. Tramway for example. It is possible to maintain nice heritage buildings in Halifax and lots of owners do it, but if every 4th building is ugly it's hard to have an attractive block or district.

[Empire]

Aside from the demolition of several Victorian houses in a row or entire blocks demolished, there is the constant threat of spot demolition such as St. Patrick's Catholic Church and the Halifax Memorial Library. The demand for housing downtown is changing with the conversion of existing office buildings to residential (Centennial Building, Joseph and a few others) yielding less demand for housing to support office employees. In addition, the Royal Bank Building and Bank of Montreal tower are virtually unoccupied. Are commuters leaving downtown and going to suburban office buildings.

The development in Dartmouth near the Macdonald Bridge should relieve some pressure on the historic stock in DT Halifax. It is clear developers will build near the city centre without demolishing historic buildings so I hope HRM will recognize what we are losing.

[Keith P.]

Just today I found myself turning onto Almon St where it meets Novalea/Gottingen and was struck by how little development has occurred on that end aside from one newish box apartment and a couple of low-rise ‘80s/‘90s rather timid apartments. The rest is century-plus old wood-frame flat roof SFH or conversions into flats, many somewhat shabby and all rather unremarkable. That is no surprise as it was always working-class post-explosion housing. What did surprise me is why nobody has done a land assembly and developed something modern. I would think it would be a pretty attractive area for new development.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

Aside from the demolition of several Victorian houses in a row or entire blocks demolished, there is the constant threat of spot demolition such as St. Patrick's Catholic Church and the Halifax Memorial Library. The demand for housing downtown is changing with the conversion of existing office buildings to residential (Centennial Building, Joseph and a few others) yielding less demand for housing to support office employees. In addition, the Royal Bank Building and Bank of Montreal tower are virtually unoccupied. Are commuters leaving downtown and going to suburban office buildings.

If you look at office market reports though (like CBRE), there is positive absorption in offices in DT Halifax and the vacancy rates are on the low end nationally. The residential conversions seem good. They are providing much-needed housing while updating old buildings that needed some investment. It's far from a doom and gloom story, and it's part of a wider context of WFH after covid.

I do think situations like the old library are harmful and unnecessary. These buildings are in booming areas and there's lots of demand for community space. It's a self-reinforcing problem as these problems are never resolved and the municipal agenda is a revolving door of studying and restudying many of the same things while kicking the can down the road. The library is particularly bad since HRM itself predictably vacated the space.

[Musicman Halifax]

Originally Posted by Empire

Aside from the demolition of several Victorian houses in a row or entire blocks demolished, there is the constant threat of spot demolition such as St. Patrick's Catholic Church and the Halifax Memorial Library. The demand for housing downtown is changing with the conversion of existing office buildings to residential (Centennial Building, Joseph and a few others) yielding less demand for housing to support office employees. In addition, the Royal Bank Building and Bank of Montreal tower are virtually unoccupied. Are commuters leaving downtown and going to suburban office buildings.

The development in Dartmouth near the Macdonald Bridge should relieve some pressure on the historic stock in DT Halifax. It is clear developers will build near the city centre without demolishing historic buildings so I hope HRM will recognize what we are losing.

The royal bank building is a mess. The mechanical systems have been left to decay for a couple decades now. The bank of Montreal building isn’t far behind. Sometimes it isn’t lack of demand, it is the state of the buildings that are the problem.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by someone123

If you look at office market reports though (like CBRE), there is positive absorption in offices in DT Halifax and the vacancy rates are on the low end nationally. The residential conversions seem good. They are providing much-needed housing while updating old buildings that needed some investment. It's far from a doom and gloom story, and it's part of a wider context of WFH after covid.

I do think situations like the old library are harmful and unnecessary. These buildings are in booming areas and there's lots of demand for community space. It's a self-reinforcing problem as these problems are never resolved and the municipal agenda is a revolving door of studying and restudying many of the same things while kicking the can down the road. The library is particularly bad since HRM itself predictably vacated the space.

Converting office buildings like Joseph Howe and Centennial help ease housing shortages but will limit commercial growth in the finincial core in the future. There currently isn't enough demand for a substantial office tower and there is no clear location to build one. Cogswell could be a location for a commercial tower but if anything ever gets built there it will undoubtedly be residential.

[Empire]

Citadel Hill may be a candidate for a UNESCO World Heritage Site. (Maybe a significant stage in Canadian history would be considered.) This would bring attention to the remaining architectural heritage stock close to the citadel that needs preserving.

UNESCO World Heritage Convention
(iv)
to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

Citadel Hill may be a candidate for a UNESCO World Heritage Site. (Maybe a significant stage in Canadian history would be considered.) This would bring attention to the remaining architectural heritage stock close to the citadel that needs preserving.

UNESCO World Heritage Convention
(iv)
to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history

Looks like it could be worth a shot. It’s already pretty well protected, though, so I am not sure what additional benefits there would be other than notoriety?