Advocate:Time to stop razing heritage buildings

[sdm]

Advocate: Time to stop razing heritage buildings

By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Wed. Aug 27 - 6:05 AM

Halifax should stop issuing demolition permits for registered heritage buildings, says a heritage advocate.

"It’s so easy to demolish a building that’s been there for 100 or 150 years; we just don’t value them," Clary Kempton said in an interview Tuesday. "Buildings are dropping everywhere, and it’s just criminal."

Mr. Kempton, a designer and a member of council’s volunteer downtown planning advisory committee, has drafted a heritage plan for the municipality.

It will get an airing at city hall’s heritage advisory committee when members meet today.

"In the past 20 years, slowly but surely most of our heritage buildings are disappearing," he said. "They’re just being demolished."

The municipality’s current policy allows the owner of a heritage building to apply for a demolition permit, which can be issued within a year.

Mr. Kempton would like to see such permits done away with.

He would also like to see building owners charged the same rate of municipal property tax even after their buildings have been torn down.

"Right now the reduction in taxes is an incentive to demolish a building," he said.

A perfect example of that, he said, is the former Birks building on Barrington Street, "a beautiful building with a marble staircase and brass railings and significant architecture."

After that building came down, its lot sat empty for almost 10 years before it was made into a parking lot, he said.

Other suggestions in his plan include reducing the tax rate for registered heritage buildings by one-half, creating heritage districts and establishing a heritage fund to assist in restorations, heritage awareness and preservation awards.

"The lack of proper safeguards for our built heritage has placed the entire stock at risk," Mr. Kempton said.

( apugsley@herald.ca)

[sdm]

The best thing about this is besides the Kelly & Birks building what other heritage buildings have been demolished in Downtown in the past 20 years?

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by sdm

The best thing about this is besides the Kelly & Birks building what other heritage buildings have been demolished in Downtown in the past 20 years?

Yah... most of the damage was done to downtown long ago. But if you count victorian homes in the surrounding neighborhoods (different situation I know)... then "heritage" buildings have been falling like flies in the past 20 years.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by sdm

The best thing about this is besides the Kelly & Birks building what other heritage buildings have been demolished in Downtown in the past 20 years?

Good point. Most of the damage was done to downtown long ago. But if you count Victorian homes in the surrounding neighborhoods (different situation I know)... then "heritage" buildings have been dropping like flies in the past 20 years.

[someone123]

It's true that there are very few examples of heritage buildings torn down recently (Birks was not recent), but a lot of them are in worse condition than they should be. Tax reforms would make a lot of sense and probably not cost that much.

We still have buildings like the NFB on Barrington that really drag down everything around them. Nowhere in Halifax looks that well-kept, although there are specific examples of nicely renovated heritage buildings that look wonderful. More and more houses in the North End are being maintained properly, for example, and if there were entire streets and neighbourhoods like that they would be very attractive and unique.

All of the heritage buildings in the old core of the city should be kept in top condition.

[JET]

A good example of a victorian building that was in good shape, that was recently demolished, is the red house on the south-west corner of Wellington and South. Great building, terrible shame. 20 years ago, Hart House, north-west corner of Spring garden and summer; same thing, terrible shame. The two "grey sisters", across from the Hart House, just a few years ago, same thing. Two many empty, undeveloped lots.
In Dartmouth there was a proposal a few years ago for 1 Park Place, to be built at the end of Park Ave. It was too big, and was denied. The empty lot sits empty. In England the tax on vacant/ undeveloped lots is high which encourages appropriate deveolpment, and deters sitting on nondeveloped land. There needs to be a balance, and now before all the heritage buildings are gone. JET

[Spitfire75]

Originally Posted by JET

In England the tax on vacant/ undeveloped lots is high which encourages appropriate deveolpment, and deters sitting on nondeveloped land.

Excellent idea. They should implement something like this on the peninsula. The only downside I see is if a building is falling apart it would be cheaper to let it crumble then to tear it down (even more so than it is now).

[JET]

The problem with the let it crumble approach is that owners use it as a way to use the land rather than maintain the building. Accross from QEH school there was a nice row of houses that when I came to Halifax (mid 70's) were in good shape. The owner wanted to tear them down, and put up a highrise. The city resisted. The owner painted then terible clours, the city resisted. The owner let them deterioate, they were torn down, it's now an empty lot with a field of weeds. When the owner refused to keep up the property, initially, the city should be able to take over the "historic" building (not much different tahn not paying property tax) and someone who wants a decent building with minimal problems, should be able to take it over. There should be a law, if you own it, maintain it; if not you lose it.
In dartmouth next to the greenvale school there was a nice wooden aprtment building. Sobeys bought it, to block superstore putting in a store in that area. Sobeys put in a demolition request, due to the "poor shape" the building was in. One of the items listed in refence to the poor condition of the building was a battery missing from a smoke detector; bogus. The buiding was razed, and it's been a field of weeds for ten years. It was a nice old bulding with some character. JET

[sdm]

Originally Posted by JET

The problem with the let it crumble approach is that owners use it as a way to use the land rather than maintain the building. Accross from QEH school there was a nice row of houses that when I came to Halifax (mid 70's) were in good shape. The owner wanted to tear them down, and put up a highrise. The city resisted. The owner painted then terible clours, the city resisted. The owner let them deterioate, they were torn down, it's now an empty lot with a field of weeds. When the owner refused to keep up the property, initially, the city should be able to take over the "historic" building (not much different tahn not paying property tax) and someone who wants a decent building with minimal problems, should be able to take it over. There should be a law, if you own it, maintain it; if not you lose it.

That would never happen, and rightfully so.

[someone123]

Why not? It happens in plenty of other cities and it makes sense. Properties in the city have an effect on their neighbours and because of this it is perfectly reasonable to demand a certain level of maintenance. A system where the end result of disputes between property owners and the city is a weedy lot and losses all around is clearly broken.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by someone123

Why not? It happens in plenty of other cities and it makes sense. Properties in the city have an effect on their neighbours and because of this it is perfectly reasonable to demand a certain level of maintenance. A system where the end result of disputes between property owners and the city is a weedy lot and losses all around is clearly broken.

I would love to know what cities employ such regulations regarding heritage properties.

For example, what if a property had significant issues that will cost the property owner more then the property is worth, or in a commercial sense generate a positive cash flow?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by sdm

I would love to know what cities employ such regulations regarding heritage properties.

For example, what if a property had significant issues that will cost the property owner more then the property is worth, or in a commercial sense generate a positive cash flow?

For the most part property owners know what the condition of the building is before they buy it or if they don't then they should have done there homework. Mainly we are talking about speculators buying properties to turn a profit and if that doesn't happen then they panic and complain about the condition of the property and look at options which almost always involve demolition and building a new structure. The built heritage stock is not a pawn for part time developers to use for personal portfolios. If a significant building is threatened with demolition because of development as it the old sandstone Bank of Montreal on Spring Garden then the city should have the right to expropriate the property. Maybe the stock market would be less headache as an investment vehicle.

[sdm]

[QUOTE=Empire;3764181]For the most part property owners know what the condition of the building is before they buy it or if they don't then they should have done there homework. Mainly we are talking about speculators buying properties to turn a profit and if that doesn't happen then they panic and complain about the condition of the property and look at options which almost always involve demolition and building a new structure. The built heritage stock is not a pawn for part time developers to use for personal portfolios. If a significant building is threatened with demolition because of development as it the old sandstone Bank of Montreal on Spring Garden then the city should have the right to expropriate the property. Maybe the stock market would be less headache as an investment vehicle.[/QUOTE

Yes developers and investors are big and bad people.....
So when the city expropriate the property who then pays for the significant issues to be resolved? Tax payers, or do they sell it for less then market value?

[Empire]

QUOTE

Yes developers and investors are big and bad people.....
So when the city expropriate the property who then pays for the significant issues to be resolved? Tax payers, or do they sell it for less then market value?[/QUOTE]

They sell it for less than market and provide tax breaks until it is full restored. Much like a mortgage forclosure when the bank takes a hit.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

QUOTE

Yes developers and investors are big and bad people.....
So when the city expropriate the property who then pays for the significant issues to be resolved? Tax payers, or do they sell it for less then market value?

They sell it for less than market and provide tax breaks until it is full restored. Much like a mortgage forclosure when the bank takes a hit.[/QUOTE]

You don't believe this breaches any property owners rights correct?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by sdm

You don't believe this breaches any property owners rights correct?

If the building is of significant importance like the BOM on Sp. Gd. Rd. and the owner plans to demolish it then the city sould have the right to expropriate it and pay market price. Then the city can sell at an auction for whatever they can get. Buildings are expropriated all the time and it is not seen as a breach of the owners rights.

[JET]

If property owners are unwilling or unable to properly maintain a building that is essentailly stable, then they may need to forfeit their property rights.
Greenvale school is stable, but needs a huge amount of work. The city basically gives it to drexel, and they will hopefully use the building and improve on it.
If property owners can't pay the taxes, they lose the property, if they can't maintain a stable historic building, there needs to am alternative to tearing it down. Waiting one year and then tearing down a heritage building is a travesty. There needs to be protection for heritage. JET