Development Rumours

[halifaxboyns]

What would be interesting is if the owner/developer could acquire the building next to the Heritage Building under threat...then demo the neighbouring building and see if they could build an extension onto the existing heritage building and building up (and make the extension a similar heritage design). Probably would be expensive though...

If my memory of the viewplane map is correct, this site is covered in a VP.

[JET]

nice old building (I wonder how many times I have written that about a building about to go poooof) That is some big pile of empty across the street

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Empire

This building is such a Halifax classic. It is very similar in style to the Imperial Oil Bldg. at Waterside. This is a building that would be tagged as having heritage merit if we had a system that worked.

I don't think they've applied for anything yet; they just assume there'll be no trouble. I think Someone123 is right—if the plan is outright demolition and enough people speak up against that, the developer can be appealed to. I'm still not entirely sure how density bonusing works under HRMxD (are max heights without a bonus lower than max heights with?) but I'm sure the property owner (who is not named in any news stories, for whatever reason) would at least consider retaining street-facing heritage elements (i.e., the facade) if offered a good incentive.

And THAT is where a heritage group that worked with developers rather than against them would be handy. Just saying NO WAY to this will not work. A group committed to getting the best results from working alongside developers would be a huge asset here.

Anyway, Waye Mason and seems quite responsive to heritage issues in his district—I wonder if he'd play a role in working with the property owner to get a mutually satisfactory outcome (after we've seen what the application actually looks like).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Count me in as disgusted if they demolish this one.

Gawd, Halifax NEEDS some kind of functional heritage policy as the current one seems like a joke.

[Fischbob]

They'd better not demolish that building! I visited a friend in Halifax this summer and he made sure to show Strange Adventures to me during the grand tour. They don't make commercial spaces like that any more! Just so whimsical. I'm glad to hear they'll be staying open; hopefully they find a suitable new spot downtown.

If the demolition does come to pass, I hope they at least have the courtesy to also get rid of 1580 Grafton while they're at it. An eyesore for an eye.

[bluenoser]

Indeed, it would be better to tear down and rebuild every other building on the block except this one. I got the impression that the developer owns the TAZ Records building next door which would also be included in the redevelopment.

Looking across Market Street to the back of the Cambridge Suites Hotel, it almost looks like street level commercial activity could exist there (perhaps driven by increased activity from the Nova Centre) without a lot of major changes. Then again, it might have just been built to look that way to avoid a huge blank wall.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by bluenoser

Indeed, it would be better to tear down and rebuild every other building on the block except this one. I got the impression that the developer owns the TAZ Records building next door which would also be included in the redevelopment.

Looking across Market Street to the back of the Cambridge Suites Hotel, it almost looks like street level commercial activity could exist there (perhaps driven by increased activity from the Nova Centre) without a lot of major changes. Then again, it might have just been built to look that way to avoid a huge blank wall.

Yeah, Taz will be gone for sure, and good riddance. The whole block can be turned into a blank slate for a developer, for all I care--except that one building.

[cormiermax]

Perhaps the facade can be saved?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by cormiermax

Perhaps the facade can be saved?

Hopefully at least, but it strikes me a little sad sometimes that this seems to be all we can hope for. While I heartily endorse this kind of thing if the structure of the building is unsaveable (as appears to be the case with Waterside), it seems like every time there's talk of developing a site with an interesting old building on it, the compromise always seems to come down to saving the facade and gutting the rest.

I know we can't save 'em all, and a facade is better than nothing, but I can't help but think that years from now all that will be left of most of these fine and interesting old buildings will be the face - kinda seems like a Disney World scenario where things look kinda real but are nowhere near being authentic.

I find that the facade is only a small part of what makes these buildings interesting. What's really cool is when you go inside and see building materials that are no longer used and that were all constructed by hand using methods much more difficult and personal than what is common now. Layouts, styles, materials that all harken back to a different era, and can be made viable with some upgrades that don't necessarily show to the eye. Of course, yes - it will be more expensive - which is almost always the deciding point.

Just my while there are still pennies left...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Of course, yes - it will be more expensive - which is almost always the deciding point.

True, but the thing is, development projects with restored heritage elements tend to do better over the long run than those without—almost any study of urban real-estate shows that well-preserved heritage structures boost nearby property values, and usually ends up resulting in a more desirable structure for prospective tenants (in terms of rents per square foot).

Refurbishing old buildings is also almost always cheaper than demolishing and building new, on the order of 10 to 20 per cent—so demolishing a three storey building for another three-storey building makes no sense. To build a tower, of course, is a different matter, but then again, if a developer doesn't want to do it out of a sense of city building or community-mindedness, they can think of the marketing possibilities of the heritage.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

True, but the thing is, development projects with restored heritage elements tend to do better over the long run than those without—almost any study of urban real-estate shows that well-preserved heritage structures boost nearby property values, and usually ends up resulting in a more desirable structure for prospective tenants (in terms of rents per square foot).

Refurbishing old buildings is also almost always cheaper than demolishing and building new, on the order of 10 to 20 per cent—so demolishing a three storey building for another three-storey building makes no sense. To build a tower, of course, is a different matter, but then again, if a developer doesn't want to do it out of a sense of city building or community-mindedness, they can think of the marketing possibilities of the heritage.

Good points. I really do wish there could be a better happy medium between new construction and neat old buildings... maybe it's coming someday.

[someone123]

Southwest is planning to build a 20-storey residential building on the Staples site at Gottingen and Cogswell once the current lease for the building runs out.

Looks like huge changes are in store for this area over the next 5-10 years.

[cormiermax]

What else can I say but FINALLY!!!! I have been waiting for so long to see that horrid eye sore get knocked down. So happy its finally happening.

[resetcbu1]

Maybe staples could move into one of the vacant store fronts along Barrington st , I'm sure the do ok with all the office activities in the area

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

Southwest is planning to build a 20-storey residential building on the Staples site at Gottingen and Cogswell once the current lease for the building runs out.

Spectacular news!
I wonder when that lease expires? I hope extremely soon.

Cogswell is slowly growing its collection of towers.

[theshark]

Originally Posted by resetcbu1

Maybe staples could move into one of the vacant store fronts along Barrington st , I'm sure the do ok with all the office activities in the area

An urban style Staples would be awesome for Halifax, but I wonder if that store was profitable.

[cormiermax]

Is there such thing as an urban styled Staples?

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by cormiermax

Is there such thing as an urban styled Staples?

All big box stores are becoming urban format. Just look in Vancouver for the urban format Costco, Homo Depot and others!

[hollistreet]

Originally Posted by cormiermax

Is there such thing as an urban styled Staples?

Yes. There is a Staples on the ground floor of an office building on University Ave. in Toronto.

[someone123]

My impression is that there are several years left on the Staples lease. It seems like a profitable store to me since they're still open.

If Southwest really wants to keep them as a tenant they could put a retail space in the new Hollis Street apartment building. It's also easy to imagine them in the Roy Building or a few other places.

For a long time there was an "anything goes" attitude toward development along Gottingen. I guess that's why they built a big box style building there. If that gets replaced along with the Trinity site the impact will be substantial.