General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

I have lived in the Toronto area for 30 years now and I can honestly say that I have never heard heritage being discussed on the radio or in the newspaper. Overall, it seems to be a non-issue in the Toronto area. Torontonians like to think big and big projects get the most positive press. I won't say that it has had all positive results - negative examples are high taxes in Toronto, cost over-runs for the Skydome, the Gardiner Expressway, and others. The positive effect is national and international attention as a major city.

I definitely disagree on that. There are loads of Torontonians mighty tired of the same glass condo tower being erected over and over again. Here are eight different stories in the Star that discuss built heritage over the past couple years, and it took me about 20 seconds to find them all. One is from today. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

The sheer amount of development in the city has led to a lot of concern for what could be lost--but, really, not much has been in recent years, considering all the new construction.

However, developers must make money whereas heritage protection is a municipal and civic responsibility.

Yeah, that's the traditional roles they occupy, but a lot of good developers see their role as city builders as well. In this case, Chedrawe doesn't seem to care about the fact that existing buildings are historically valuable (and just plan good, useful buildings that are extremely successful at that location). and the city has a pitiful history of protection. Not a combo to make one optimistic!

[Keith P.]

I am surprised to read all the wringing of hands over the Mills buildings. Notice I said buildings because that's what they are - a number of old structures stitched together in a way that makes their interior a rabbit warren of uneven floors, low ceilings, and disjointed spaces. As rentable space, they —. So one can only presume the angst is about their faux-Tudor exterior, which is admittedly a somewhat unique thing for Halifax, but really is just cosmetic. You could duplicate that as the podium for anything you wish to build above if you had to, though I really wonder why anyone would bother except to appease the heritage loons that think they run this town.

As for Mickey MacDonald, who knows what he's thinking these days. Maybe he figured out that the property development game isn't for him.

[ILoveHalifax]

I'd be quite happy to see most everything on Spring Garden Rd come down and be replaced. There is nothing there of any great value in my opinion. I especially would be happy to see the old Bank of Montreal building leveled rather than try to add on to it. About the only building of any interest is the one or two on the corner of SGR and Brunswick but not sure it is worth saving.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I definitely disagree on that. There are loads of Torontonians mighty tired of the same glass condo tower being erected over and over again. Here are eight different stories in the Star that discuss built heritage over the past couple years, and it took me about 20 seconds to find them all. One is from today. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

The sheer amount of development in the city has led to a lot of concern for what could be lost--but, really, not much has been in recent years, considering all the new construction.

It is easy to cherry pick stories to support a certain view. I could post hundreds of recent stories showing civic pride in new, tall architecture. There are old, loved buildings in the Toronto area such as Maple Leaf Gardens that have been preserved and redeveloped but there isn't any great outcry for heritage protection and a limit on new development. I can say this because I listen to Toronto area news everyday.

If you wish to pick examples then I think that Montreal or Quebec City would be much better choices than Toronto. Torontonians tend to pride themselves as being residents of a world class, modern city not as residents of a historic city.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am surprised to read all the wringing of hands over the Mills buildings. Notice I said buildings because that's what they are - a number of old structures stitched together in a way that makes their interior a rabbit warren of uneven floors, low ceilings, and disjointed spaces. As rentable space, they —. So one can only presume the angst is about their faux-Tudor exterior, which is admittedly a somewhat unique thing for Halifax, but really is just cosmetic. You could duplicate that as the podium for anything you wish to build above if you had to, though I really wonder why anyone would bother except to appease the heritage loons that think they run this town.

I like this idea. I like the Spring Garden Road streetscape but I realize that the city must grow. Your suggestion is a practical way of doing it and has had success in other parts of the city; examples are Founder's Square, Espace and RBC Waterside.

A Toronto example is the old Maple Leaf Gardens. The exterior has been preserved but the interior now has this current layout - http://www.urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/12/database-project-day-ryersons-peter-gilgan-athletic-centre

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I am surprised to read all the wringing of hands over the Mills buildings. Notice I said buildings because that's what they are - a number of old structures stitched together in a way that makes their interior a rabbit warren of uneven floors, low ceilings, and disjointed spaces. As rentable space, they —. So one can only presume the angst is about their faux-Tudor exterior, which is admittedly a somewhat unique thing for Halifax, but really is just cosmetic. You could duplicate that as the podium for anything you wish to build above if you had to, though I really wonder why anyone would bother except to appease the heritage loons that think they run this town.

That's probably not a bad approach to the Mills Buildings, IMO. Surprise! I agree with you on this. As to "why they would bother", again, heritage is a valuable economic resource. If they marketed it right, they could probably extract more money for space "in the historic Mills Building," blah blah.

But my bigger concern is the block across the street--three distinct styles from three distinct eras, housing loads of businesses.

I don't wanna fight about this--I just believe that such outmoded block-busting is irresponsible development, and it's rapidly becoming a thing of the past in cities that have more mature development communities. I'm serious--find a single instance of an entire historic block being knocked down in Toronto in the past ten years. I can think of only one, and it was a bunch of houses that had been boarded up since forever.

[hollistreet]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That's probably not a bad approach to the Mills Buildings, IMO. Surprise! I agree with you on this. As to "why they would bother", again, heritage is a valuable economic resource. If they marketed it right, they could probably extract more money for space "in the historic Mills Building," blah blah.

But my bigger concern is the block across the street--three distinct styles from three distinct eras, housing loads of businesses.

I don't wanna fight about this--I just believe that such outmoded block-busting is irresponsible development, and it's rapidly becoming a thing of the past in cities that have more mature development communities. I'm serious--find a single instance of an entire historic block being knocked down in Toronto in the past ten years. I can think of only one, and it was a bunch of houses that had been boarded up since forever.

Yorkville and Hazelton

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

But my bigger concern is the block across the street--three distinct styles from three distinct eras, housing loads of businesses.

I don't wanna fight about this--I just believe that such outmoded block-busting is irresponsible development, and it's rapidly becoming a thing of the past in cities that have more mature development communities. I'm serious--find a single instance of an entire historic block being knocked down in Toronto in the past ten years. I can think of only one, and it was a bunch of houses that had been boarded up since forever.

I think Keith P.'s approach is most similar to what is happening in Halifax and some other cities. Buildings aren't being kept in their original state and restored, instead facades are kept and the interior of the buildings are expanded with new construction. An example in Toronto is the BCE Place (now the Brookfield Place) - http://www.higginsarchitect.com/BCE2.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookfield_Place

An example of the negative consequences of taking an impractical view to heritage protection can be seen in Brantford, Ontario (acres of historic blocks were demolished) - http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/08/...reet-despite-ottawa%E2%80%99s-objection/ . The Brantford city council just got fed up with a crumbling, historic section of town that was becoming deserted and decided to demolish buildings that were condemned. (I lived in Brantford for 3 years).

In order to save historic streetscapes there must be a financial incentive for developers - either tax dollars or the possibility of expansion. Developers can't be forced to maintain financially unsustainable buildings.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

In order to save historic streetscapes there must be a financial incentive for developers - either tax dollars or the possibility of expansion. Developers can't be forced to maintain financially unsustainable buildings.

That's totally true, but I'm sure that those buildings on SGR are financially sustainable--they're certainly not crumbling into dust like the ones in Brantford.

The point is, there's nothing wrong with the block, it works wonderfully from an urban POV, it's attractive, and has historic value. There's no reason in the world to tear it down except that a redevelopment might be MORE profitable for Mr. Chedrawe. But as citizens, we have the right to say: profit is not the ultimate end-game. We want a great city, and profit, while crucial, must be balanced with other concerns.

And to Hollisstreet: The Hazelton demolition didn't involve a whole block, it was a side street, not a commercial artery, there was huge outcry about it, and they saved part of the facades (which is not always good enough, but anyway). I might also add that it lies within one of Toronto's dozens of heritage-conservation districts.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That's totally true, but I'm sure that those buildings on SGR are financially sustainable--they're certainly not crumbling into dust like the ones in Brantford.

The point is, there's nothing wrong with the block, it works wonderfully from an urban POV, it's attractive, and has historic value. There's no reason in the world to tear it down except that a redevelopment might be MORE profitable for Mr. Chedrawe. But as citizens, we have the right to say: profit is not the ultimate end-game. We want a great city, and profit, while crucial, must be balanced with other concerns.

And to Hollisstreet: The Hazelton demolition didn't involve a whole block, it was a side street, not a commercial artery, there was huge outcry about it, and they saved part of the facades (which is not always good enough, but anyway). I might also add that it lies within one of Toronto's dozens of heritage-conservation districts.

There is not one building in the block that works wonderfully. I have been in the old BoM building and it is really a mess inside. All cut up and steps all over the place. I cannot think of one space that is really efficient. I would find it very frustrating to work in such space on a daily basis.
If Danny owns the land, and wants to improve his bottom line by redeveloping to make a better profit, who are we to tell him, he can't or how to do it.
I hope he levels the block and we get something exciting an up to date.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

If Danny owns the land, and wants to improve his bottom line by redeveloping to make a better profit, who are we to tell him, he can't or how to do it.

We're citizens. Private-property is not a trump card in all discussions, which is why there are laws around land use. Take a trip to London, NYC, SF, Boston, are way more restrictive to property owners than we are.

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

I hope he levels the block and we get something exciting an up to date.

WOW. That statement reveals such astonishing ignorance of urban design it's barely even worth arguing against it. Please read a book about city planning. Any book. By almost anyone.

We all want new development. But A) It has to be high-quality, and B) It should co-exist with the substantial buildings that remain from our past, not replace them.

My feeling is that the development industry in smaller centres (like ours) is often dominated by rich guys (like Mickey MacDonald) who made their fortune in other endeavours, then decided to get into property development because they saw dollar signs. Many don't really understand city planning, city building, adaptive re-use, architecture, etc. They're not bad guys (I'm not out to villainize developers), but they perceive old structures as obstacles rather than opportunities.

And since Halifax was, until recently, starved for new development, we're too often willing to say “yes” to destructive or just crummy projects. We deserve better developers, and as we grow and our development community interacts more with the rest of the country/globe, we'll get better. I just hope that in the meantime, the cowboys running the show right now can't do too much damage in pursuit of short-term gain.

(Also, lest anyone think Toronto isn't rife with NIMBYs, check out these people launching vociferous opposition to a six-storey building downtown that would involve demolishing nothing more than a parking lot and a charmless 1950s cube. Ludicrous NIMBYism isn't unique to Halifax, nor is anti-development sentiment.)

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

We're citizens. Private-property is not a trump card in all discussions, which is why there are laws around land use. Take a trip to London, NYC, SF, Boston, are way more restrictive to property owners than we are.



WOW. That statement reveals such astonishing ignorance of urban design it's barely even worth arguing against it. Please read a book about city planning. Any book. By almost anyone.

We all want new development. But A) It has to be high-quality, and B) It should co-exist with the substantial buildings that remain from our past, not replace them.

My feeling is that the development industry in smaller centres (like ours) is often dominated by rich guys (like Mickey MacDonald) who made their fortune in other endeavours, then decided to get into property development because they saw dollar signs. Many don't really understand city planning, city building, adaptive re-use, architecture, etc. They're not bad guys (I'm not out to villainize developers), but they perceive old structures as obstacles rather than opportunities.

And since Halifax was, until recently, starved for new development, we're too often willing to say “yes” to destructive or just crummy projects. We deserve better developers, and as we grow and our development community interacts more with the rest of the country/globe, we'll get better. I just hope that in the meantime, the cowboys running the show right now can't do too much damage in pursuit of short-term gain.

(Also, lest anyone think Toronto isn't rife with NIMBYs, check out these people launching vociferous opposition to a six-storey building downtown that would involve demolishing nothing more than a parking lot and a charmless 1950s cube. Ludicrous NIMBYism isn't unique to Halifax, nor is anti-development sentiment.)

Thank you for your enlightenment. I have been to 3 of your 4 cities and have read a few books before. I still do not agree with your point of view but I do not call you ignorant. Maybe some day you will mature and show some respect for other opinions

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

WOW. That statement reveals such astonishing ignorance of urban design it's barely even worth arguing against it. Please read a book about city planning. Any book. By almost anyone.

We all want new development. But A) It has to be high-quality, and B) It should co-exist with the substantial buildings that remain from our past, not replace them.

You just don't get it Drybrain. It is not what is in a book, it is personal preference. If ILoveHalifax prefers to have the whole block levelled and see something new built then that is his preference not ignorance.

Personally, I would like to see some of the facades incorporated into a new, larger, modern development. But that is just my preference.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

We all want new development. But A) It has to be high-quality, and B) It should co-exist with the substantial buildings that remain from our past, not replace them.

My feeling is that the development industry in smaller centres (like ours) is often dominated by rich guys (like Mickey MacDonald) who made their fortune in other endeavours, then decided to get into property development because they saw dollar signs. Many don't really understand city planning, city building, adaptive re-use, architecture, etc. They're not bad guys (I'm not out to villainize developers), but they perceive old structures as obstacles rather than opportunities.

And since Halifax was, until recently, starved for new development, we're too often willing to say “yes” to destructive or just crummy projects. We deserve better developers, and as we grow and our development community interacts more with the rest of the country/globe, we'll get better. I just hope that in the meantime, the cowboys running the show right now can't do too much damage in pursuit of short-term gain.

I like old cars. But your statement is like saying I shouldn't be able to spend my own money on a new car with new technology and efficiency. You want to force me to buy a wreck of an old 1950s car and put big money into it to end up with something that isn't as good in the end as something I could have bought brand-new. That's crazy.

That block on SGR you love has perhaps one building that may be of some interest heritage-wise - the one on the corner that houses Fireside, and which used to be Thackeray's. But it has been modified so much over the years that there isn't a hell of a lot of it left. The rest are even worse. And while the BMO building is sort of nice to look at, as ILoveHalifax said, if you talk to the tenants there they tell you it is a terrible building to work in. It leaks, it has lots of environmental issues, it is dominated by a large central stair. As much as I hate to see it go, it is inevitable. That is the nature of property. Unless you are talking about iconic buildings, structures inevitably get replaced. People in this town need to learn to move on and embrace the future rather than fighting it every step of the way.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

As much as I hate to see it go, it is inevitable. That is the nature of property. Unless you are talking about iconic buildings, structures inevitably get replaced. People in this town need to learn to move on and embrace the future rather than fighting it every step of the way.

There have been a lot of successful preservation projects in Halifax, like Waterside Centre and Barrington Espace.

I think the key is to focus in on the aspects of these buildings that are most important to the public, and then offer bonuses to developers (like height increases) in exchange for preserving those features. For something like BMO the important features are mostly on the outside, and the building's only a couple of storeys tall, so a developer could redevelop it with 90% new construction while preserving most of what people care about. With a good design it would be possible for the new building to be much better than what's currently there -- the heritage parts would still be 90% there but there'd be more space and amenities for businesses and residents, more taxes for the city, etc.

Halifax hasn't been very successful at this because legitimate heritage preservation has been derailed by people who use it as a pretext for preventing new construction. New construction is the most plausible path to bringing in the money necessary to preserve these assets.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I think Keith P.'s approach is most similar to what is happening in Halifax and some other cities. Buildings aren't being kept in their original state and restored, instead facades are kept and the interior of the buildings are expanded with new construction. An example in Toronto is the BCE Place (now the Brookfield Place) - http://www.higginsarchitect.com/BCE2.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookfield_Place

An example of the negative consequences of taking an impractical view to heritage protection can be seen in Brantford, Ontario (acres of historic blocks were demolished) - http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/08/...reet-despite-ottawa%E2%80%99s-objection/ . The Brantford city council just got fed up with a crumbling, historic section of town that was becoming deserted and decided to demolish buildings that were condemned. (I lived in Brantford for 3 years).

In order to save historic streetscapes there must be a financial incentive for developers - either tax dollars or the possibility of expansion. Developers can't be forced to maintain financially unsustainable buildings.

Financial incentives do work, but more recently look at the Waterside project in that no incentives were given and the developer still went ahead with the project.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That block on SGR you love has perhaps one building that may be of some interest heritage-wise - the one on the corner that houses Fireside, and which used to be Thackeray's. But it has been modified so much over the years that there isn't a hell of a lot of it left. The rest are even worse. And while the BMO building is sort of nice to look at, as ILoveHalifax said, if you talk to the tenants there they tell you it is a terrible building to work in. It leaks, it has lots of environmental issues, it is dominated by a large central stair. As much as I hate to see it go, it is inevitable. That is the nature of property.

I do love it, it's true. So obviously I disagree with the first part of the statement--the interiors may be in so-so shape, but the exterior still looks pretty handsome. Original doorframes, not ruined with crummy stucco or metal cladding, brick still in good shape...it's really nice, and there are only a handful of structures like it left in town.

As to the second part, I doubt anything on the block is in dire, falling-down disrepair. Like, seriously doubt it. I have heard about the BMO building's woes, but much worse has been brought back from the brink. Hamilton's Lister Block, Toronto's Gladstone and Drake Hotels, our own Historic Properties...oh hell, just go through this amazing thread.

Here's an especially stark before and after from Montreal.

The buildings we're talking about are definitely in better shape than most of the ones in that thread...just looking at those example right now I'm getting pissed off. Turning away bad projects and insisting on better heritage protection hasn't run business out of those town. Why can't we get that kind of smart, sensitive, intelligent development? Why do we get Danny Chedrawe? (Yeah, I know every city has bad developers, and we have some good ones. But still.)

Oh yeah, and Someone123 is right on that "legitimate heritage preservation has been derailed by people who use it as a pretext for preventing new construction." I'm not kidding when I say that someone needs to run the Heritage Trust out of town and start a real heritage-advocacy group.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by sdm

Financial incentives do work, but more recently look at the Waterside project in that no incentives were given and the developer still went ahead with the project.

Sometimes developers' requirements align with what's best for the city. When they don't, a careful balance between the public good and private property rights is required.

I think the situation is too polarized on both ends in Halifax. On the one hand you have the dogmatic property rights people, and other people like some of the CBC forum commentators who seem to think that everything is up to the "public" (which usually means them personally for some reason!). Neither one of these perspectives is a viable way to run a city.

In reality there is no such thing as 100% property ownership, but the city needs to be careful to respect owners out of a sense of fairness and because the owners' investment is essential for the city to function. The easiest way to do this is to craft incentives ahead of time so that developers and the public want the same thing.

[RyeJay]

delete.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

For something like BMO the important features are mostly on the outside, and the building's only a couple of storeys tall, so a developer could redevelop it with 90% new construction while preserving most of what people care about. With a good design it would be possible for the new building to be much better than what's currently there -- the heritage parts would still be 90% there but there'd be more space and amenities for businesses and residents, more taxes for the city, etc.

I understand your point of view. But I don't understand the attachment some people have towards certain things. I think the BMO building is sort of interesting even though it is a pretty bad building functionally and is looking pretty tired with the eyesore of a touristy shack built on an ill-conceived wood deck:



https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl...KsMU1upDs7AdHT1LLTssJA&cbp=12,35.45,,0,0


Contrast that with the last render I found of what was proposed and I know what I would take in a split-second - this (view is from the corner of Queen and Doyle):




I'm not sure why someone would want to compromise a design for the sake of preserving some rather dull-looking facades. When you do that you end up with something like this:



Ugh.