General Updates and News

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

As an aside, it's kind of lame that Metlej is tearing down the last South Street building that survived the fire.

Too bad he could not get ahold of the old yellow building on the corner of Barrington at the same time. I'd love to see the whole block redeveloped.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

1 - it includes the train station, which is a heritage site of note

2 - to send a statement to management at HRM that they need to get the Barrington South conservation district done, rather than making excuses. What DRC said was "this should not be allowed as council put the 45' height in place UNTILL the district was completed".

They have a point about staff getting the job done, though the train station has Federal protection so it should be okay.

Being a planner in another City, I do have to come to the defense of staff on this one. I realize it's frustrating that it's taking a while, but I give you the example of the situation Calgary is in for context.

We have somewhere around 40 different policy documents throughout the city, not including our new Municipal Development Plan and some other 'non-statutory policies' like the Infill Housing Guidelines. Most of these 40 policy documents are 20+ years old. Assuming 2 years to redo them all, that's a long time. That is on top of the policy documents being created now and the recently created ones that require mandatory 5 year updates (like the Hillhurst/Sunnyside TOD Plan and 16 Avenue TransCanada Corridor Plan).

The reality is that development doesn't stop while administrations struggle to get work done. It also doesn't help when requests to get resources are turned down and the department told to live within what it has, because you have to look at workloads holistically and not just based on one project (why wasn't that project done??). We have our work plans approved by council, but in a typical year we have about a dozen notices of motion that add to that work plan, which further takes away resources. Considering this is an election year in Calgary, we aren't even at the summer and last count was 10 NOM - so we'll have even more work than before...

I don't think the problem gets solved simply by throwing more money into the pot and adding more people though. We have to plan smarter with our policy documents and the Regional Centre plan is a great example of trying to do that. It will eliminate the Halifax and Dartmouth Plans and merge them into one document - we need to do more of that because it is more efficient. Consider the resources which we have here in Calgary to deal with planning and policy work - and we struggle. So it's not just HRM and I suspect the issue is only going to get worse before it gets better, due to the pressures from growth for the next decade.

[essaysmith]

I'd like to see a redevelopment as much as the next guy, but that old yellow building is really quite a nice classical looking building and I would hate to see it gone. They were just selling it for $3.4M like a month ago too, but withdrew it from the market.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by essaysmith

I'd like to see a redevelopment as much as the next guy, but that old yellow building is really quite a nice classical looking building and I would hate to see it gone. They were just selling it for $3.4M like a month ago too, but withdrew it from the market.

Agreed. It's one of the very few biggish 19th-century apartment structures in the city, too. It's not a registered heritage property, which I believe means that council can't refuse a proposal to demolish it. (Which is silly. In Ontario and B.C., at least, city councils can vote to designate a building historical even in the face of a demolition application, and that happens sometimes. But that's impossible with HRM's owner-initiated heritage designations.)

But who knows what the owner plans to do with it. It's not under the proposed height increase area, so nothing taller can be built there anyway. Maybe the plan is to keep it as is, or refurbish it into luxe condos, which, given the location, would probably be a great medium-term strategy.

Anyway, regarding ILove's comment: The path to urban revitalization is not to destroy everything that looks a bit worn-out. We tried that, and whoa, boy, it didn't work. People like the old stuff, and example after example proves that market forces respond to that. Didn't we have this back-and-forth already? I think so!

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Agreed. It's one of the very few biggish 19th-century apartment structures in the city, too. It's not a registered heritage property, which I believe means that council can't refuse a proposal to demolish it. (Which is silly. In Ontario and B.C., at least, city councils can vote to designate a building historical even in the face of a demolition application, and that happens sometimes. But that's impossible with HRM's owner-initiated heritage designations.)

But who knows what the owner plans to do with it. It's not under the proposed height increase area, so nothing taller can be built there anyway. Maybe the plan is to keep it as is, or refurbish it into luxe condos, which, given the location, would probably be a great medium-term strategy.

Anyway, regarding ILove's comment: The path to urban revitalization is not to destroy everything that looks a bit worn-out. We tried that, and whoa, boy, it didn't work. People like the old stuff, and example after example proves that market forces respond to that. Didn't we have this back-and-forth already? I think so!

Love this building, but luxury condos is not a medium term strategy. Once condos, it is difficult to redevelop as 2/3 of owners must approve sale/changes. Never an easy task. Also code upgrades - like Victoria Hall on Gottingen - make is difficult to make heritage conversion projects profitable. Don't blame the developer, blame the over-engineered building code.

[hoser111]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

You're right for sure—and that map makes clear how badly the area needs redevelopment. But I think the issue (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the height increase was tied to the creation of the HCD, which still hasn't happened. So I think Mason is saying, let's get them both done, as soon as reasonably possible. (Again, if I'm wrong, correct me.)

Anyway, just a word on conservation districts: they're definitely not stagnant zones, and can actually expedite economic investment. Look at Toronto's conservation districts: 21 of them, and ten more under study, including in high-development areas like Yorkville and Queen West.

As an aside, it's kind of lame that Metlej is tearing down the last South Street building that survived the fire.

A couple of years ago CN was on the street for Expressions of Interest for possible development of the train station and lands adjacent to all of this, and there was some discussion about the Superstore property as well. All speculative but I'm nonetheless curious if this plays into any of this.....

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/28332-rail-wants-develop-halifax-train-station

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Love this building, but luxury condos is not a medium term strategy. Once condos, it is difficult to redevelop as 2/3 of owners must approve sale/changes. Never an easy task. Also code upgrades - like Victoria Hall on Gottingen - make is difficult to make heritage conversion projects profitable. Don't blame the developer, blame the over-engineered building code.

I'm not envisioning redevelopment, just renovation.I wouldn't imagine any redevelopment after such a conversion. It'd be owned homes.

I'm definitely ignorant of building-code stuff, but there's a project planned on Barrington to turn a small 19th century townhouse into a small condo building though, and the old church in Dartmouth last year, and the St. Joseph's convent in the North End was condo-ized some time ago...definitely precedents. Zillions of examples across Canada, for sure. Check this ramshackle old coffin factory in Toronto. This is planned, incorporating the whole old block.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Agreed. It's one of the very few biggish 19th-century apartment structures in the city, too.

This is a recurring theme I guess, but Halifax is far behind the times when it comes to heritage preservation. Like with transit, the dialogue surrounding heritage in Halifax is deeply uninformed and stuck out in left field.

Even if you don't care about heritage, it's clear that the level of land use in the old South End is a disaster. This is a central neighbourhood that could house a lot more people and businesses. It is half parking lots, and the development regime there is such that developers are tearing down existing buildings instead of building on those lots. Clearly something is not right, and a laissez-faire pro-development attitude is not by itself going to fix the situation because many of the problems are the product of perverse incentives created by ill-conceived municipal and provincial rules.

Of course I do also think there is a compelling argument for heritage buildings. There's a lot of value simply in having a mix of buildings, and it is painfully obvious that some people are willing to pay a big premium for nice older buildings with unique character. Halifax has a lot of exceptional buildings, but if it tears them all down it will be left at a distinct economic disadvantage. Quite frankly, if it were to lose all of its character, I'm not sure why people would choose to live there or visit. It would cease to hold the same sort of attraction it holds now for some non-locals, and that would result in a real economic hit.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Anyway, regarding ILove's comment: The path to urban revitalization is not to destroy everything that looks a bit worn-out. We tried that, and whoa, boy, it didn't work. Didn't we have this back-and-forth already? I think so!

Good day Drybrain.
On April 27 you wrote about being pro demolition in the south Barrington area. Let me tell you that those buildings you want to demolish look like palaces compared to all those demolished to build Scotia Sq and Cogswell.
You seem to dismiss Keith's comments re Waverley Inn and section. I feel they were very accurate, and agree with Keith.

Now you tell me 'Didn`t we have his conversation already?' as if I have no right to comment on this thread. My comments were not directed at you, in fact I could care less what you think. I actually discount your thoughts because I don't think you know what you are talking about, but I have not told you how I feel about you as this is an open forum. If you dislike my comments then don't respond and certainly do not be dismissive. Learn some respect for others opinions.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Good day Drybrain.
On April 27 you wrote about being pro demolition in the south Barrington area. Let me tell you that those buildings you want to demolish look like palaces compared to all those demolished to build Scotia Sq and Cogswell.
You seem to dismiss Keith's comments re Waverley Inn and section. I feel they were very accurate, and agree with Keith.

Now you tell me 'Didn`t we have his conversation already?' as if I have no right to comment on this thread. My comments were not directed at you, in fact I could care less what you think. I actually discount your thoughts because I don't think you know what you are talking about, but I have not told you how I feel about you as this is an open forum. If you dislike my comments then don't respond and certainly do not be dismissive. Learn some respect for others opinions.

Oh, lord: The "didn't we have this already" was just to acknowledge that we've trod the same ground before, if anyone else reading it is getting tired of it. (Was a lighthearted comment.)

The Barrington South buildings I mean are the Tim Hortons, the metal-sided warehouses, the Superstore, etc.

It's nice that you agree with Keith, but my point is that both of you seem to want to repeat the failed, destructive policies of the 50-70s. Most cities have moved beyond that, and found much more success with preservation/re-use/infill than demolition. So should Halifax (it already is, a few unfortunately powerful developers aside).

Let's not get into it again though, okay? I think what I think you think what you think...that's alright.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Oh, lord: The "didn't we have this already" was just to acknowledge that we've trod the same ground before, if anyone else reading it is getting tired of it. (Was a lighthearted comment.)

The Barrington South buildings I mean are the Tim Hortons, the metal-sided warehouses, the Superstore, etc.

It's nice that you agree with Keith, but my point is that both of you seem to want to repeat the failed, destructive policies of the 50-70s. Most cities have moved beyond that, and found much more success with preservation/re-use/infill than demolition. So should Halifax (it already is, a few unfortunately powerful developers aside).

Let's not get into it again though, okay? I think what I think you think what you think...that's alright.

What is there to protect when the building already burnt down though?
What if the building you wish to protect structurally cannot support redevelopment or the cost to retool/reuse the building becomes so prohibitive it is cheaper to demolish or retain the facade and build behind it?
Are you prepared to support extension of the heritage grant money to this area to help support retention of buildings?
What if they want to to build an addition onto the building that is more significant that the building being retained?

These are just a few questions I came up with after having one sip of coffee...but you see where I'm going. You say that demolishing is failed policy, but I would also argue that retention is also a failed policy too, because often the cost can be quite prohibitive. So how do we solve that issue when building codes are not in the hands of the city?

[someone123]

I suspect that when the costs of preservation are considered a serious burden it's often because of how other development rules are set up. The squat 4-6 floor "NIMBY specials" are just about the worst case for preservation because of their large footprint and small number of units over which to spread costs. I think point towers would actually work out a lot better in the South End.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

What if the building you wish to protect structurally cannot support redevelopment or the cost to retool/reuse the building becomes so prohibitive it is cheaper to demolish or retain the facade and build behind it?

I follow development issues around the country, and have seen more than enough proof that it's rarely the case, as is so often argued here, that older buildings are structurally inadequate to support new uses. That's just...so disproven, except in the most dire cases. As far as cost, what's cheaper is not always what's better, and urban developers are usually willing to splash out a bit for quality (see the links I posted up above). After all, it's cheaper to build a drywall-and-plywood box than to build an architect-designed structure, but nobody wants to live in a city full of the former.

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Are you prepared to support extension of the heritage grant money to this area to help support retention of buildings?

Yes.

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

What if they want to to build an addition onto the building that is more significant that the building being retained?

That would be fine. I'm not Phil Pacey, after all!

Consider Victoria Hall--retaining and reno-ing the existing building (which I guarantee is totally viable) and putting up a tower, connected to the original building, in the large space to the rear would be the logical thing to do. In most cities, that's almost definitely what would happen.

Same thing could be done on a smaller scale with the Elmwood apartments (the yellow building under discussion). Tear down this unremarkable thing and you have room to put up a four-storey building behind it (and get Barrington frontage besides).

[Empire]

I would like to see the Taj Mahal building renovated and incorporated into a larger project. Yes, a clean site would allow a developer to make more money but there is a lot of value to the community in preserving our Victorian buildings. This building brings a lot of character to the area. The plywood addition shows how little we value buildings like this. If we had a heritage protection policy with teeth, buildings like this would be automatically protected.

Taj Mahal building.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...IhWJI7TVBXTVV7PRew&cbp=12,24.45,,0,-2.74

[someone123]

There was an interesting article about Barrington Street in today's Herald: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1126431-survival-of-the-fittest-in-downtown-halifax

They specifically mention the Green Lantern building. Apparently the owner still intends to restore it but has been having trouble with insurance claims and City Hall. They don't get into a lot of details.

It's frustrating how preventable the problems on Barrington are. The streetscaping should have been done years ago, the Roy tenant was seemingly needlessly kicked out, the province abuses the street somewhat, etc. It probably won't be so bad as some of the new construction finishes up, but for now it is really hard for Barrington to function as a normal retail street because so much of it is out of commission for one reason or another.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

I would like to see the Taj Mahal building renovated and incorporated into a larger project. Yes, a clean site would allow a developer to make more money but there is a lot of value to the community in preserving our Victorian buildings. This building brings a lot of character to the area. The plywood addition shows how little we value buildings like this. If we had a heritage protection policy with teeth, buildings like this would be automatically protected.

Taj Mahal building.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...IhWJI7TVBXTVV7PRew&cbp=12,24.45,,0,-2.74

I see an ugly building with both front and rear additions that were needed to make it work as a restaurant space. If you want to take them off, you don't have viable commercial space any more. You are left with a single-family home, or the shell of one, that would require hugely expensive renovations to make it livable. I do not see any way that could be financially viable.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I see an ugly building with both front and rear additions that were needed to make it work as a restaurant space. If you want to take them off, you don't have viable commercial space any more. You are left with a single-family home, or the shell of one, that would require hugely expensive renovations to make it livable. I do not see any way that could be financially viable.

Funny that this or this or this work as viable commercial/restaurant space. (That first one is split into two restaurants, both of which are huge on the inside.) Clearly someone found a way to make these similar spaces viable.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I see an ugly building with both front and rear additions that were needed to make it work as a restaurant space. If you want to take them off, you don't have viable commercial space any more. You are left with a single-family home, or the shell of one, that would require hugely expensive renovations to make it livable. I do not see any way that could be financially viable.

I know this is a different scale but an entire streetscape was constructed to reflect the structures around Princess Pl. and it seemed to work for the developer. It's the best part of the project as the Armoury Sq. is a very boring ugly building. I like the height and I think it should have been higher but not with that economy design. This is what I don't want to see on South ST. ......an Armoury Sq. without the Princess Pl.

Seems to work here
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...=xsDY3_N8zw46U-_8PJZIiA&cbp=12,46.9,,0,0

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Empire

I know this is a different scale but an entire streetscape was constructed to reflect the structures around Princess Pl. and it seemed to work for the developer. It's the best part of the project as the Armoury Sq. is a very boring ugly building. I like the height and I think it should have been higher but not with that economy design. This is what I don't want to see on South ST. ......an Armoury Sq. without the Princess Pl.

Seems to work here
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.6...=xsDY3_N8zw46U-_8PJZIiA&cbp=12,46.9,,0,0

Actually, I'm not so sure it worked for the developer. Those places took an awfully long time to sell and some on the other side of the complex are still empty.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by planarchy

Love this building, but luxury condos is not a medium term strategy. Once condos, it is difficult to redevelop as 2/3 of owners must approve sale/changes. Never an easy task. Also code upgrades - like Victoria Hall on Gottingen - make is difficult to make heritage conversion projects profitable. Don't blame the developer, blame the over-engineered building code.

I lived in the yellow building for a year before I bought my house in Dartmouth. Picked it deliberately after I had to move out of the old Vic because I love old buildings. It was actually once the Elmwood Hotel and there is still frosted glass with Elmwood written on it on the front door. It's unique and is one of only a few large wooden buildings left (5269 South Street, Victoria Hall and 5673 Cornwallis being the only others I can think of). The owners of Elmwood actually make good rental income off the property and they do minimal maintenance so I presume it's fairly profitable. My understanding is that development isn't really their thing. They're apartment operators who bought this place when property downtown wasn't worth anything. They've actually just finished adding basement apartments.

The issue of course is that Elmwood isn't a heritage building and it doesn't fill the lot. Under a different owner, it could easily be a target for demolition and our heritage rules don't have much in the way of teeth or incentives to stop that. Hopefully it's something that can be addressed. I'm all for allowing greater height next door and on the Superstore block (that just makes sense) but Elmwood is worth saving.

Here's an old pic from the NS archives going back to 1895-1905 when Elmwood was a hotel.