General Updates and News

[MPotter]

I am looking for a thread on this development at Duke and Ablemarle. This is the link: http://www.halifaxdevelopments.com/westhill-on-duke.php

Can anyone point me to it?

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by MPotter

I am looking for a thread on this development at Duke and Ablemarle. This is the link: http://www.halifaxdevelopments.com/westhill-on-duke.php

Can anyone point me to it?

Although information has been posted regarding this development, I don't think there is a thread.

I see there is new information including floor plans in the link that you posted.

[Dmajackson]

It's a small project so this is the thread for Westhill on Duke (and its sister project near the Scotia Square food court).

Most of the conversation started around February 2013. General Updates and News - Page #214. Anything else can be found using the "Search This Thread" option on the top right corner of the thread (where your post is now). Just plug in key words like Westhill, Duke, Scotia Square, or Duke Tower.

And welcome to the forum MPotter!

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

It's a small project so this is the thread for Westhill on Duke (and its sister project near the Scotia Square food court).

Most of the conversation started around February 2013. General Updates and News - Page #214. Anything else can be found using the "Search This Thread" option on the top right corner of the thread (where your post is now). Just plug in key words like Westhill, Duke, Scotia Square, or Duke Tower.

And welcome to the forum MPotter!

Here's the Westhill info, for those who are Page Search Challenged: http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/documents/130214drcWesthill.PDF

[ns_kid]

One aspect of the Westhill project that perplexes me is that, based on my review of the site plans, the project does not appear to incorporate the crumbling exterior courtyard/stairway that now separates the Albemarle offfice structure from the Scotia Square parkade.

If you've been in this area you know that for years the courtyard has been wasted space, largely blocked off to public access, with heaved and broken concrete. I had hoped Westhill might have filled in this area but that is not reflected by the site plans. Nor do I see any mention of any repair or redevelopment of the area.

I have sent a note to Crombie asking if they can shed any light on this question. Is anyone else aware? It seems unthinkable that the developer would proceed with an attractive upgrade to the Albemarle streetscape and leave this eyesore of a courtyard unimproved.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

One aspect of the Westhill project that perplexes me is that, based on my review of the site plans, the project does not appear to incorporate the crumbling exterior courtyard/stairway that now separates the Albemarle offfice structure from the Scotia Square parkade.

If you've been in this area you know that for years the courtyard has been wasted space, largely blocked off to public access, with heaved and broken concrete. I had hoped Westhill might have filled in this area but that is not reflected by the site plans. Nor do I see any mention of any repair or redevelopment of the area.

I have sent a note to Crombie asking if they can shed any light on this question. Is anyone else aware? It seems unthinkable that the developer would proceed with an attractive upgrade to the Albemarle streetscape and leave this eyesore of a courtyard unimproved.

Agree. Also, while an improvement, still doesn't do anything to address the overall problem with Scotia Square, which is its poor interaction with the street. I think it's folly to think that having some kind of street level retail will prevent people from actually entering the mall itself. On the contrary, a more attractive exterior, with business space, will attract more food traffic overall.

[Nilan8888]

Given that many of those buildings are privately owned and many date back to the early 1800's, and are very well maintained, it is surprising that you see it as an area for development and not worth saving; those 3 blocks are quite unique in Halifax.

Entirely agreed. Nilaan's argument is like saying Corktown in Toronto should just be redeveloped 'cause it's nearly adjacent to the financial district, and they could put towers there instead. Could. Don't have to. The mistake here (I think) is talking about heritage as being about individual important buildings worth saving. Individually, the houses in the area are attractive but not super significant. The value is actually in the abundance of them, all in one place.

In any case, the buildings are in great shape and are owned mostly by individual homeowners with a vested in interest in keeping them around, so I doubt they're in any danger, conservation district or not.

Several points:

1. I did not say that the entirety of Schmidtville should be torn down, but I did question the need for the entirety of the community to remain.

2. Part of the reason I hold this opinion is because I personally believe 'Schmidtville' to be a term that very well might have been coined no earlier than 2004-2005, despite the age of the buildings within the community. If it did exist beforehand, it probably was mostly unknown to people that lived outside the community. I'm not partial to heritage districts being declared for regions labelled with a term that's barely 10 years old.

3. Another reason I hold this opinion is that while the buildings may be older (and thus worth saving in the individual, as stated) the community in general isn't terribly different from elsewhere on the peninsula. Do the houses here really look terribly different than if you just walked down to the south end of South Park? Because it doesn't look distinctive is part of the reason it probably hasn't been considered by many as all that separate.

4. Although Corktown is kinda-sorta the same relative distance from the financial district in Toronto-Halifax terms, the proportional sizes are WAY off. Schmidtville is only 3 small blocks, but those 3 blocks mean a heck of a lot more in Halifax than Corcktown's larger size means in Toronto, especially when it's a bit uncertain where Downtown would expand. Toronto's downtown is not flanked by areas that are not going anywhere and are just about the size of said entire downtown: The Citadel and Commons block westward expansion, and the Cogswell interchange blocks movement to the north. Sure, we're looking at remedying that by re-developing the interchange and changing up Gottigen, but that's going to take a long time. Heritage districts on the south side of downtown that are the size of 3 blocks? Toronto has the space for that and much more. Halifax? Not so much. Heritage districts are nice to have, but I think Schmidtville is just too big considering how close it is, and Halifax's downtown too small. I realize that the more south-end houses are a victorian style that isn't as old as it looks and dates back closer to the 30s and 40s, but generally the neighborhood looks nicer and is a better distance (not all that much further, but I think South Park and South street are a more natural border than Clyde and Morris streets, what with Victoria Park, Holy Cross Cemetery and the VG cordoning it off. I'd see more value in saving the Lucknow/Tower Rd. area. Maybe not quite as old on the whole, but set further back and heck, I'll just say it: it looks nicer.

[JET]

[QUOTE=Nilan8888;6392451]Several points:

1. I did not say that the entirety of Schmidtville should be torn down, but I did question the need for the entirety of the community to remain.

"I'm sure there's the odd building worth saving in 'Schmidtville', but that entire area is precisely where Downtown will probably have to grow in the long term, and I don't see what's worth saving about the entire district."

and I misread you how?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

There's value to the neighbourhood as a whole, but even setting that aside there are some exceptional buildings in Schmidtville. It's worth exploring. For example, there's a group of cottages from the late 1700's/early 1800's built into the block in an unusual way. There's also an old carriageworks building with a porte-cochère built into the facade. There used to be a lot of those in Halifax but they are mostly gone now.

Morris Street has a bunch of large houses with granite foundations from around 1800. Queen Street has lots of nice houses too. It really is a pretty nice collection, and it is fairly unique in Canada.

The same thing goes for the southern part of Barrington. There are not a lot of Henry House type buildings in Halifax or even in all of Canada.

Where are those cottages, Someone? Do you mean the smaller semi-detached houses, like those on Wright?

I'm fine with recognizing Schmidtville as a heritage district. Perhaps, this city can spend a few dollars and actually put up some signage so that local people can understand a little bit more about the history.

HOWEVER, I would NOT support such a "heritage" designation if there is any chance for it to be used as a means to deter further development and densification around SGR, which is among the city's most successful focuses for re-development.

Case in point, were the usual NIMBY complaints about the underwhelming 9 storey post-bonus height of the Mary Ann proposal:

"Schmidtville neighbours object to proposed new building"

http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/arch...ighbours-object-to-proposed-new-building

If this is the true aim behind this "heritage conservation" move, let's kill it now, in double time, please.

Heritage in this city has for too long been about stopping development rather than supporting common sense initiatives to help preserve actual living and common memory, including basic historical knowledge, of the city. Signage, information sites, etc, could all be used to greater effect all over the city.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nilan8888

Several points:

Although Corktown is kinda-sorta the same relative distance from the financial district in Toronto-Halifax terms, the proportional sizes are WAY off. Schmidtville is only 3 small blocks, but those 3 blocks mean a heck of a lot more in Halifax than Corcktown's larger size means in Toronto, especially when it's a bit uncertain where Downtown would expand. Toronto's downtown is not flanked by areas that are not going anywhere and are just about the size of said entire downtown: The Citadel and Commons block westward expansion, and the Cogswell interchange blocks movement to the north. Sure, we're looking at remedying that by re-developing the interchange and changing up Gottigen, but that's going to take a long time. Heritage districts on the south side of downtown that are the size of 3 blocks? Toronto has the space for that and much more. Halifax? Not so much.

I see what you're saying, but I'm unsure that downtown is going to do a lot of growing outward in coming decades. There's still loads of development room in the existing downtown-ish area: the waterfront, empty lots along Water Street and even further north, the Cogswell lands, and, let's not forget, downtown Dartmouth, which is full of empty and develop-able land. I think the financial district/downtown area as currently defined is going to remain basically within its current borders: basically, between the harbour and Citadel, SGR to Cogswell. (Lower Water would be an exception, with a lot of building potential down to Marginal Road. Also, virtually everything between Duke, Cogswell, Rainnie and Barrington can be demolished and redeveloped to a higher density, as far as I'm concerned, with the exception of the Citadel Hotel.)

But I don't see office towers plunking down on, say, Clyde Street for a very long time. More likely we'll see a growing up of the current downtown, and nodes of intensification elsewhere.

I'm just thinking of a place like Calgary, where the office district has barely expanded its boundaries in 25 years. Adjacent residential neighbourhoods are still residential, and most of the intensification is infill and upward. Even in Toronto, as soon as you cross west of University Avenue, the "downtown" just stops, abruptly, as it has for decades. The neighbourhoods (and various heritage conservation districts) begin. The only exception is the South Core office area, which has started seeing a lot of development--but this is almost analogous to Dartmouth's waterfront potential, and it took decades of constant robust growth for developers to start looking at those lands.

Anyway, it's academic--as was mentioned, Schmidtville is largely a homeowner-occupied residential neighbourhood. Commercial or downtown-ish development isn't even on the radar there.

[Nilan8888]

and I misread you how?

I didn't say you misread me. I was re-iterating the point.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Where are those cottages, Someone? Do you mean the smaller semi-detached houses, like those on Wright?

I'm even thinking of an important and attractive streetscape like this.

I know some people see that and think "skyscrapers!" but even in Toronto, a city we often look to as a reference point, the inner-city main streets still have lots of similar stretches.

It's important to maintain these blocks to keep that architectural link to the past and promote a sense of aesthetic diversity. (If there were no other sites for growth I'd suggest otherwise, but boy howdy, are there ever other sites for growth.)

[Nilan8888]

I'm just thinking of a place like Calgary, where the office district has barely expanded its boundaries in 25 years. Adjacent residential neighbourhoods are still residential, and most of the intensification is infill and upward. Even in Toronto, as soon as you cross west of University Avenue, the "downtown" just stops, abruptly, as it has for decades. The neighbourhoods (and various heritage conservation districts) begin. The only exception is the South Core office area, which has started seeing a lot of development--but this is almost analogous to Dartmouth's waterfront potential, and it took decades of constant robust growth for developers to start looking at those lands.

I'm not certain about Calgary, but this is not precisely true in Toronto. True, most of the downtown is by far west of University. But there are very large towers (commerical and/or residential... I'm not saying the towers theoretically built in Schmidtville would be office towers, after all) on the west side. The TIFF Bell Lightbox tower that has been completed is a fair walk west (they started that somewhere in 2006-2007), and that is pretty tall even in Toronto terms. There's a couple of others like that as well (although not as tall as TIFF). So when you're down around the King Street area and moving through the entertainment district, there's actually large towers going up west of Uni. Most are condos, but that's life in T.O.

[Keith P.]

If you examine the 3 blocks that comprise Schmidtville, the majority of the interior buildings are nice enough - there are some that have been redone with unfortunate things like octagon windows but generally they are OK. But the ones on the perimeter, excepting those facing Park Vic on the south end of Brenton, are all pretty shabby. The south side of Clyde is pretty awful for the most part, the north side of Morris is largely run-down student housing plus Mr. Chang`s resto, and the west side of Queen is hit and miss but has that ugly commercial building across from Altantic News on the corner of Morris. A lot of these could or should be knocked down for redevelopment. I fear that the planning restrictions the Friends want would severely limit what could be done with these sites, to the point where nobody will ever want to invest and lead to continuation of the ugly status quo.

[Nilan8888]

I should also say I'm more partial to a heritage district in south Barrington.

I mean, if they ever demolish the Henry House, there should be hell to pay.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'm even thinking of an important and attractive streetscape like this.

I know some people see that and think "skyscrapers!" but even in Toronto, a city we often look to as a reference point, the inner-city main streets still have lots of similar stretches.

It's important to maintain these blocks to keep that architectural link to the past and promote a sense of aesthetic diversity. (If there were no other sites for growth I'd suggest otherwise, but boy howdy, are there ever other sites for growth.)

I don't mind the *idea* of that streetscape, but in reality, a lot of those houses are looking pretty shabby and run down. I'd say more than half could use a new paint job, and that's what we can see.

I would guess that most of those houses are old rentals primarily occupied by students, and thus probably pretty run down internally as well.

If our city's overall aim is to bring more people downtown to live, ending sprawl, I can't see these places appealing to families or young professionals.

Thus, I think it's short sighted to "designate" this space for heritage purposes, because I think inevitably it'll have an overall deterrent effect on development on many of the better sites, including those you've flagged in your post.

I think the Mary Ann site is case in point. They're trying to develop a parking lot, and you have the "Friends of Schmidtville" trying to stop this modest low-rise proposal with the usual NIMBY concerns. Heritage designation will just give them a new tool to batter legitimate development on parking lots and other barren sites in and around SGR.

It'll be like 1990-2012 allover again. You would think with these changes in the works, that there were a scourge of developers running rampant all over downtown, smashing down heritage properties and the like!

Seriously, with all of the problems and challenges that we have in downtown Halifax, *this* is what HRM planners are working on?

How about those clowns implement one of the hundred "plans" HRM has approved to improve downtown? Like beautifying the rest of Spring Garden (including tree planting, wider sidewalks, buried power lines)? The Grand Parade and Province House and streetscape redesign? How about the Duke/George Street streetscape corridor plans specified within HRMxDesign? Where's the Regional Plan? Where the hell is the Central Plan?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I don't mind the *idea* of that streetscape, but in reality, a lot of those houses are looking pretty shabby and run down. I'd say more than half could use a new paint job, and that's what we can see.

I would guess that most of those houses are old rentals primarily occupied by students, and thus probably pretty run down internally as well.

If our city's overall aim is to bring more people downtown to live, ending sprawl, I can't see these places appealing to families or young professionals.

The ones closest to Morris look a bit rundown, but not in a major way. Some are already designated, and the one at 1354 is pretty gorgeous in and out.

Seriously, these kinds of restore-able heritage properties are exactly what a large crop of young professionals are looking for. Some people want a spacey modern condo, but (yet again, from my TO perspective), the ultimate goal for a huge chunk of that demographic is a detached or semi-detached urban house--the "forever house", if you will. These buildings are SUPER desirable from a real-estate perspective, even if some are rundown.

All that said, I think the more likely route for Queen Street to take is for these properties to be slowly converted to commercial uses. It's already a traffic thoroughfare, and as an extension of SGR, I bet these will eventually be turned into storefronts, like the old houses on south Barrington. (I wouldn't really want to live facing Queen Street right around there.)

I agree with the rest of your post, however. The Schmidtville opposition to the Mary Ann condo is absurd. Their neighbourhood is way too central to be home to that kind of NIMBYism. As usual, the loudest heritage advocates tend to be less focused on conserving worthy buildings and more concerned with thwarting development, for God knows what reason.

[counterfactual]

One of the lingering questions I have about this whole "heritage conservation designation" debate is the history behind the claims. So I decided to do some digging.

I have no references to "Schmidtville" on Google Books NGram viewer [url]https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Schmidtville&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2012&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=[/url (by comparison, there are references to "Africville" on NGram Viewer dating back to the turn of the 20th century).

On a basic Google Books search about "Schmidtville" +Halifax, I found basically a handful of references, to "schmidtville" but also saw one to "Schmidt Town". here is what I was able to find:

Clyde Street, formerly known as Rottenburg Street, ran directly through what was then the heart of "Schmidtville", named after its developer Charles Schmidt (1805-1874).

Source: http://books.google.ca/books?id=lIRv_HNK...Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=schmidtville&f=false

This 1930s article suggests Schmidtville was bounded by Spring Garden to the north, Morris Street to the South, Queen to the East and South Park to the West:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=zcMhAQAA...=X&ei=ISrHUuzFHoz8yAH9toGADA&redir_esc=y

Two points: the broader area we are today calling "Schmidtville" actually had an older name: Pedley's Fields, named after James Pedley (d 1807) the "master armerour" for Halifax for 46 years. One of Pedley's daughters married one Captain Schmidt (1754-1828), of the Royal Artillery, during the American Revolution.

However, Schmidtville is not named after him. It's named after his son, a lawyer, named Charles E.W. Schmidt (1805-1874), who developed the area.

Link: http://books.google.ca/books?id=lIRv_HNK...onepage&q=schmidtville%20halifax&f=false

In other words, the term "Schmidtville" can't be older than the mid 19th Century, seeing as how that is when Schmidt, grandson of the Pedley's would have played a role in developing the area.

Moreover, judging by this 1911 snippet in the NS Historical archives, it seems that the term was already following out of use by the late 19th and early 20th's century:

"Schmidtville-- a name which many inhabitants of Halifax, not much past middle age, were accustomed to hear constantly until the last twenty five years. In the course of time the inheritors of this property determined for certain reasons to sell it. The land was laid out in lots with streets running through them, and in honor of their ancestors the heirs called one street Birmingham because Mr. Pedley — one of the ancestors of the family — was born in Birmingham, England." [emphasis mine]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=z1IzAQAA...3jDHUsvDNIifyQHXhIHICw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBDhQ

So, by 1947, local residents demanded renaming the central street in "Schmidtville" that being, Rottenburg Street to Clyde Street, after the "Scottish firth" (Rottenburg was originally named for the birthplace of family patriarch Captain Schmidt).

http://books.google.ca/books?id=lIRv_HNK...onepage&q=schmidtville%20halifax&f=false

So, the earlier historical name for the area seems to be "Pedley's Fields". Somehow, I'm guessing "Friends of Pedley's Fields" doesn't have the same ring to it?

But: Let's get the history right.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'm just thinking of a place like Calgary, where the office district has barely expanded its boundaries in 25 years. Adjacent residential neighbourhoods are still residential, and most of the intensification is infill and upward. Even in Toronto, as soon as you cross west of University Avenue, the "downtown" just stops, abruptly, as it has for decades. The neighbourhoods (and various heritage conservation districts) begin. The only exception is the South Core office area, which has started seeing a lot of development--but this is almost analogous to Dartmouth's waterfront potential, and it took decades of constant robust growth for developers to start looking at those lands.

That's not exactly correct - given that I've been working in the Planning Department here in Calgary for over 6 years. Calgary's DT is quite well defined, there is the typical office core (which is 9 St on the West Side, 3 Avenue on the north; 3rd Street (SE) on the East side and CPR tracks behind 9 avenue as the south defining line). But just to the north east (up to the river) is also the communities of Chinatown and in the north west side (to the river) is Eau Claire. Then there is the Downtown West End Community and the East Village.

Eau Claire was mostly industrial, while Chinatown was commercial/industrial. When the industrial moved out and residential moved in. Eau Claire has all high density residential and migrating to be more mixed use (including office). Shaw Court is in the community of Eau Claire and that is resoundingly office, as is Centennial Place, the Canterra Tower and the soon to be 3EC place (hotel, residential and office).

The office core has changed over time, it hasn't been the same. The Suncore Tower was done in the last 10 years, as was the second Bankers Hall. The recent addition of the Bow, with the Brookfield Centre site, Telus Sky and a few other new office towers under review will change the office core dramatically. Also, the recent addition of Eight Avenue Place also increased the amount of office space in the 'office core'. But a good number of small office buildings are starting to crop up in the Beltline (South of the CPR Tracks) and are going up along 10 Avenue - so where office is going, is not sticking to just the 'office core'. The policies for Eau Claire and the Beltline (along 10 Avenue) actually encouraged this - where we are starting to see more desire for mixed use in the 'office core'. So that clear definition is starting to change (Telus Sky and Brookfield being two applications I can name off the top of my head).

Of course the East Village is going through a complete redevelopment with new mixed use buildings, a new hotel and our new library will all be located there (in addition to the Cantos Music Centre). The West Village hasn't had much uptake yet, but there are applications in and with the new LRT station because of the West Leg, I suspect it will take off soon.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The ones closest to Morris look a bit rundown, but not in a major way. Some are already designated, and the one at 1354 is pretty gorgeous in and out.

Seriously, these kinds of restore-able heritage properties are exactly what a large crop of young professionals are looking for. Some people want a spacey modern condo, but (yet again, from my TO perspective), the ultimate goal for a huge chunk of that demographic is a detached or semi-detached urban house--the "forever house", if you will. These buildings are SUPER desirable from a real-estate perspective, even if some are rundown.

All that said, I think the more likely route for Queen Street to take is for these properties to be slowly converted to commercial uses. It's already a traffic thoroughfare, and as an extension of SGR, I bet these will eventually be turned into storefronts, like the old houses on south Barrington. (I wouldn't really want to live facing Queen Street right around there.)

I agree with the rest of your post, however. The Schmidtville opposition to the Mary Ann condo is absurd. Their neighbourhood is way too central to be home to that kind of NIMBYism. As usual, the loudest heritage advocates tend to be less focused on conserving worthy buildings and more concerned with thwarting development, for God knows what reason.

I actually agree, that townhouse / semi-detached style of residence are definitely very attractive to young professionals, etc, in downtown core. My whole beef with these residences in particular, is that these would have to be seriously up-graded and restored to reach that level of appeal. Looks to me like most of these are owned by absentee landlords who obviously aren't willing to sink a penny to re-finish or even maintain them. Instead, they'll sit, rented by students, and continue to deteriorate.

I hope I'm wrong.