Development Rumours

[Dmajackson]

^Damn you just beat me to it. I heard the same rumour.

Google Streetview

[Dmajackson]

Killam Properties now owns 1335 Hollis Street, a registered heritage building. HRM_by_Design allows for 8-storeys on the lot.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Killam Properties now owns 1335 Hollis Street, a registered heritage building. HRM_by_Design allows for 8-storeys on the lot.

that's a shame, nice old building, looks pretty sturdy

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

that's a shame, nice old building, looks pretty sturdy

I don't imagine the building will be demolished. It's a registered heritage structure and forms part of the area's distinctive streetscape. More likely the large vacant area behind it and to the side will be built up, and the building retained in the front, as per the site potential outlined in the property listing.

(As an aside, when we see a great (and in this case, registered) building we think it about to bite the dust, I wish the local reaction wasn't, "that's too bad, but inevitable" and instead, "that's unnacceptable!")

[JET]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I don't imagine the building will be demolished. It's a registered heritage structure and forms part of the area's distinctive streetscape. More likely the large vacant area behind it and to the side will be built up, and the building retained in the front, as per the site potential outlined in the property listing.

(As an aside, when we see a great (and in this case, registered) building we think it about to bite the dust, I wish the local reaction wasn't, "that's too bad, but inevitable" and instead, "that's unnacceptable!")

Looking at the history of heritage properties in Halifax, I don't know what else to say except that it's unacceptable, and that it's too bad that it's inevitable. The best to hope for is that a facade is used.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

Looking at the history of heritage properties in Halifax, I don't know what else to say except that it's unacceptable, and that it's too bad that it's inevitable. The best to hope for is that a facade is used.

Oh, I don't think it's inevitable in this case. This isn't the same as a financial-district development. I imagine this property will be around for a log time to come. (Don't get me wrong: I'm a bit concerned, but I have a strong feeling it's probably not endangered.)

[IanWatson]

I hope whatever they do with that property is nice, because I live right across from it.

Killam has a lot of crappy properties, but they've also done some nice ones. I have to hope they see some value in maintaining the existing building. I would have no problem with them adding a big extension on the back though.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I hope whatever they do with that property is nice, because I live right across from it.

Killam has a lot of crappy properties, but they've also done some nice ones. I have to hope they see some value in maintaining the existing building. I would have no problem with them adding a big extension on the back though.

This is how crappy and weak heritage laws in Halifax (and Canada generally) are: Despite that it's a listed building on the municipal heritage inventory (which should basically mean "sorry, no demolitions") we're all hoping the developer has good intentions, because so often, when property owners apply to have heritage status rescinded, they succeed.

Still though, this is a pretty obviously an excellent bit of architecture, one of the few of its type remaining, and I have to think Killam will be interested in retaining it as a marquee element of some new development on the rest of the lot.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

This is how crappy and weak heritage laws in Halifax (and Canada generally) are: Despite that it's a listed building on the municipal heritage inventory (which should basically mean "sorry, no demolitions") we're all hoping the developer has good intentions, because so often, when property owners apply to have heritage status rescinded, they succeed.

You don't even need to rescind the heritage status. You can apply to Council (edit: the municipality) for a demolition permit, and if they say no you just have to wait a year and then you're legally free to demolish it anyways.

EDIT: Just went back and looked at the Heritage Property Act. Looks like it's been updated to give a little more protection. If the municipality says no you have to wait three years from the date of application

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Despite that it's a listed building on the municipal heritage inventory (which should basically mean "sorry, no demolitions") we're all hoping the developer has good intentions, because so often, when property owners apply to have heritage status rescinded, they succeed.

Another aspect of this is that there's no tangible benefit to registering a heritage property in most parts of the municipality. All you get is a plaque in exchange for giving a way the ability to quickly demolish the building. The municipality should at least give tax breaks to the owners of heritage buildings.

In this particular case though I'm pretty optimistic that something reasonable will be proposed, and it's a good overall site for infill since most of it is surface parking.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another aspect of this is that there's no tangible benefit to registering a heritage property in most parts of the municipality. All you get is a plaque in exchange for giving a way the ability to quickly demolish the building. The municipality should at least give tax breaks to the owners of heritage buildings.

Definitely, as well as some modest degree of restoration/renovation assistance in certain cases.

[JET]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another aspect of this is that there's no tangible benefit to registering a heritage property in most parts of the municipality. All you get is a plaque in exchange for giving a way the ability to quickly demolish the building. The municipality should at least give tax breaks to the owners of heritage buildings.

In this particular case though I'm pretty optimistic that something reasonable will be proposed, and it's a good overall site for infill since most of it is surface parking.

Owners of heritage properties can apply for a matching grant of up to $10,000 every two years for heritage restoration; you can also apply to have the provincial sales tax waived on supplies/materials.

[someone123]

Ekistics has a bunch of new stuff on their website: http://www.ekistics.net/

One example:



They also mention a report for Cogswell set to be released in a month.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by someone123

Ekistics has a bunch of new stuff on their website: http://www.ekistics.net/

One example:



They also mention a report for Cogswell set to be released in a month.

Great so this is from the paper chase on Blowers st to the maritime hobbies and crafts and taz records on Grafton and spring gradron. I would be in favour of them building this and leaving Blowers street potion out of it

[Empire]

Pizza corner.

[someone123]

Yeah, it's an interesting proposal. Not sure how I feel about it overall. I like that they're keeping the brick buildings along Grafton and building on the corner lot, and I like the contrast between the old and new buildings.

I'm somewhat against tearing down the buildings on Blowers. They are not architectural masterpieces but they form an interesting streetscape. It would be nicer to enhance them somehow and then build new units in behind with a bit of a setback.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

Great so this is from the paper chase on Blowers st to the maritime hobbies and crafts and taz records on Grafton and spring gradron. I would be in favour of them building this and leaving Blowers street potion out of it

Not going to be viable without the Blowers portion.

For a city with height limits, we're too picky about developments like this, where developers are really pushing the boundaries of lot creativity-- stretching between two lots-- to make it economically viable.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yeah, it's an interesting proposal. Not sure how I feel about it overall. I like that they're keeping the brick buildings along Grafton and building on the corner lot, and I like the contrast between the old and new buildings.

I'm somewhat against tearing down the buildings on Blowers. They are not architectural masterpieces but they form an interesting streetscape. It would be nicer to enhance them somehow and then build new units in behind with a bit of a setback.

I like this development a lot.

Reminds me of similar style residential developments in Kensington Market in Toronto, that sort of blend modern buildings with older smaller scale buildings. Allows people to live there, make the streets lively again, while also not intruding too much on the character of the street.

This one nicely settles in behind a number of existing buildings; it's impact on scale and character are minimal. I don't think you need to keep every building on Blowers, for the sake of the "character" of the street.

As I said above, when we have development-hobbling height limits as we do, we need to give more flexibility to developers to make proposals economically viable. Here, they're being very creative, connecting two separate lots into a single development.

I'd live here in a second. Build it.

[counterfactual]

This is from the Cogswell section of the site:



Interesting POV.

It looks almost like Scotia Square is gone, and this nice, bright, windowed, building has replaced that ugly piece of crap.

It looks nice, regardless.

I know Ekistics is to issue a report providing a "technical analysis" of what is possible on the site:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...tion-could-start-within-a-year-1.2535648

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Not going to be viable without the Blowers portion.

For a city with height limits, we're too picky about developments like this, where developers are really pushing the boundaries of lot creativity-- stretching between two lots-- to make it economically viable.

Yeah but the Blowers street portion looks like shite, I wouldn't consider this a improvement on any dilapidated building in the city. I don't see how it adds anything at all to the street scape here, its mostly blank walls and smaller retail space if any. This just looks like a ugly building you would see out in cole harbour from this angle, I can picture under the blowers sign being a dentist office.