Development Rumours

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

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.

I agree it's not perfect; there could be improvements, like more shop front space and better interaction with the street. But you should go to the website and look at the other angles. This is probably the worst angle; it's the only one, however, that gives the connecting view.

But let's not kid ourselves, this makes a huge contribution to the area. It replaces a useless ground level parking lot (by the church) with a new major residential development, with street level retail, that feeds a struggling street (Blowers), and two other important ones (Grafton, Barrington) with much needed density infill.

Have you been to Cole Harbour lately? I can assure there is nothing out there like this. If this were a strip mall, a gas station, a car dealership, a split entry family home, or a hockey rink, which is pretty much Cole Harbour in line, then maybe I'd agree with you.

To me, this looks like a contemporary condo residential development. It adds to the street by bringing some fricking people there, so pizza corner and surrounding, isn't so dead on nights other than Saturday and Sunday in the middle of the summer.

Seriously, I think we can spare a shop front or two on Blowers street-- several of which have been boarded up now for years due to businesses failing due to lack of people living down there-- in order to bring more residential and density to the entire neighbourhood, including Barrington Street just below.

This development + Sackville development + The Roy + Bank of Canada would make a significant difference.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by 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

This looks like where the International place is meant to be built

[fenwick16]

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.

I like this proposal, especially since most of the construction would cover surface parking lots and add residential units in the downtown core in a terrific location bounded by Grafton, Blowers, Spring Garden and Barrington streets - http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rf6pxm9q1zjv&lvl=19.25&dir=358.97&sty=b&form=LMLTCC

The image below, from the ekistics link - http://www.ekistics.net/architecture.html, is the corner of Spring Garden Road and Grafton Street, which seems like a prime location for people who would like to live in the downtown core. I don't think the street address is correct though (1508 Spring Garden Road?).

[Dmajackson]

^Grafton Street starts at 1500 so it might be the civic address. The rendering looks quite good.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by 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

It seems to be from perspective of the Marriott with buildings blocking the Scotia Square - https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.650786,-6...3m4!1e1!3m2!1sx7oss3zIu0DWz8EiXaqYfQ!2e0 (in this vicinity). It will be interesting to see the street grid layout that they propose.

I think that high density residential has the highest probability of attracting a potential developer to offset the cost of tearing down the Cogswell Interchange.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I like this proposal, especially since most of the construction would cover surface parking lots and add residential units in the downtown core in a terrific location bounded by Grafton, Blowers, Spring Garden and Barrington streets - http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rf6pxm9q1zjv&lvl=19.25&dir=358.97&sty=b&form=LMLTCC

The image below, from the ekistics link - http://www.ekistics.net/architecture.html, is the corner of Spring Garden Road and Grafton Street, which seems like a prime location for people who would like to live in the downtown core. I don't think the street address is correct though (1508 Spring Garden Road?).

Exactly. 100% agree.

One possible suggested amendment, might be moving the parking garage entry from Blowers to Spring Garden. Hmm. I'm not sure which one works better, but given Spring Garden is the much more busy street, car wise, makes more sense to have car entry from there. This is consistent with future possibility of making Argyle and maybe Blowers pedestrian only.

[someone123]

Here's another little tidbit. Rendering of 1991 development for Birks site (Barrington and George): https://twitter.com/skaeubler/status/365441385060515842/photo/1

It looks okay. Too bad it wasn't built. The province really should either build on this site or sell it to somebody who will.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here's another little tidbit. Rendering of 1991 development for Birks site (Barrington and George): https://twitter.com/skaeubler/status/365441385060515842/photo/1

It looks okay. Too bad it wasn't built. The province really should either build on this site or sell it to somebody who will.

I'm 100% cretin this is still coming down the pipe, its just moving very slowly with the provincial government. I saw a outlife for this just last week but I can't find the link anymore it was in the http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/GPPHfinalReportDecember2006.pdf

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

I'm 100% cretin this is still coming down the pipe, its just moving very slowly with the provincial government. I saw a outlife for this just last week but I can't find the link anymore it was in the http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/GPPHfinalReportDecember2006.pdf

Local Liberal MPs are aware of that plan. Not sure if they will act.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here's another little tidbit. Rendering of 1991 development for Birks site (Barrington and George): https://twitter.com/skaeubler/status/365441385060515842/photo/1

It looks okay. Too bad it wasn't built. The province really should either build on this site or sell it to somebody who will.

My understanding that a plan for the Dennis and Birk site were to be presented to cabinet before the last provincial election. Well, that was shelved because there's a new government. The Capital District Plan, cited by xanxaxax above, includes its own proposals for the Birk site.

I wish the Provincial Liberals would act on this. They know about, I understand there was some interest, but it has somehow evaporated. I'm betting they aren't acting on it, as usual, because of politics. Can't be seen to invest millions in downtown Halifax when rest of the province is struggling. Seriously, I loathe politics in this province. It doesn't matter who is in power-- NDP, Tory, Liberal-- none of them get it. None of them realize that Halifax is the future of the economy in this province, or if they do, they don't show it in policy. Other Canadian provinces with higher rates of urbanization and investment in urban growth, density planning, R&D, human capital, etc-- which is *most* Canadian province esp in the West-- they've seen important economic growth and spin-off benefits for rural populations. Similarly, rural populations in NS will stabilize and benefit from Halifax's success. If we are willing to invest in it.

The Liberals actually know this, but I'm not convinced they have the backbone to make that case. Nova Scotia has been hit hard by bad economic luck, out-migration, but it's been more ill-served by failed leaders, election after election. And then our leaders don't even have the backbone to propose better rural economic growth strategies like urbanization to regional centers (say, Halifax, Sydney, Bridgewater, etc) as well as opening up other previously foreclosed growth opportunities. We complain on here about NIMBYs in Halifax, well they are nothing like the NIMBYs you'll find in rural Nova Scotia (I know... it's where I grew up...). Nova Scotia is mineral rich but based on that rural NIMBYism, we ban the kind of resource-based industry that actually contributes big time to economic growth in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

</rant>

[Waye Mason]

I don't think the province will ever act. It is complicated, between HRMbD, the heritage elements, the adjacent properties. I hope they sell the property, I know 4 private developers that would buy it in a heartbeat, and 3 of them would keep the Dennis building in some fashion, not because they were forced to but because they feel it has value.

[fenwick16]

Although I want to see the Dennis building preserved, it would probably be a decision based on heritage preservation not economic practicality. It isn't uncommon to see such old, compromised buildings to be abandoned in cities and towns all over North America (or torn down and new buildings constructed).

Not too much is known about the seriousness of the mold and water infiltration problems, however, some developer might be interested in a purchase and restoration agreement in order to obtain the accompanying lots.

Here is a story from the CBC news (from Aug 7th, 2013 during the NDP period) describing the deficiencies.

(source and full story at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/is-the-mouldy-dennis-building-worth-saving-1.1359543)

Is the mouldy Dennis building worth saving?
CBC News Posted: Aug 07, 2013 9:16 PM AT Last Updated: Aug 07, 2013 10:57 PM AT

.
.
.
The mould problem is contained, but the building has no insulation

"The mechanicals, the elevators, the exterior of the building, the interior walls, as you've seen there's no ventilation system here, no air conditioning. Very hot and stuffy on the upper floors. If we were to modernize the building so to speak or do something else we would need to think about all of that," said Paul LaFleche, the deputy minister in charge of the building’s repair.
.
.
.

[Drybrain]

Given the Dennis' age, aesthetic value, grand presence in the downtown, the historical events and people associated with it, and the fact that it's provincially owned, it's almost bizarre it's not heritage-designated.

I honestly can't imagine a building of this size and importance being considered for demolition (at least not total demolition) anywhere but Halifax, where the heritage lobby has been an obstacle for so long that "heritage" is now seen as an impediment to progress, leading to a perverse situation where the most aggressively pro-development folks are almost anti-heritage.

I also can't imagine that CBC story being written anywhere else. The problems with the building (lack of modern amenities, basically) were a problem for any old building renovated. The provinces has simply not invested in the property. There are countless examples of structures in far, far, far worse shape being rehabilitated to great benefit for their surrounding communities, from small towns to big cities. Demolition is not an option.

Preservation might cost more money up front than demolition, but the slow whittling away of the city's historical character--or in this case, taking a giant wedge out of it--does negatively impact how residents and visitors feel about the city. (Which does have long-term economic effects.) I can hardly imagine a replacement for the Dennis that would be as impressive. Taller, maybe, better, probably not. If they're going to let it get slowly worse, they should sell it off to a developer who plans to restore it and incorporate it into a new project (as more than a couple of facaded walls, hopefully--at least maintaining the shell and profile of it, and connecting to structures to the south and west sides).

ANYWAY, nice renderings on that Grafton/Blowers block. Great historical/contemporary blend. (In fact, a larger-scale version of that at the Dennis site would be ideal.)

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I don't think the province will ever act. It is complicated, between HRMbD, the heritage elements, the adjacent properties. I hope they sell the property, I know 4 private developers that would buy it in a heartbeat, and 3 of them would keep the Dennis building in some fashion, not because they were forced to but because they feel it has value.

Waye, have you ever connected with Liberal MLAs or officials about the capital district public lands plan? What did they say? They showed interest and then demurred? Or just shrugged?

If the Liberals are not moving, then yes, for God sakes, get them to sell the damn property and get rid of that stupid surface parking lot on our main street. Would love to see a development that incorporates the Dennis too.

Indecision and foot dragging government after government, year after year. I'm tired of the whole lot of them.

My worst thought? Part of the footdragging is that provincial government officials and MLAs want to keep that parking lot for themselves.

It's like the parking at Grand Parade for councillers. Took like 20years to end it because of Council self-interest.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Given the Dennis' age, aesthetic value, grand presence in the downtown, the historical events and people associated with it, and the fact that it's provincially owned, it's almost bizarre it's not heritage-designated.

I honestly can't imagine a building of this size and importance being considered for demolition (at least not total demolition) anywhere but Halifax, where the heritage lobby has been an obstacle for so long that "heritage" is now seen as an impediment to progress, leading to a perverse situation where the most aggressively pro-development folks are almost anti-heritage.

I also can't imagine that CBC story being written anywhere else. The problems with the building (lack of modern amenities, basically) were a problem for any old building renovated. The provinces has simply not invested in the property. There are countless examples of structures in far, far, far worse shape being rehabilitated to great benefit for their surrounding communities, from small towns to big cities. Demolition is not an option.

Preservation might cost more money up front than demolition, but the slow whittling away of the city's historical character--or in this case, taking a giant wedge out of it--does negatively impact how residents and visitors feel about the city. (Which does have long-term economic effects.) I can hardly imagine a replacement for the Dennis that would be as impressive. Taller, maybe, better, probably not. If they're going to let it get slowly worse, they should sell it off to a developer who plans to restore it and incorporate it into a new project (as more than a couple of facaded walls, hopefully--at least maintaining the shell and profile of it, and connecting to structures to the south and west sides).

ANYWAY, nice renderings on that Grafton/Blowers block. Great historical/contemporary blend. (In fact, a larger-scale version of that at the Dennis site would be ideal.)

I agree, I would prefer it kept and not demolished. What do you think about a private developer that incorporates the Dennis into a larger development?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

ANYWAY, nice renderings on that Grafton/Blowers block. Great historical/contemporary blend. (In fact, a larger-scale version of that at the Dennis site would be ideal.)

Was wondering what you'd say about the Ekistics Grafton/Blowers proposal. Glad you like. I thought it nicely blends in, as you say, and uses some creative design to preserve an entire city centre block, while still adding residential/density.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

.
.
.

I honestly can't imagine a building of this size and importance being considered for demolition (at least not total demolition) anywhere but Halifax, where the heritage lobby has been an obstacle for so long that "heritage" is now seen as an impediment to progress, leading to a perverse situation where the most aggressively pro-development folks are almost anti-heritage.

I also can't imagine that CBC story being written anywhere else. The problems with the building (lack of modern amenities, basically) were a problem for any old building renovated. The provinces has simply not invested in the property. There are countless examples of structures in far, far, far worse shape being rehabilitated to great benefit for their surrounding communities, from small towns to big cities. Demolition is not an option.

.
.
.

I don't want to be argumentative but I find that your views of heritage preservation in Halifax are distorted by the belief that Halifax has done little for heritage preservation whereas almost every other city has cherished its heritage. In reality, I think Halifax has preserved its historical buildings better than most cities.

Halifax has a good mix of old and new buildings. Halifax has even preserved streetscapes of old derelict buildings (such as Historical Properties) that would be considered to be slum areas in many cities. Halifax deserves full credit for preserving its historical character.

It should be remembered that the Dennis building hasn't been torn down yet. On the other hand, if Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver had a Dennis building in its downtown core it probably would have been torn down decades ago.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Given the Dennis' age, aesthetic value, grand presence in the downtown, the historical events and people associated with it, and the fact that it's provincially owned, it's almost bizarre it's not heritage-designated.

I honestly can't imagine a building of this size and importance being considered for demolition (at least not total demolition) anywhere but Halifax, where the heritage lobby has been an obstacle for so long that "heritage" is now seen as an impediment to progress, leading to a perverse situation where the most aggressively pro-development folks are almost anti-heritage.

I also can't imagine that CBC story being written anywhere else. The problems with the building (lack of modern amenities, basically) were a problem for any old building renovated. The provinces has simply not invested in the property. There are countless examples of structures in far, far, far worse shape being rehabilitated to great benefit for their surrounding communities, from small towns to big cities. Demolition is not an option.

Preservation might cost more money up front than demolition, but the slow whittling away of the city's historical character--or in this case, taking a giant wedge out of it--does negatively impact how residents and visitors feel about the city. (Which does have long-term economic effects.) I can hardly imagine a replacement for the Dennis that would be as impressive. Taller, maybe, better, probably not. If they're going to let it get slowly worse, they should sell it off to a developer who plans to restore it and incorporate it into a new project (as more than a couple of facaded walls, hopefully--at least maintaining the shell and profile of it, and connecting to structures to the south and west sides).

You seem to be overstating the history of that building. It isn't like the Constitution was drafted there. The exterior is, IMO, nothing particularly attractive, especially with the added levels added to the original structure. And you have obviously never worked in that building. It is absolutely horrendous, full of asbestos and mold. The interior needs to be totally gutted and restructured internally, right down to the elevator shafts and floor decks. Its only noteworthy asset is that it is old. I've said here in the past that it should be demolished, but if it makes you happy to keep the facades, go ahead. But don't think it'll be a restored building in the end. It'll be a new building with an old facade on it, like Founders Square.

[someone123]

It would be a big mistake to tear down the Dennis Building. Buildings like this are interesting in their own right plus they help to establish context for the landmarks like Province House.

Many great old buildings near the Dennis Building have already been torn down:


Source

I think it's a real shame that we didn't preserve more of this view.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't want to be argumentative but I find that your views of heritage preservation in Halifax are distorted by the belief that Halifax has done little for heritage preservation whereas almost every other city has cherished its heritage. In reality, I think Halifax has preserved its historical buildings better than most cities.

Halifax has a good mix of old and new buildings. Halifax has even preserved streetscapes of old derelict buildings (such as Historical Properties) that would be considered to be slum areas in many cities. Halifax deserves full credit for preserving its historical character.

Oh yeah, yeah, Halifax has had some great successes in this regard. Historic Properties are one such success--but that kind of preservation of formerly derelict but potential-rich sites has now become expected, rather than exceptional. (See Toronto's Evergreen Brickworks, or the Distillery District. Or Hamilton's Lister Block, Calgary's heritage designation for development on Seventh Avenue downtown, etc.) And let's not forget, the Dennis isn't even derelict, just rundown.

My gut feeling is that because Halifax has such a reputation as a heritage-rich city, and such a noted heritage lobby, there's been a small but vocal counter-reaction from some folks who seem to think that old buildings are liabilities to progress. If the Dennis building were on Stephen Avenue in Calgary or Granville Street in Vancouver or Yonge Street in Toronto, I can scarcely imagine its survival would even be in question. It seems as if sometimes Halifax takes its heritage for granted, or there's an enough-is-enough attitude to heritage, which makes the loss of a building like the Dennis seem somehow palatable.

I agree Halifax is one of the best cities around for balancing history and modernity, especially with the slew of recent developments and proposals. But the loss of the Dennis would throw that balance off in a very visible and unfortunate way, and my (again) gut feeling is that the equivalent structure in most other cities would be a focal point of preservation efforts.

EDIT: Someone123's image above shows that while the city has had much success in retaining some of its best old architecture, we've made a few lamentable decisions as well.