Development Rumours

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

A good development on this site would make a huge difference for the downtown.

I hope I'm wrong, but the lack of progress with this site and the complaining about paying $50k to heat the building, etc. gives me a pretty terrible feeling about the province's collective view of the situation. They're still operating a parking lot across the street on some of the most valuable and culturally significant land in the province.

In the past another comment has been that the province can't compete with private landlords, so if an office building does go in on Barrington Street in 2030 then the street will at best get an Access NS if it is lucky. One block over, this has already happened in the former Eaton's building, which arguably has the nicest retail storefront space on the street.

My fear is that they are accounting for easy-to-calculate dollar costs while ignoring much larger opportunity costs. There's a cost to keeping prime land empty. You see less development and therefore lower tax revenues. The empty lots drive down the desirability of the area, hurting nearby businesses and tourism. The empty lots also give residents and visitors alike a negative impression of the city and the province -- an empty building and a parking lot in the middle of the city makes a poor impression, and the province's economic reputation, whether it's justified or not, is already pretty much on life support. Empty storefronts also kill retail areas, even if they are used as office space.

SELL THE LAND, For the love of G-d, you idiots.

Of course the Government cannot compete with private developers. So, work out a deal where you sell the land but then work out a decent rate on leasing a portion of the new building for NS Provincial Government office space.

By the way, yes, they should have a damn Access NS site downtown, preferably on Barrington. It's outrageous that the NDP moved the Halifax location out to Clayton Park.

You know, Labi should understand this. I don't get why he would not be interested in selling it off to a private developer who will do a nice job and probably at least preserve some aspects of the Dennis.

How would tearing it down at all help? Is it merely to save the costs of restoring and heating? *facepalm*

Provincial Governments in NS, no doubt, have been just as must of an evil to downtown as HRM council. Sitting on valuable real estate, operating parking lots for their own benefit on lands that should benefit the public, taking our tax dollars and throwing it into dying industries elsewhere in the province.

Get a grip, you clowns.

[Keith P.]

I had seen, many years ago during a meeting at Transportation & Public Works, a hand-drawn artist's conception of that entire block from One Govt Place northbound, which the province owns (or owned). It showed the facades being retained with a mew, matching office building mating up with OGP to incorporate a number of govt offices on the block. Perhaps that has been lost over the years. It was literally on a large roll of paper in a TPW Director's office in the late 1990s.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

An ultra-secret source tonight reported on the future of the Dennis Building. The Internal Services Minister, Labi Kousoulis, was quoted about the future of the building. It sounds like they are considering demolition but also saving the stones from the facade.

Where did the report appear? ANS?

Such a moronic (and cheap) perspective. Do we have any sense of why the province seems unwilling to sell the building and lot to a private owner?

[xanaxanax]

Does anyone know what happened to the Report from 2006 that showed really amazing plans for Parade Square, George Street, The Birks site, Dennis Building, and the Province House. It was a public lands plan that looked so effing good but the link is now dead. The best part was turning Province House parking lot grounds into into a public park and moving parkinig underground. http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/GPPHfinalReportDecember2006.pdf

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

Does anyone know what happened to the Report from 2006 that showed really amazing plans for Parade Square, George Street, The Birks site, Dennis Building, and the Province House. It was a public lands plan that looked so effing good but the link is now dead. The best part was turning Province House parking lot grounds into into a public park and moving parkinig underground. http://www.halifax.ca/capitaldistrict/documents/GPPHfinalReportDecember2006.pdf

Province doesn't seem interested in pursuing it (or, given Waye Mason's Twitter interactions with some ministers, many in the current government might not even be aware of it). I think Mason has been pursuing the building/public lands development issue with the new Liberal government, however, without much luck--I'm sure he could shed more light on that.

It seems like the government wants to demolish the building. It's really goddamn weird and I hope that if it comes to that, there's an outcry and protest from local politicians and citizens. It's bad enough that they seem willing/wanting to take the building down, but there isn't even a plan, as far as I'm aware, to replace it.

This is 2014. We don't knock own grand historic buildings for surface parking, or because we're afraid of backlash from anti-urban constituents who don't want to see the government spending money to renovate urban properties. This is sorely outdated thinking, and the province needs a very swift and very serious kick in the ass over this.

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

We don't knock own grand historic buildings for surface parking, or because we're afraid of backlash from anti-urban constituents who don't want to see the government spending money to renovate urban properties. This is sorely outdated thinking, and the province needs a very swift and very serious kick in the ass over this.

Hear! Hear! Now where is the outrage from Phil Pacey and his self-proclaimed "heritage" advocates? Oh right. They're waiting for the Dennis to become a vacant, windswept lot so they can ramp up to oppose the new development proposal.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Province doesn't seem interested in pursuing it (or, given Waye Mason's Twitter interactions with some ministers, many in the current government might not even be aware of it). I think Mason has been pursuing the building/public lands development issue with the new Liberal government, however, without much luck--I'm sure he could shed more light on that.

It seems like the government wants to demolish the building. It's really goddamn weird and I hope that if it comes to that, there's an outcry and protest from local politicians and citizens. It's bad enough that they seem willing/wanting to take the building down, but there isn't even a plan, as far as I'm aware, to replace it.

This is 2014. We don't knock own grand historic buildings for surface parking, or because we're afraid of backlash from anti-urban constituents who don't want to see the government spending money to renovate urban properties. This is sorely outdated thinking, and the province needs a very swift and very serious kick in the ass over this.

I thought there was so by-law passed that prohibits the demolishing of buildings for new surface parking the peninsula, does it apply to buildings owned by the province. Its weird enough that they were allowed to demolish the bio science building and turn it into a parking lot, I don't think that queens landing development is ever going to happen.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

I thought there was so by-law passed that prohibits the demolishing of buildings for new surface parking the peninsula, does it apply to buildings owned by the province. Its weird enough that they were allowed to demolish the bio science building and turn it into a parking lot, I don't think that queens landing development is ever going to happen.

Isnt' that HRMxD?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Province doesn't seem interested in pursuing it (or, given Waye Mason's Twitter interactions with some ministers, many in the current government might not even be aware of it). I think Mason has been pursuing the building/public lands development issue with the new Liberal government, however, without much luck--I'm sure he could shed more light on that.

It seems like the government wants to demolish the building. It's really goddamn weird and I hope that if it comes to that, there's an outcry and protest from local politicians and citizens. It's bad enough that they seem willing/wanting to take the building down, but there isn't even a plan, as far as I'm aware, to replace it.

This is 2014. We don't knock own grand historic buildings for surface parking, or because we're afraid of backlash from anti-urban constituents who don't want to see the government spending money to renovate urban properties. This is sorely outdated thinking, and the province needs a very swift and very serious kick in the ass over this.

These idiots don't even NEED to spend any money. Sell the land. S-E-L-L I-T.

Have a bureaucrat work up an RFP that places certain requirements like preserving aspects of the Dennis, reserving office space for the province, whatever their little idiotic anti-Halifax backwater backwards provincial government ministerial heart desires.

And then sell it. It won't cost them a dime. THEY'LL MAKE MONEY.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Isnt' that HRMxD?

YEah whatever, does that fit into preventing the Dennis building being demolished to be turned into a parking lot

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

These idiots don't even NEED to spend any money. Sell the land. S-E-L-L I-T.

Have a bureaucrat work up an RFP that places certain requirements like preserving aspects of the Dennis, reserving office space for the province, whatever their little idiotic anti-Halifax backwater backwards provincial government ministerial heart desires.

And then sell it. It won't cost them a dime. THEY'LL MAKE MONEY.

Yeah. I really want to understand what the province's thinking is about this site, because their behaviour, and this dismantling-and-warehousing rumour (which I'm anxious to learn more about) are really, truly weird. I would like to be enlightened.

[xanaxanax]

Here are two old proposals for the Birks site. the 1991 one looks like it would have been really nice

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

Here are two old proposals for the Birks site. the 1991 one looks like it would have been really nice

So much has been discussed for this site over the years. Demolition and nothing else is literally the worst possible outcome. It really can't be allowed to happen.

[teddifax]

It is a shame this was never built and this site allowed to be an ugly parking lot for so long.

[ILoveHalifax]

I think I'll start a new group.................
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
..... Doze the Dennis

[Waye Mason]

Oh so many things to say!

1 - HRM rules do not bind the province. They are the only landlord in downtown that can ignore the rules. If they tear down Dennis they could do surface parking.

2 - I have suggested to Minister Kousoulis that my personal view is they should sell the thing unless they are ready to build in the next 18 months.

3 - Public lands plan is a great plan, but there are some problems - angle parking on Argyle does not work, and parking under Grand Parade is pretty much financially unlikely as the old stables have the NS power transformers for downtown in them! At least they got the parking out of grand parade and completed the external renovation of city hall.

edit (hit save to quickly)

4 - Labi has said Prov will build something that conforms with HRM by D and have some storefronts or storefront like space (which he and I also both want to see restored to the Johnson building at Prince/Barrington)

5 - I like the 1990s design better than the 2000s design, at least it had street level retail.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Oh so many things to say!

1 - HRM rules do not bind the province. They are the only landlord in downtown that can ignore the rules. If they tear down Dennis they could do surface parking.

2 - I have suggested to Minister Kousoulis that my personal view is they should sell the thing unless they are ready to build in the next 18 months.

3 - Public lands plan is a great plan, but there are some problems - angle parking on Argyle does not work, and parking under Grand Parade is pretty much financially unlikely as the old stables have the NS power transformers for downtown in them! At least they got the parking out of grand parade and completed the external renovation of city hall.

If they plan to doze this place in order to put in parking, I will personally go and lay down Arthur Dent style in front of the bulldozer. And then if that doesn't work, I'll stand every goddamned day outside of Province House in order to throw potato salad at these dickheads as they walk to their cars [this is sarcasm for those unable to appreciate ].

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Oh so many things to say!

edit (hit save to quickly)

4 - Labi has said Prov will build something that conforms with HRM by D and have some storefronts or storefront like space (which he and I also both want to see restored to the Johnson building at Prince/Barrington)

5 - I like the 1990s design better than the 2000s design, at least it had street level retail.

You see, this is a recipe for doing nothing. The Province has said they'll build something for years, and they haven't.

Because it'll cost money for the province to develop.

And the Nova Scotia Provincial Government-- doesn't matter what political stripe, Tory, Liberal, NDP, all the same-- hates spending any money in downtown Halifax because it then has to put up with 5 years of Ralph Surette CH columns written from Yarmouth (perhaps while Ralph sits atop a $21 million dollar taxpayer funded new ferry) complaining that the money could be better spent on "roads and bridges throughout the province" and other moaning from the rest of the province into the next election.

So the land will sit for another term in government. Hell, forget another term. We've had proposals for this thing dating back decades. It'll sit for another half century.

Why don't they just sell? Make money and a private developer will do a much better job, and do it quicker, and they'll make money off of it.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

Here are two old proposals for the Birks site. the 1991 one looks like it would have been really nice

Originally Posted by Drybrain

So much has been discussed for this site over the years. Demolition and nothing else is literally the worst possible outcome. It really can't be allowed to happen.

The 1991 proposal looks fantastic.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Oh so many things to say!

1 - HRM rules do not bind the province. They are the only landlord in downtown that can ignore the rules. If they tear down Dennis they could do surface parking.

2 - I have suggested to Minister Kousoulis that my personal view is they should sell the thing unless they are ready to build in the next 18 months.

3 - Public lands plan is a great plan, but there are some problems - angle parking on Argyle does not work, and parking under Grand Parade is pretty much financially unlikely as the old stables have the NS power transformers for downtown in them! At least they got the parking out of grand parade and completed the external renovation of city hall.

edit (hit save to quickly)

4 - Labi has said Prov will build something that conforms with HRM by D and have some storefronts or storefront like space (which he and I also both want to see restored to the Johnson building at Prince/Barrington)

5 - I like the 1990s design better than the 2000s design, at least it had street level retail.

A few things:

1. That's good to hear about the Johnson Building.

2. What's with the province's apparent desire to knock down one of the city's best and most prominent remaining historic buildings? It's nice that they say they'll work within HRMxD guidelines, but I have a hard time imagining anything that involves substantial demolition I could be even remotely supportive of, whatever its other merits. Demolition would be, really, insane in this case.

3. Any sense as to why there seems to be a lack of willingness to engage private operators in this site?

4. What's this about inventorying the stone and warehousing the building's pieces if it gets demolished?