General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There is little that is important about the building and IMO it is one of the ugliest structures in town. An appointment with a bulldozer is long overdue.

Certainly the thousands upon thousands of people who called local politicians or signed petitions, and the nationwide outpouring of support from the national arts/heritage community, render that argument somewhat moot. This thing made national news and inspired entreaties from coast to coast. Council heard that, and unanimously to take it off the surplus list and study the issue further.

So if that many people care, and it even seemed to bridge (for now) the urban/suburb/rural divide, it's hard to argue that it's not important.

(Aesthetics is a different matter, but I'm betting that if you stopped random people on the street and asked what they thought of it, at least nine out of ten would definitely not label it "ugly.")

[JET]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Certainly the thousands upon thousands of people who called local politicians or signed petitions, and the nationwide outpouring of support from the national arts/heritage community, render that argument somewhat moot. This thing made national news and inspired entreaties from coast to coast. Council heard that, and unanimously to take it off the surplus list and study the issue further.

So if that many people care, and it even seemed to bridge (for now) the urban/suburb/rural divide, it's hard to argue that it's not important.

(Aesthetics is a different matter, but I'm betting that if you stopped random people on the street and asked what they thought of it, at least nine out of ten would definitely not label it "ugly.")

I'm glad that they are revisiting the Khyber, and I hope it continues to funded by HRM; but one of of ten are still able to resist that and say get rid of it. Everyone gets a say.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Certainly the thousands upon thousands of people who called local politicians or signed petitions, and the nationwide outpouring of support from the national arts/heritage community, render that argument somewhat moot. This thing made national news and inspired entreaties from coast to coast. Council heard that, and unanimously to take it off the surplus list and study the issue further.

So if that many people care, and it even seemed to bridge (for now) the urban/suburb/rural divide, it's hard to argue that it's not important.

(Aesthetics is a different matter, but I'm betting that if you stopped random people on the street and asked what they thought of it, at least nine out of ten would definitely not label it "ugly.")

On the first point, it is easy to get signatures on a petition when you are not commiting to anything out of your own pocket. Especially from artsy types. They are dramatic by nature, and love to kick up a fuss whenever their gravy train appears threatened. I know, I have direct experience with them. I found it interesting, though, to read some of the comments from them online today when it was suggested by some council members that they needed to participate in fundraising via concerts, auctions of art, etc. "Oh! How insulting for us to be asked to GIVE AWAY our work!" one said, But not at all insulting for taxpayers to give away millions to them. How out of touch are these people??? Jeezus! On that alone I would not want to help them. The fact that the building is a negative for the street just adds to that.

On the second point, 9 out of 10 would not say it is beautiful, I can assure you.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

On the first point, it is easy to get signatures on a petition when you are not commiting to anything out of your own pocket. Especially from artsy types. They are dramatic by nature, and love to kick up a fuss whenever their gravy train appears threatened. I know, I have direct experience with them. I found it interesting, though, to read some of the comments from them online today when it was suggested by some council members that they needed to participate in fundraising via concerts, auctions of art, etc. "Oh! How insulting for us to be asked to GIVE AWAY our work!" one said, But not at all insulting for taxpayers to give away millions to them. How out of touch are these people??? Jeezus! On that alone I would not want to help them. The fact that the building is a negative for the street just adds to that.

On the second point, 9 out of 10 would not say it is beautiful, I can assure you.

Keith, I do appreciate your posts. They are always well thought out and equally well written. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't, but I have to say the statement "The fact that the building is a negative for the street just adds to that. " is a huge stretch, even for you. I don't think you would get too much agreement on that, pretty much anywhere.

That said, I do enjoy the enthusiasm of your arguments.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

On the first point, it is easy to get signatures on a petition when you are not commiting to anything out of your own pocket. Especially from artsy types. They are dramatic by nature, and love to kick up a fuss whenever their gravy train appears threatened. I know, I have direct experience with them. I found it interesting, though, to read some of the comments from them online today when it was suggested by some council members that they needed to participate in fundraising via concerts, auctions of art, etc. "Oh! How insulting for us to be asked to GIVE AWAY our work!" one said, But not at all insulting for taxpayers to give away millions to them. How out of touch are these people??? Jeezus! On that alone I would not want to help them. The fact that the building is a negative for the street just adds to that.

On the second point, 9 out of 10 would not say it is beautiful, I can assure you.

I think the issue with being asked to give away their work is that the city has neglected to maintain the building, despite receiving rent from KAS. It's the city's job to fix it--anyway taxpayers aren't giving the money away, but financing a piece ofcultural infrastructure. We're not going to agree, obviously, but to characterize this as a bunch of whiny artists wanting a free ride is really silly.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think the issue with being asked to give away their work is that the city has neglected to maintain the building, despite receiving rent from KAS. It's the city's job to fix it--anyway taxpayers aren't giving the money away, but financing a piece ofcultural infrastructure. We're not going to agree, obviously, but to characterize this as a bunch of whiny artists wanting a free ride is really silly.

How much did KAS pay in annual rent?
How much does KAS receive in grants/in-kind support from HRM?
How much has HRM spent on this building over the years?

Before making statements of the nature of yours we need to know the answers to these questions. But since the building was in poor shape when HRM got stuck with it, it is hardly fair to blame them alone for all the problems. KAS had the option to seek other accommodations if they were dissatisfied with conditions. It could not have been that bad since they did nothing.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Keith, I do appreciate your posts. They are always well thought out and equally well written. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't, but I have to say the statement "The fact that the building is a negative for the street just adds to that. " is a huge stretch, even for you. I don't think you would get too much agreement on that, pretty much anywhere.

That said, I do enjoy the enthusiasm of your arguments.

Those 3 old buildings - well, 2 old buildings and one bombed-out facade - are a huge negative presence on that block. Looming, foreboding, unwelcoming, and unattractive.

Thank you for the kind words otherwise.

[ManWithTheMug]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

On the second point, 9 out of 10 would not say it is beautiful, I can assure you.

No offense Keith, but I feel like you're totally out of touch with how the majority perceives architectural aesthetics. I'm not sure what you think is attractive but I'm comfortable saying you're in the minority. It's nice to see some differing opinions on here, but some of the things you say honestly make me think that you can't be anything other than a very committed troll!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ManWithTheMug

No offense Keith, but I feel like you're totally out of touch with how the majority perceives architectural aesthetics. I'm not sure what you think is attractive but I'm comfortable saying you're in the minority. It's nice to see some differing opinions on here, but some of the things you say honestly make me think that you can't be anything other than a very committed troll!

I don't think he's a troll--I think he really, truly dislikes fussy. I mean, that's fine--probably a whole city built in a Gothic Victorian style would feel a little brooding.

But the general public does tend to go for it. Probably it's partly a scarcity thing. We'll never have any more of those buildings than we have right now, and every time we demolish one or lose one to fire, it's one more that's gone and never coming back.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ManWithTheMug

No offense Keith, but I feel like you're totally out of touch with how the majority perceives architectural aesthetics. I'm not sure what you think is attractive but I'm comfortable saying you're in the minority. It's nice to see some differing opinions on here, but some of the things you say honestly make me think that you can't be anything other than a very committed troll!

Nice way to start off by making allegations with your first post, Muggy.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Nice way to start off by making allegations with your first post, Muggy.

joined in April, first time post, might be a TROLL

[someone123]

One thing to keep in mind with expenditures like this is how frequently they come along. This is certainly true of deferred maintenance, which by definition is less frequent. $150,000 a year in building maintenance isn't very much for an institution or the city. It doesn't take much for a small expense like that to be worthwhile.

I think that in retrospect it might have been better to redevelop the NFB site in the 90's had that option been available, but the Khyber is probably worth keeping around and the NFB building will be nice when it is finally rebuilt. This block is also going to change a bit since 1592 Barrington is going up. I bet it'll look great in a couple of years.

[ManWithTheMug]

Originally Posted by JET

joined in April, first time post, might be a TROLL

Haha sorry, not a troll, just a longtime lurker (a few years a least), kinda feel like I'm part of the conversation even though I never post. Signed up a while ago and continued to lurk, bad form I know

Keith - sorry, not trying to make allegations, I know you're not actually a troll, and I think your alternative opinion is valuable in a forum like this to keep everyone grounded in reality. I guess my comment was meant to be a little more tongue in cheek, should have included a smiley! Sorry if I rustled jimmies!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ManWithTheMug

I think your alternative opinion is valuable in a forum like this to keep everyone grounded in reality.

I'm happy that there is some diversity of opinion on here and that this isn't just an echo chamber. We also have some good discussions and a lot of great contributors of news and photo updates.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by ManWithTheMug

Haha sorry, not a troll, just a longtime lurker (a few years a least), kinda feel like I'm part of the conversation even though I never post. Signed up a while ago and continued to lurk, bad form I know

Keith - sorry, not trying to make allegations, I know you're not actually a troll, and I think your alternative opinion is valuable in a forum like this to keep everyone grounded in reality. I guess my comment was meant to be a little more tongue in cheek, should have included a smiley! Sorry if I rustled jimmies!

Yeah, I have plenty of my own clashes with Keith on here; despite those disagreements I respect the guy. I mean, we all do a bit of trolling from time to time on here, but no one is a troll, at least not the regulars.

[JET]

Originally Posted by ManWithTheMug

Haha sorry, not a troll, just a longtime lurker (a few years a least), kinda feel like I'm part of the conversation even though I never post. Signed up a while ago and continued to lurk, bad form I know

Keith - sorry, not trying to make allegations, I know you're not actually a troll, and I think your alternative opinion is valuable in a forum like this to keep everyone grounded in reality. I guess my comment was meant to be a little more tongue in cheek, should have included a smiley! Sorry if I rustled jimmies!

OK then.

[Keith P.]

I just wanted to be able to call him "Muggy".

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I just wanted to be able to call him "Muggy".

as long as things are OK on the group W bench, that's the main thing.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Those 3 old buildings - well, 2 old buildings and one bombed-out facade - are a huge negative presence on that block. Looming, foreboding, unwelcoming, and unattractive.

Thank you for the kind words otherwise.

http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=1390

the three sisters, I was in the old City Club sometime in the mid-80's. It had been vacant for awhile, and the whole building was being used for an 'art' show, lots of interesting pieces, and old furniture seemingly left over from the club. The main thing for me was being able to wander about in all the rooms on all three floors; very neat. It was in rough shape, and I really thought that it was headed toward a demo. I like what they've done with it. I like the style of the Three Sisters, and think it will look amazing when all three are fixed up.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Indeed we do.