Development Rumours

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Any sense of what he's planning? I pray to god he isn't going to try and build a tower based on some half-assed argument over precedent due to the Roy, since that was clearly approved before the HCD.

I've been worried about this for a while, anyway—owner Jeff Webber's sob stories about his insurance woes have strained credibility for some time. I do wonder, though, if this is an attempt to poke a stick in the city's eye, as it were, and goad them into giving him something he wants. He seemed committed to renovating as of last year, as indicated in the last half of this story in which Webber does a lot of whining about his relationship with the city.

In any case, it's getting ridiculous the number of major heritage battles that have to be constantly fought in this ostensibly historic city, usually premised on the unconvincing arguments about building codes and "not fit for modern use", etc. In six years of living in Toronto, I didn't see a single building of the calibre of the Green Lantern (or the Dennis, or the Roy, or the Spring Garden-Birmingham block) endangered, much less demolished. I would go out on a limb and say Halifax has more significant endangered structures than any other city in the country. I'm not sure what it is about our development community that so many are so eager to rip things down, but it's not typical.

If this happens it'll really pathetic. This stuff shouldn't be happening in 2014, certainly not in the city's showpiece heritage district. It's pathetic. I wish Webber would just sell the building to someone who who wants to do something with it.

Yeah, it's ridiculous that we are even having this discussion in this day and age.

Ripping down the Roy and now potentially the Keith is starting to make a joke out of the Barrington "heritage district". Meanwhile we seem to be very proficient at preserving vacant lots for some reason or other.

Perhaps our municipal politicians should visit Portland, Maine to see how it's done.

Pathetic - I'm embarrassed to be from here some days.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Y

Perhaps our municipal politicians should visit Portland, Maine to see how it's done.

If you take to heart what a lot of Halifax property owners/developers say, streets like Congress and Commercial in Portland shouldn't even exist—impossible to renovate buildings with all those low ceiling heights, problematic floor joists, and other impossible building-code problems! Probably asbestos too! Unfortunately, when an owner says "This building is obsolete and has to come down," there are a lot of people seem really willing to believe it, despite all the visible evidence in this and zillions of other cities that such buildings are almost always fixable.

As far as Webber's road to demolition, I assume since the building is both registered as heritage, and within the HCD, said road would be long and arduous (and expensive).

I understand the process like this:

With a registered building, the city's heritage committee has to recommend for or against demolition. They would certainly recommend against in this case, which would necessitate the better part of a year spent in negotiation with the owner before it goes to council. If that yields no result, council votes. If council votes no, which I'm pretty sure they would, he can't legally demolish for three years.

So if Webber applied today to demolish it, it probably couldn't legally come down until sometime in 2019. Is he going to spend four years paying taxes on an empty property and haranguing the city over that? Plus he'll have to go through public hearings, provide detailed plans for a replacement building, and a justification for demolition.

I'm hopeful this is a bluff. But god knows what Webber wants out of this. As Waye Mason said a few months ago, he should put up or shut up—fix the goddamn building, or sell it to someone who will, as nearly every other property owner on the street is doing now, or plans to soon. Stop holding the building and the street hostage. I actually wish the city had some sort of bad-faith property ownership clause, and could just pay him market value and take it away from him.

[Empire]

I think the city should expropriate the property. This building is a cornerstone in the Barrington Heritage District.

If the city could justify expropriation and demolition for Scotia Sq. & Cogswell Interchange then a case could be made to expropriate to save heritage from demolition, albeit 45 years later.

Keith Bldg.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax&hl...gOBS1frehYuqFYPzcw&cbp=12,129.8,,0,-22.5

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

.
.
.
In any case, it's getting ridiculous the number of major heritage battles that have to be constantly fought in this ostensibly historic city, usually premised on the unconvincing arguments about building codes and "not fit for modern use", etc. In six years of living in Toronto, I didn't see a single building of the calibre of the Green Lantern (or the Dennis, or the Roy, or the Spring Garden-Birmingham block) endangered, much less demolished. I would go out on a limb and say Halifax has more significant endangered structures than any other city in the country. I'm not sure what it is about our development community that so many are so eager to rip things down, but it's not typical.
.
.
.

I find that Jeff Webber's comments in the allnovascotia.com story (Dec 17, 2014) and the Chronicle Herald story (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1127210-taylor-depleted-downtown-needs-lift-from-city from May, 2013) to be far more rational than your opinion.

Why is it difficult for you to accept that building codes are stricter in 2014 than they were in 1890? You could do some research on the evolution of building codes over the past 100 years as it would provide more credibility and likely a tempering of your opinion.

Why is it hard to believe that an office space with low ceiling heights, poor air ventilation, poor heating and cooling, and risk of life due to fire would be unfit for modern use? Do you live in a modern apartment building or an old flat from 120 years ago with few modern amenities? If you live in a modern apartment building then you have made the choice that most would make in choosing office space.

I don't see any justification in demanding building owners to maintain their privately owned buildings as antiquated museums with little chance of earning sufficient income for building upkeep and a living wage. I know this isn't demanded of owners in Toronto or any other city in Canada. If it were, then buildings such as the Green Lantern building would just be left to rot.

Demands for the preservation of privately owned heritage buildings must be balanced with a practical way of making such ventures desirable in the absence of significant tax subsidies. I think that saving the facade of the Green Lantern Building and rebuilding the interior is the best compromise versus demolition of the entire structure. This has become the norm with repurposed old commercial structures in Toronto and elsewhere despite your claims otherwise. Personally I find your Halifax-bashing to be offensive.

[ILoveHalifax]

I have always considered it an empty rat infested slum and hoped for years it would get torn down. I would not want an office in there or an apartment. It's as ugly as the Roy Building.
I am guessing it is not in a view plain?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I find that Jeff Webber's comments in the allnovascotia.com story (Dec 17, 2014) and the Chronicle Herald story (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1127210-taylor-depleted-downtown-needs-lift-from-city from May, 2013) to be far more rational than your opinion.

Why is it difficult for you to accept that building codes are stricter in 2014 than they were in 1890? You could do some research on the evolution of building codes over the past 100 years as it would provide more credibility and likely a tempering of your opinion.

Why is it hard to believe that an office space with low ceiling heights, poor air ventilation, poor heating and cooling, and risk of life due to fire would be unfit for modern use? Do you live in a modern apartment building or an old flat from 120 years ago with few modern amenities? If you live in a modern apartment building then you have made the choice that most would make in choosing office space.

I don't see any justification in demanding building owners to maintain their privately owned buildings as antiquated museums with little chance of earning sufficient income for building upkeep and a living wage. I know this isn't demanded of owners in Toronto or any other city in Canada. If it were, then buildings such as the Green Lantern building would just be left to rot.

Demands for the preservation of privately owned heritage buildings must be balanced with a practical way of making such ventures desirable in the absence of significant tax subsidies. I think that saving the facade of the Green Lantern Building and rebuilding the interior is the best compromise versus demolition of the entire structure. This has become the norm with repurposed old commercial structures in Toronto and elsewhere despite your claims otherwise. Personally I find your Halifax-bashing to be offensive.

In most, if not all cases heritage buildings are purchased with full knowledge of the challenges involved in maintaining, renovating or demolishing the building. All significant heritage buildings in Halifax have location, location, location and will always be in demand for redevelopment. Developers too often obtain a property and then complain about red tape involved to redevelop.

However, I have been arguing for major tax incentives to maintain or renovate registered heritage properties for years. A 75% tax relief for 3-5 years wouldn't be unreasonable for the appropriate renovation. This would be a way for the city to invest in heritage properties without an actual capital outlay. We only have a few buildings left that are worthy of preservation so it's time for the city to step up to the plate and make it worthwhile for developers to invest.

[OldDartmouthMark]

C'mon guys, heritage buildings can be repurposed to maintain their original character while meeting building code requirements. Get out of the 1960s and have a look around.

These are just a few links I found through the "magic" of Google:

http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/how-we-protect-heritage-properties.aspx

http://www.mhpn.org/wp-content/uploads/2...derutilized_Historic_Buildings_FINAL.pdf

http://www.webberarchitects.com/general/...g-heritage-buildings-for-modern-day-use/

etc...

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Empire

In most, if not all cases heritage buildings are purchased with full knowledge of the challenges involved in maintaining, renovating or demolishing the building. All significant heritage buildings in Halifax have location, location, location and will always be in demand for redevelopment. Developers too often obtain a property and then complain about red tape involved to redevelop.

However, I have been arguing for major tax incentives to maintain or renovate registered heritage properties for years. A 75% tax relief for 3-5 years wouldn't be unreasonable for the appropriate renovation. This would be a way for the city to invest in heritage properties without an actual capital outlay. We only have a few buildings left that are worthy of preservation so it's time for the city to step up to the plate and make it worthwhile for developers to invest.

Take a look at the pics of the Wild Horses Of Sable Island gallery in Lower Manhattan. Also, look at the streetscape showing buildings with low ceilings. Heritage buildings are in big demand and if they can exist with the pressure to be torn down in lower Manhattan then they can exist in Halifax. Note the cast iron radiator.

Wild Horses of Sable Island Gallery New York:

Source: Empire


Source: Empire


Source: Empire


Source: Empire


Source: Empire

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I find that Jeff Webber's comments in the allnovascotia.com story (Dec 17, 2014) and the Chronicle Herald story (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1127210-taylor-depleted-downtown-needs-lift-from-city from May, 2013) to be far more rational than your opinion.

I don't know what he said in the AllNS story because I work in media, and AllNS doesn't let other media folks subscribe. (If someone wanted to private message me the text of the story, I'd be most grateful, though I know AllNS would have a shit-fit if the info were shared publicly.)

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I don't see any justification in demanding building owners to maintain their privately owned buildings as antiquated museums with little chance of earning sufficient income for building upkeep and a living wage.

I know this isn't demanded of owners in Toronto or any other city in Canada. If it were, then buildings such as the Green Lantern building would just be left to rot.

I'm not really sure what to say to this, since it's entirely wrong. Every city in Canada has heritage regulations, and heritage-designated buildings, and many have conservation districts. Toronto has twenty-one heritage conservation areas, with many more nuder study. City council in Toronto can even (and recently have) entirely kill developments based on heritage issues--a power council in Halifax does not have, and I'm sure would be reticent to exercise if they did.

More importantly, many other cities have a more mature development community who recognize the value in these structures and don't need to have their arms twisted to preserve them. So in short, yes, developers in Toronto and many other cities ARE required to retain and conserve many buildings, and those buildings are rarely left to rot. Instead they look like this, to use one of countless examples.

Really, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but answer me: if these buildings are so antiquated and unusable, how come so many other properties on Barrington are being restored, not demolished? How come streets like Congress Street in Portland (or King Street in Toronto, or Ste. Catherine in Montreal, or Hastings in Vancouver, or virtually any street in Lower Manhattan) still exist? How come Toronto's Flatiron building, with ceiling heights similar to the Green Lantern or the much-maligned Dennis, is among the most sought-after office locations in that city? How come any city with a significant number of restored and functional 19-century buildings is physical proof that what you're saying is wrong? Honestly.

Webber owns a historic building in a historic district in a historic city. Apparently he wishes he didn't. Frankly, that's too goddamn bad for him. He should sell it and not diminish for the rest of us the city's history and aesthetics.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

In most, if not all cases heritage buildings are purchased with full knowledge of the challenges involved in maintaining, renovating or demolishing the building. All significant heritage buildings in Halifax have location, location, location and will always be in demand for redevelopment. Developers too often obtain a property and then complain about red tape involved to redevelop.

Webber's father bought the building in 1967. It was just an old building at the time; no heritage designation nor even any recognition of that idea in the city at the time that an old run-down thing like this would be considered special. Who knows what he was thinking when he bought it, but I can just about guarantee that restoring it to original condition was never part of the deal. As a property developer, he likely thought he would keep it rented as long as he could, then tear it down and build something new.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Webber's father bought the building in 1967. It was just an old building at the time; no heritage designation nor even any recognition of that idea in the city at the time that an old run-down thing like this would be considered special. Who knows what he was thinking when he bought it, but I can just about guarantee that restoring it to original condition was never part of the deal. As a property developer, he likely thought he would keep it rented as long as he could, then tear it down and build something new.

I think this is a case where there are competing rights and a balance needs to be struck.

The story fails to get much sympathy from me because the owner obviously isn't attached to the building at all and inherited it. This just comes down to the sale price he can get for it versus the profits he could get from redeveloping it, which is something he may or may not be entitled to do. I tend to think that he should just be left with the option to sell if he won't or can't maintain it, and that the city should expropriate it if it gets too bad. There are few buildings like this in Halifax so it is not a big burden for the city to become involved in arranging for their upkeep if the owners won't.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Really, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but answer me: if these buildings are so antiquated and unusable, how come so many other properties on Barrington are being restored, not demolished? How come streets like Congress Street in Portland (or King Street in Toronto, or Ste. Catherine in Montreal, or Hastings in Vancouver, or virtually any street in Lower Manhattan) still exist? How come Toronto's Flatiron building, with ceiling heights similar to the Green Lantern or the much-maligned Dennis, is among the most sought-after office locations in that city? How come any city with a significant number of restored and functional 19-century buildings is physical proof that what you're saying is wrong? Honestly.

Just because you make a statement such as: "How come Toronto's Flatiron building, with ceiling heights similar to the Green Lantern or the much-maligned Dennis, is among the most sought-after office locations in that city?" doesn't make it true.

I have lived in the GTA and Hamilton (Golden Horseshoe) for almost as long as you have been alive. If heritage buildings are at such a great demand then why have I seen so many buildings torn down in Toronto and replaced with modern buildings?

Look at this image (source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toronto ):



It is easy to see how many old buildings were torn down in downtown Toronto and replaced with modern buildings. Do you think all these modern buildings were built on vacant parcels of land? Because you state so elegantly that Toronto is an example of heritage preservation should I doubt what I see with my own eyes? The truth is, as shown in the image and seen with my own eyes, that where real estate is at a premium in downtown Toronto there are very few examples of heritage preservation. If you want to see a significant number of old buildings in Toronto then you have to go to areas where real estate is not at a premium. In many of these areas, such as in Scarborough for example, the buildings just look rundown and neglected. But this is also true in Halifax and almost every other city in North America.

I have often heard Halifax referred to as a historic city, but I have never heard Toronto referred to as a historic city; most likely because the great emphasis on heritage preservation in Toronto that you refer to, doesn't exist. You are just cherry picking examples and stating it to be a fact.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Webber's father bought the building in 1967. It was just an old building at the time; no heritage designation nor even any recognition of that idea in the city at the time that an old run-down thing like this would be considered special. Who knows what he was thinking when he bought it, but I can just about guarantee that restoring it to original condition was never part of the deal. As a property developer, he likely thought he would keep it rented as long as he could, then tear it down and build something new.

That's true, but that was a different owner, 47 years ago. The building is heritage-designated, and in a heritage district, and Webber has had ample opportunity to sell off the property if he didn't want to deal with it as-is.

Also, several years ago, he expressed positive feelings about the heritage conservation district, so I don't know what the issue is now.

Originally Posted by Someone123

There are few buildings like this in Halifax so it is not a big burden for the city to become involved in arranging for their upkeep if the owners won't.

Really, there aren't any Romanesque Victorian buildings of this scale and quality. Not a single other example I can think of. It's really valuable. I'd prefer to see Webber restore and re-use it, but if he won't, I'd be one citizen supportive of the city using its power of eminent domain in this case.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

J If heritage buildings are at such a great demand then why have I seen so many buildings torn down in Toronto and replaced with modern buildings?

Because that was then and this is now. And in any case, that picture you posted, at its widest, depicts six east-west blocks in the financial district. Move the camera to the right or left and you could see unbroken rows of historic Victorian buildings.

Originally Posted by fenwick16

If you want to see a significant number of old buildings in Toronto then you have to go to areas where real estate is not at a premium. In many of these areas, such as in Scarborough for example, the buildings just look rundown and neglected. But this is also true in Halifax and almost every other city in North America.

Again, I can't even begin to explain how wrong this is. The most desirable residential real estate in the city is in the Victorian streets of the west end.

And some of the most premium real estate in the city is in the Victorian architecture of the St. Lawrence area, and along King and Queen West.

As far as Toronto's Barrington-esque central artery, Yonge Street, it suffered from demolitions as Barrington did during the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, and was similarly blighted. But aside from an unfortunate case of arson a few years ago, however, there hasn't been a single historic building lost on that street in ages. Because that's not how it's done any more. There have, however, been many impressive restorations.

You sound out of touch with what's going on in modern city planning and building. Sorry.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

You sound out of touch with what's going on in modern city planning and building. Sorry.

And this is coming from someone who feels that building codes haven't changed significantly in the past 100 years and that buildings from a hundred years ago are just as safe as modern buildings.

Sorry, but I am not convinced by your statements.

[counterfactual]

My question: who is this guy?

Has he re-developed other properties? Does he have any experience? Does he have the capacity to carry out a re-development of this scale?

Perhaps if he doesn't want the building, it should be sold to a serious developer with a bit more vision.

It's like the Tex Park site -- a parking lot that the city should force to be re-sold to a serious develop.

[Waye Mason]

My letter to ANS that they quote in part.

RE: Jeff Webber prepares for Green Lantern War

I read about Mr. Webber's plans for the Green Lantern building with some dismay. Since 2012 I have met twice with Mr. Webber and talked to his representatives many times about how we can break this impasse regarding his historic building. I've offered to host a meeting with key city staff, Mr. Webber, his staff and architect, in an effort to clear the air and restart the process. So far he has been unable or unwilling to take me up on this offer.

The article contains a number of issues I need to address:

Mr Webber says “According to the fire code, anything over 4 storeys cannot be made of wood, but according to the heritage people, I can’t remove the wood”. The National Building Code permits Alterative Compliance Methods for wood framed and heritage buildings, which are recognized in the Barrington Street Heritage Conservation District (BSHCD) plan Policy 13. There is no code compliance issue with renovating the building.

As for the removal of the wood interior, the provincial Heritage Property Act (HPA) does not speak to materials that comprise a heritage building, but rather states that a building “shall not be substantially altered in exterior or public-building interior appearance”. There is no law or policy that requires the maintenance of the wooden interior.

The article says that Mr. Webber “offered to put 1.6 million of his own money to save the building and build behind it, but that was rejected for the City”. Mr. Webber has applied for one permit on this property, in 2008, which was rejected due to the height of the proposed penthouse addition.

Mr. Webber was however awarded a grant in 2009 to renovate the building – a grant of $96,878 and tax credit of $488,020 was approved for the project. After carrying the grant/tax credits forward for several years, in 2012 Mr. Webber officially withdrew the grant.

Mr. Webber can apply to de-register the building and under the HPA the application would have to meet section 16 of the Act that requires one of two sections to be met - (a) the property has been destroyed or damaged by any cause; or (b) the continued registration of the property appears to the Council to be inappropriate as a result of the loss of the property's heritage value, unless, and this is a key thing to reflect on, that the "loss of the heritage value was caused by neglect, abandonment or other action or inaction of the owner."

If Council does approve de-registration the building, it is still be located within the BSHCD and the demolition regulations would still apply. If Council denies a Certificate for Appropriateness for demolition or removal of a non-registered building, a demolition permit shall not be granted until three years have lapsed from the date of the application.

“Webber said it doesn’t make financial sense to outfit the building with new electrical, plumbing and elevators – an effort that would cost roughly $6 million more than building an entirely new structure.” I have spoken to three developers who were quite confident they could buy the property renovate it or simply retain the facade and make a decent return on that investment.

The key is the asking price has to be reasonable. Given the state of the building, water damaged and unoccupied above the ground floor since Hurricane Juan, and the constraints - in a Heritage Conservation District, limited in height and mass to essentially what is already there, there is no point in asking a speculative price on the land, rather, the price needs to reflect what can actually be done on the site.

Further, Mr. Webber has closed his insurance claim for the damage from Juan and is receipt of those funds, and the neighbouring Discovery Centre re-development will require that developer to compensate Mr. Webber to adapt the Green Lantern roof to accomodate higher snow load. The municipality stands ready through the Heritage fund to approve a similar grant and tax credit.

Given all this, I continue to hope that this historic building or facade can be preserved. I urge Mr. Webber to either reach out to staff and engage in a process that sees this site redeveloped, or to sell the building to one of the many developers who wish to see this building preserved.

Councillor Waye Mason
District 7 Halifax South Downtown

[Drybrain]

If Webber actually wants a "war" (not that I hope for that), the city should make it hard as hell for him:

1. Change rules around demolition of heritage properties so that owners don't have an automatic right to demolish after the three-year waiting period. Other jurisdictions have done this—in 2005, the Ontario Heritage Act was amended so that the cooling-off period was eliminated. Instead, property owners must appeal a demolition refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board. if the OMB also denies the request, the owner has no choice—they MUST preserve the property.

2. Fight demolition by neglect (a path I can certainly envision Webber taking, if he isn't already) by making it possible for the city to expropriate properties in exceptional circumstances—such as a property owner declaring "war" on the city and leaving a major heritage property vacant and decaying out of spite.

Expropriation seems justified to me, since it sounds like Webber isn't bothering to do much maintenance on the building. So any issues with water damage or other decay are probably slowly worsening. The electrical is probably old and decayed, and possibly a fire hazard. Since it abuts it's neighbours, that potentially makes it a danger to the buildings (and people) on the whole block.

Webber doesn't deserve this building. Property ownership rights only go so far.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

“Webber said it doesn’t make financial sense to outfit the building with new electrical, plumbing and elevators – an effort that would cost roughly $6 million more than building an entirely new structure.” I have spoken to three developers who were quite confident they could buy the property renovate it or simply retain the facade and make a decent return on that investment.

The key is the asking price has to be reasonable. Given the state of the building, water damaged and unoccupied above the ground floor since Hurricane Juan, and the constraints - in a Heritage Conservation District, limited in height and mass to essentially what is already there, there is no point in asking a speculative price on the land, rather, the price needs to reflect what can actually be done on the site.

Further, Mr. Webber has closed his insurance claim for the damage from Juan and is receipt of those funds, and the neighbouring Discovery Centre re-development will require that developer to compensate Mr. Webber to adapt the Green Lantern roof to accomodate higher snow load. The municipality stands ready through the Heritage fund to approve a similar grant and tax credit.

Given all this, I continue to hope that this historic building or facade can be preserved. I urge Mr. Webber to either reach out to staff and engage in a process that sees this site redeveloped, or to sell the building to one of the many developers who wish to see this building preserved.

Councillor Waye Mason
District 7 Halifax South Downtown

Mayor should meet with him and tell him to sell. City should come up with "incentives" to "encourage" him to sell. I'm sure StarFish would be interested. Southwest Properties too. Any number of real, credible, serious, developers with a significant stake in the street's rehabilitation.

If someone wants to re-develop it, fine. But I think the facade should be, at the very least, retained. This is the ugliest street front right now (other than the ugly Tramway building-- another property that the Council should be turning its attention to, as its current state is a disgrace).

Meanwhile, it would be great if we had a real, legit, and serious Heritage organization that has the credibility to step in here, broker some resolution here between the developer and the city.

Instead, we have the Nova Scotia Anti-Development Trust, which is too busy over in the north end-- litigating to stop affordable housing because it's too close to their back yard-- to concern themselves with genuine heritage challenges in this city like this.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

If Webber actually wants a "war" (not that I hope for that), the city should make it hard as hell for him:

1. Change rules around demolition of heritage properties so that owners don't have an automatic right to demolish after the three-year waiting period. Other jurisdictions have done this—in 2005, the Ontario Heritage Act was amended so that the cooling-off period was eliminated. Instead, property owners must appeal a demolition refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board. if the OMB also denies the request, the owner has no choice—they MUST preserve the property.

2. Fight demolition by neglect (a path I can certainly envision Webber taking, if he isn't already) by making it possible for the city to expropriate properties in exceptional circumstances—such as a property owner declaring "war" on the city and leaving a major heritage property vacant and decaying out of spite.

Expropriation seems justified to me, since it sounds like Webber isn't bothering to do much maintenance on the building. So any issues with water damage or other decay are probably slowly worsening. The electrical is probably old and decayed, and possibly a fire hazard. Since it abuts it's neighbours, that potentially makes it a danger to the buildings (and people) on the whole block.

Webber doesn't deserve this building. Property ownership rights only go so far.

I agree with your sentiment, but it seems to me expropriation is a pretty heavyhanded tool in the circumstances. I wouldn't want its use here to deter serious developers from re-developing heritage properties in other circumstances.

I think you need to use both a carrot and the stick.

The carrot -- how about city provides some subsidies for a transfer of a heritage property, where the sale has, as a term, some heritage preservation purpose as determined by council (staff report and Council vote).

The stick -- Why not just provide for inspection powers, with the City able to slap large fines on property owners for allowing heritage properties to decay?

For the latter, the city could threaten large fines, but indicate that it will "suspend" the fines or forebear on them, if the owner sells the property to a buyer, with a heritage preservation term/condition (the "carrot" subsidies also apply here).