Development Rumours

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

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).

Yeah, expropriation is a huge step.

I like the idea of inspection powers for the city, and very large fines for not performing sufficient preventive maintenance.

To encourage restoration/renovation, those fines could be refunded upon the commencement of a renovation project, in addition to any grants or tax breaks already granted.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yeah, expropriation is a huge step.

I like the idea of inspection powers for the city, and very large fines for not performing sufficient preventive maintenance.

To encourage restoration/renovation, those fines could be refunded upon the commencement of a renovation project, in addition to any grants or tax breaks already granted.

The City could enforce by-law D-300. "Respecting Derelict Buildings"

The clause about demolition (6B) of course would not apply. The requirement for general upkeep and good appearance of a heritage property needs to be written into the Heritage Property Act.

http://www.halifax.ca/legislation/bylaws/hrm/documents/By-lawD-300.pdf

[Keith P.]

If the city wants to force restoration of this dump, then they should buy it and do it - and be ready to face the wrath of taxpayers for more profligate waste. The owner can do what he wants with his property.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If the city wants to force restoration of this dump, then they should buy it and do it - and be ready to face the wrath of taxpayers for more profligate waste. The owner can do what he wants with his property.

Right. Try and do whatever you want with your own property and see how well that goes for you.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by hokus83

Right. Try and do whatever you want with your own property and see how well that goes for you.

So true.

Everybody else has rules that they have to live by, why shouldn't developers/building owners?

[Keith P.]

You miss my point. Previous posts were calling for the city to expropriate, to force him to sell, to force him to restore, etc. He is not doing anything wrong. Unless the property becomes a public safety hazard or an unsightly premise there is nothing the city can or should do. From what I have read he is following the rules in deregistering it as a first step to demolition. He could just suffer a mysterious fire some night and accomplish the same thing in a lot less time. But he is not going that route. He is following the rules. Some don't like that he is doing that, but too bad. He can do what he wants. To suggest that the city send in inspectors to an empty building suggests an agenda at play and could easily be interpreted as political harassment and intimidation.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I get your point, Keith. However, the point I was trying to make is that there are a different set of rules for heritage properties.

You are right from the standpoint that Halifax's are much weaker than in many other cities, and that there have been many loopholes that owners have been able to jump through to allow them to demolish buildings that previously had supposed heritage protection. Passive demolition through neglect has been one of them (arson has always been against the law, by the way). The laws are too weak that way, but there appears to be a wind of change in the air. As usual, Halifax will likely be one of the last cities to do what everybody else is already doing, but I can see it changing.

That said, IMHO, the history of the city is the property of everybody, current and future generations. While there will likely be some debate about which particular pieces of history are significant, I think it's fairly widely felt that buildings that have been an integral part of the downtown for a century are significant, and we owe it to future generations to preserve a much of this built history.

So whether the owner likes it or not, he is now part of it and thus has certain responsibilities related to ownership of such buildings that he should have to adhere to.

Others here have stated it much more eloquently than I have, but I hope you see my point.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You miss my point. Previous posts were calling for the city to expropriate, to force him to sell, to force him to restore, etc. He is not doing anything wrong. Unless the property becomes a public safety hazard or an unsightly premise there is nothing the city can or should do. From what I have read he is following the rules in deregistering it as a first step to demolition. He could just suffer a mysterious fire some night and accomplish the same thing in a lot less time. But he is not going that route. He is following the rules. Some don't like that he is doing that, but too bad. He can do what he wants. To suggest that the city send in inspectors to an empty building suggests an agenda at play and could easily be interpreted as political harassment and intimidation.

I think there's a case to be made that it IS an unsightly premises, and maybe a safety hazard. At best, it's a major blight on the downtown area. The guy's a negligent property owner, and if there are unresolved maintenance issues with a registered heritage building (as Waye alluded to, water damage, etc) that's enough cause to go in and take a look.

As well, implying that he "could" just burn it down is a bit insane. Given the circumstances, he'd be suspect no.1, and he'd forfeit the property and probably go to jail. And, since the building is attached to neighbours on both sides, he'd also be threatening other people's property--and lives, for that matter--and nothing gives him the right to do that. Of course, there's no evidence he's considered that course of action, so much as I dislike Webber, I feel it's almost libelous to talk about him like that's something he would do.

Anyway, OldDartmouthmark's post does a good job of summarizing how I feel about the responsibilities of a property owner in a case like this. We all know that property rights are not absolute, and every city, province, state, country, etc. has certain community standards by which property owners must abide. Many are far more stringent than they are in Halifax. Wanting him to retain one of the cornerstones of the city's only heritage district is not excessive. Especially when so many other property owners on the street are actively engaged in restorations, proving that there are a lot of people who find these old buildings viable and desirable.

I just wish we had some idea what he WANTS to do with the property. First it was to fix it up, then it was to demolish it, then it was to fix it up and add some floors to the top, and now it's back to demolition, but no apparent plan for a replacement building. He seems to be playing his cards pretty close to his chest, and toying with something a lot of us feel very deeply about it. It's shitty, shitty behaviour, whoever owns the building.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

As well, implying that he "could" just burn it down is a bit insane. Given the circumstances, he'd be suspect no.1, and he'd forfeit the property and probably go to jail. And, since the building is attached to neighbours on both sides, he'd also be threatening other people's property--and lives, for that matter--and nothing gives him the right to do that. Of course, there's no evidence he's considered that course of action, so much as I dislike Webber, I feel it's almost libelous to talk about him like that's something he would do.

The only person saying that's something he "would" do is you. I made it clear that it is not something he would do.

I just wish we had some idea what he WANTS to do with the property. First it was to fix it up, then it was to demolish it, then it was to fix it up and add some floors to the top, and now it's back to demolition, but no apparent plan for a replacement building. He seems to be playing his cards pretty close to his chest, and toying with something a lot of us feel very deeply about it. It's shitty, shitty behaviour, whoever owns the building.

It is interesting that apparently he made a proposal to renovate with a penthouse added, which the city rejected. I do not recall such a proposal so perhaps it is from a long time ago. But the question that arises is, why was it rejected by the city? Was it a HT "restore to original or die" attitude? If the city took that view then they really are not any better than the obstructionists and talking out of both sides of their mouth.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is interesting that apparently he made a proposal to renovate with a penthouse added, which the city rejected. I do not recall such a proposal so perhaps it is from a long time ago. But the question that arises is, why was it rejected by the city? Was it a HT "restore to original or die" attitude? If the city took that view then they really are not any better than the obstructionists and talking out of both sides of their mouth.

I suspect this was rejected because of the same viewplane that made it impossible for the owners of the NFB facade to reconstruct the tower that was part of the original building. It seems absurd to have viewplanes that are not even compatible with buildings that existed in 1890.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

I suspect this was rejected because of the same viewplane that made it impossible for the owners of the NFB facade to reconstruct the tower that was part of the original building. It seems absurd to have viewplanes that are not even compatible with buildings that existed in 1890.

This is the stupidest thing I've *ever* heard. Viewplanes that prevent the restoration of *actual* heritage building height.

[someone123]

I'm not sure of the original source, but I found this concept for Cornwallis Park. I've always thought that this area has a lot of potential but is a bit tired, not unlike the North Common.


Source

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure of the original source, but I found this concept for Cornwallis Park. I've always thought that this area has a lot of potential but is a bit tired, not unlike the North Common.


Source

I believe it's a concept designed by one of the city's planners. It was presented at a meeting a while ago, at the Westin NS. Waye Mason was there (as host of the meeting, I believe). It reminds me of the old Halifax (City or HRM, I don't remember) municipal flag.

[Keith P.]

As I recall, it was Mason's underhanded attempt at renaming it to some aboriginal title and losing the Cornwallis name.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

As I recall, it was Mason's underhanded attempt at renaming it to some aboriginal title and losing the Cornwallis name.

I don't think it was Waye who suggested that. From a National Post story last year on the issue:

Mr. Mason said that even in the context of 18th century colonial warfare, Cornwallis was “pretty horrible,” but argued that Halifax may be better served by using the statue as a “teaching tool” rather than tearing it down completely.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

I believe it's a concept designed by one of the city's planners. It was presented at a meeting a while ago, at the Westin NS. Waye Mason was there (as host of the meeting, I believe). It reminds me of the old Halifax (City or HRM, I don't remember) municipal flag.

This is great.

As usual, some lovely plans formulated for the peninsula, that are never ever acted upon.

We could always go dust off that great "Capital Lands" plan for the Provincehouse and the Dennis. Such a good plan, and, of course, sits on a shelf while the Provincial Government mulls creating another parking lot on the site of the Dennis.

[someone123]

It is a little hard to see, but does anybody know what the plans are for the building under construction in the background of this photo (it looks like 1-2 wooden upper storeys being built in behind the bus)? I think it might be 2157/2159 Gottingen:


Source

[coolmillion]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is a little hard to see, but does anybody know what the plans are for the building under construction in the background of this photo (it looks like 1-2 wooden upper storeys being built in behind the bus)? I think it might be 2157/2159 Gottingen:

I think that's the building where Eye Level Gallery was located for a couple of years. Some time last year construction started. There was a sign out front saying "support provided by BMO". I think the owner of the building has a few small properties around the north end. Possibly an expansion to add space for apartments?
The big thing is what is planned for the ground floor. I've been sworn to secrecy so I can't say, but it's supposed to open later this year.

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

I think that's the building where Eye Level Gallery was located for a couple of years. Some time last year construction started. There was a sign out front saying "support provided by BMO". I think the owner of the building has a few small properties around the north end. Possibly an expansion to add space for apartments?
The big thing is what is planned for the ground floor. I've been sworn to secrecy so I can't say, but it's supposed to open later this year.

I'm excited to see what will be on the ground floor! Can you say if it'll be retail?

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

As usual, some lovely plans formulated for the peninsula, that are never ever acted upon.

Except just yesterday Tim Bousquet reported that Halifax has released the RFP to have the park redeveloped.