General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As a lifelong resident of "Halifax" (formally HRM), I've always noticed that "we" have had a hard time imagining that "we" can have the same things that larger cities can have. Restoring, modernizing, preserving, overhauling a heritage building is a huge job, one that I would offer is much more difficult and expensive than just building new from scratch. These kind of "impractical" projects have always been on the cusp of our awareness as happening in other places, whereas "we" feel that we just have to make due and survive, without the "extravagant" projects that other places with lots of money have.

This is my perception too, for sure. Even on this forum, when I've posted examples of heritage restorations in Toronto or Calgary or Montreal or wherever, or cited situations in those cities where developers have taken extra care to incorporate historic buildings into new developments, I get the "Developers can't afford to do that here" response. Ol' downtrodden Halifax has to make do with what it can get. Excellence is out of reach in this old burg, etc. This is all nonsense, of course--the fact that we have developers willing to take on projects like the NFB Lofts or the Dillon restoration should prove that. But there's no end to the excuses made for half-assed city building. Despite the huge amount of development activity now, the tone of media coverage, for sure, is often very "Mr. Developer is so good to wade through our red tape and invest in out third-rate city. Let's not make life hard for him."

The good news is that I feel like I moved here as this attitude was shifting, and there's some genuinely exciting stuff going on, from big-scale (Cogswell) to individual developments (1592 Barrington). This is part of the reason why I'm bullish on the city, despite all these challenges.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

No different than Scarborough still being Scarborough, Etobicoke still being Etobicoke, but all part of a larger "team" (sorry for all the quotation marks) that is Toronto. People I know who live there, tell strangers that they live in Toronto but tell friends they live in Etobicoke or York or whatever. Their communities still have an identity but they are clear that they are part of the "big city".

Halifax, I think, has yet to adopt this kind of thinking for the most part. It is changing, though, as other areas (the evil suburbs) become more densely populated. It's a slow evolution, though.

That's true, but of course, Toronto just emerged from a nightmare mayoralty in which urban/suburban divisions and mutual loathing defined everything about the city's civic discussions, from transit to poverty to development. TO needs a few more decades as well, probably, to really think of the whole thing as "Toronto."

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The good news is that I feel like I moved here as this attitude was shifting, and there's some genuinely exciting stuff going on, from big-scale (Cogswell) to individual developments (1592 Barrington). This is part of the reason why I'm bullish on the city, despite all these challenges.

I agree that it is shifting, and at least partially through individuals like yourself who have seen better ways in other places, yet have a clear idea of what it means to be "Halifax". Personally from reading your posts I think you have an excellent vision for how we could make Halifax the best Halifax it can be, which isn't to try to be Toronto or Vancouver.

I've stated this before and still hold tight to the idea that we need to strive to to embrace ideas from other places, but apply them to our own unique city to improve things while maintaining our own strong identity. Hopefully we will get there.

And, I don't think you should feel as though you are offending anybody with your posts. As I see it, you're calling it like you see it. That's a tough job sometimes, but it needs to be done.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

This is my perception too, for sure. Even on this forum, when I've posted examples of heritage restorations in Toronto or Calgary or Montreal or wherever, or cited situations in those cities where developers have taken extra care to incorporate historic buildings into new developments, I get the "Developers can't afford to do that here" response. Ol' downtrodden Halifax has to make do with what it can get. Excellence is out of reach in this old burg, etc. This is all nonsense, of course--the fact that we have developers willing to take on projects like the NFB Lofts or the Dillon restoration should prove that. But there's no end to the excuses made for half-assed city building. Despite the huge amount of development activity now, the tone of media coverage, for sure, is often very "Mr. Developer is so good to wade through our red tape and invest in out third-rate city. Let's not make life hard for him."

You're combining a couple of different issues here, but I disagree with you on both. In terms of the affordability of refurbs - it is a lot more affordable to do that in an environment like Toronto or wherever, where a unit that might sell here for $400K brings 2 or 3 times that in that market.

Your comment about the development climate and how tough HRM is on developers may reflect something that is similar to other cities but does not change the fact that HRM does not make it easy for developers to do business, and has a labyrinth of obstacles, to the point where injunctions have been issued because of the broken relationship between staff and the people taking the risk and spending the money.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You're combining a couple of different issues here, but I disagree with you on both. In terms of the affordability of refurbs - it is a lot more affordable to do that in an environment like Toronto or wherever, where a unit that might sell here for $400K brings 2 or 3 times that in that market.

Your comment about the development climate and how tough HRM is on developers may reflect something that is similar to other cities but does not change the fact that HRM does not make it easy for developers to do business, and has a labyrinth of obstacles, to the point where injunctions have been issued because of the broken relationship between staff and the people taking the risk and spending the money.

I'm no expert so I can't do the arithmetic on cost vs. return-on-investment, but I do think that there are enough examples of careful and impressive heritage restoration locally that we can't just lob around the "it doesn't work in this market" argument. We already have fairly pricey real estate in the inner city. Plus if ambitious restoration and renovation is happening in places like Winnipeg and Hamilton, then the argument that the market is insufficient to support it doesn't feel right.

There's also the corollary--that in a market like TO, the potential benefit of building as high as you're allowed creates an impossible to resist incentive for developers to bulldoze things left and right--but they're not doing that.

You're right of course that the city could and should make life easier for developers, especially those who abide by the rules. Certainly I'm not making an argument against big bad developers. I'm actually one of the few people I know who defends Starfish as a company that's invested a ton of money in our downtown with no guarantee of a return on it. (Though I don't think it's healthy for one company to own so much of a major street like Barrington, or Westwood does on Spring Garden, but that's another issue.)

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Excellent post. Absolutely agree that the whole line of thinking needs to be overhauled and that significant incentives need to be offered to make preserving heritage buildings a stronger business case.

As a lifelong resident of "Halifax" (formally HRM), I've always noticed that "we" have had a hard time imagining that "we" can have the same things that larger cities can have. Restoring, modernizing, preserving, overhauling a heritage building is a huge job, one that I would offer is much more difficult and expensive than just building new from scratch. These kind of "impractical" projects have always been on the cusp of our awareness as happening in other places, whereas "we" feel that we just have to make due and survive, without the "extravagant" projects that other places with lots of money have.

This is a very real perception, I think, and although I believe it is changing I feel there will long be a percentage of our people who would think that any extra money built to just make an old property beautiful and useful again is a waste when it's cheaper to rip it down and build a "practical" modern box in its place. It is this attitude that I think still prevails in our city/province at a political level - there still seems to be an overwhelming lack of vision at these levels for some reason.

Just my 2¢ (errr... 5¢ if I want to be more current) on the matter, from somebody who has always lived here and still loves living here... but recognizes we can do much better than we have been.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

This is my perception too, for sure. Even on this forum, when I've posted examples of heritage restorations in Toronto or Calgary or Montreal or wherever, or cited situations in those cities where developers have taken extra care to incorporate historic buildings into new developments, I get the "Developers can't afford to do that here" response. Ol' downtrodden Halifax has to make do with what it can get. Excellence is out of reach in this old burg, etc. This is all nonsense, of course--the fact that we have developers willing to take on projects like the NFB Lofts or the Dillon restoration should prove that. But there's no end to the excuses made for half-assed city building. Despite the huge amount of development activity now, the tone of media coverage, for sure, is often very "Mr. Developer is so good to wade through our red tape and invest in out third-rate city. Let's not make life hard for him."

The good news is that I feel like I moved here as this attitude was shifting, and there's some genuinely exciting stuff going on, from big-scale (Cogswell) to individual developments (1592 Barrington). This is part of the reason why I'm bullish on the city, despite all these challenges.

I agree -- I also think the new library should suggests a change in thinking. Rather than settle for sub-par or small thinking, we really now have a world class library. Or at the very least, national class library with world class elements. I seriously cannot think of another comparable public space in Canada; not even the Toronto Public Library's main branch comes close. We have something that no other cities, even the biggest, in Canada have. And it adds so much as a meeting place for people downtown, a nice place to go, both in winter and even better in summer. I seriously still have trouble getting over how great the new library is.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

This is my perception too, for sure. Even on this forum, when I've posted examples of heritage restorations in Toronto or Calgary or Montreal or wherever, or cited situations in those cities where developers have taken extra care to incorporate historic buildings into new developments, I get the "Developers can't afford to do that here" response. Ol' downtrodden Halifax has to make do with what it can get. Excellence is out of reach in this old burg, etc. This is all nonsense, of course--the fact that we have developers willing to take on projects like the NFB Lofts or the Dillon restoration should prove that. But there's no end to the excuses made for half-assed city building. Despite the huge amount of development activity now, the tone of media coverage, for sure, is often very "Mr. Developer is so good to wade through our red tape and invest in out third-rate city. Let's not make life hard for him."

You want to dig up examples of heritage preservation in other cities instead of using examples from Halifax. Often, the examples you use from other cities are examples of facadism described in glowing terms in order to condemn better examples in Halifax.

Here are a couple examples that you ignore when you hype the heritage preservation of Toronto:

Toronto cut itself off from its waterfront with the Gardener Expressway, which is an incredible eyesore cutting through the city. Why do you ignore the vibrant waterfront of Halifax that has taken decades to plan and develop? Here is a link that praises the Halifax waterfront (and it is from Hamilton, Ontario) - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...ront-more-halifax-than-toronto-1.1325792

A Halifax developer (Ben McCrea) who took old derelict waterfront warehouses (Historic Properties) in the 1970's and did an actual heritage preservation (no facadism here, as in your numerous examples): http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1123652-halifax-developer-mccrea-dies-at-73. I also like the Founders Square complex in spite of your condemnation.

There were also mistakes that were made in Halifax such as the layout of Scotia Square and the Cogswell exchange. However, lessons have been learned from such mistakes in Halifax and elsewhere. Why aren't you hyping the plans to tear down the Cogswell Interchange and restore the street grid?

The Dennis building hasn't been torn down yet. However, it isn't desirable space in its current configuration. So what is a practical way to save it? I am quite certain that in Toronto, Hamilton, or any other city that you want to mention, the best that would be done is save the exterior and rebuild it on the inside. If it is a private development in those other cities, then it would probably also include redeveloping the vacant land that surrounds it (my opinion is based on living in those cities).

I make no apologies for liking modern buildings. You mentioned the BMO block and its endangered heritage buildings but I think you meant the Royal Bank block and 22nd Commerce Square. Halifax doesn't have to live in the past and if heritage buildings can be incorporated into impressive modern buildings then that might actually be the desire of the majority as opposed to ignorance of heritage preservation. In addition to reusing and saving portions of the heritage buildings on that block the nondescript Royal Bank tower will be replaced with a more impressive building. Just as the Waterside redevelopment has improved the appearance of that block of the city, the 22nd Commerce Square may improve the appearance of the Royal Bank tower block.

The Barrington Street facade of the Roy Building is being rebuilt with new materials. Using the original brick might be better but on the positive side, this development will bring many residents to Barrington Street that will help to revitalize the street.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Here are a couple examples that you ignore when you hype the heritage preservation of Toronto:
[INDENT]Toronto cut itself off from its waterfront with the Gardener Expressway, which is an incredible eyesore cutting through the city. Why do you ignore the vibrant waterfront of Halifax that has taken decades to plan and develop? Here is a link that praises the Halifax waterfront (and it is from Hamilton, Ontario) - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...ront-more-halifax-than-toronto-1.1325792

A Halifax developer (Ben McCrea) who took old derelict waterfront warehouses (Historic Properties) in the 1970's and did an actual heritage preservation.

Those are both decades old examples, but yeah, the Historic Properties was a fantastic project. That's what strikes me: Halifax was once a leader in adaptive re-use.

Originally Posted by fenwick16

The Dennis building hasn't been torn down yet. However, it isn't desirable space in its current configuration. So what is a practical way to save it? I am quite certain that in Toronto, Hamilton, or any other city that you want to mention, the best that would be done is save the exterior and rebuild it on the inside. If it is a private development in those other cities, then it would probably also include redeveloping the vacant land that surrounds it (my opinion is based on living in those cities).

I agree, but no such commitment had been made with regards to the Dennis.

Originally Posted by fenwick16

You mentioned the BMO block and its endangered heritage buildings but I think you meant the Royal Bank block and 22nd Commerce Square. Halifax doesn't have to live in the past and if heritage buildings can be incorporated into impressive modern buildings then that might actually be the desire of the majority as opposed to ignorance of heritage preservation.

No, I mean the BMO block and neighbouring buildings on SGR, which Westwood Developments owns and has a long-standing plan to knock down for a boutique hotel project.

Anyway, I'm not "hyping" Toronto or anywhere else. The fact is, I believe that the conversation around heritage in Halifax isn't as complex as it should be and the city, despite all its heritage resources, isn't a leader in imaginative heritage conservation and re-use. It once was (Historic Properties, etc) but today it's a bit of a laggard. I think we can do better.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Those are both decades old examples, but yeah, the Historic Properties was a fantastic project. That's what strikes me: Halifax was once a leader in adaptive re-use.
.
.
.
Anyway, I'm not "hyping" Toronto or anywhere else. The fact is, I believe that the conversation around heritage in Halifax isn't as complex as it should be and the city, despite all its heritage resources, isn't a leader in imaginative heritage conservation and re-use. It once was (Historic Properties, etc) but today it's a bit of a laggard. I think we can do better.

A few recent examples that I forgot:

Nova Scotia Power Inc. headquarters http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...old-bones-get-new-heart/article16524699/. Here is the skyscraperpage thread link - http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153811. I challenge you to provide a better example of a heritage rebuild in any other city in Canada.

Halifax Seaport Farmers Market - http://greensource.construction.com/gree.../1207-halifax-seaport-farmers-market.asp and http://www.tripadvisor.ca/Attraction_Rev...x_Regional_Municipality_Nova_Scotia.html

Cunard Centre - http://www.rcr.ca/catering/venues/cunard-centre/

Keith Hall and Brewery - http://historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=11003. This is a heritage reuse from the 1980's (Brewery Market Atrium) and also recently (Keith Hall renovation, which is an actual heritage preservation versus facadism).

Morse's Tea building renovation - not only was the exterior kept, most of the original interior structure was retained and refurbished (therefore not an example of facadism)

[Ziobrop]

A few things.

1.The HTNS was quite active in the 1970's advocating for preservation and coming up with alternative plans. they also produced many publications documenting Halifax's built heritage. Sadly, the names are all the same, and they are all 35 years older, and are cranky old obstructionist nimbys now.

2. Sometimes facadism is ok. the Dennis Building has 2 nice sides., the other 2 were previously obstructed, and the interior is circa 1970's cheap. the facde is what needs to be preserved in this case.

3. Barrington e space are 3 buildings which are still intact. the Dillon will incorporate a heritage building, intact. both successful re-use projects.

Shameless Plug:
several years ago, the Canadian Center of Architecture put on an exhibit of 60's development in Montreal. On builtHalifax.ca, Im writing a series of posts basically applying that concept to Halifax. the main page to that is here

Its a work in progress, But there is a Post on Harbour Drive, and the First of three on Scotia Square.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

3. Barrington e space are 3 buildings which are still intact. the Dillon will incorporate a heritage building, intact. both successful re-use projects.

Dillon and especially Espace especially are two examples of projects that have involved very careful restoration of heritage structures. And in the case of Espace, only a small addition on top. Yet Starfish clearly still think they'll be able to turn a profit on it, which should allay some of the arguments that "we can't afford" such projects in Halifax.

The Green Lantern, as a larger building to begin with, would seem to have that much more potential for profit. I can easily see the bottom floors becoming reasonably pricey retail, with lofts or heritage office conversions on the upper floors. Webber's whining is totally unconvincing, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure he's had difficulty with the city, and I empathise, but it doesn't justify tearing it down.

(And, I've been enjoying those Built Halifax posts. Really informative.)

[Dmajackson]

A report has been released regarding the proposed Barrington South Heritage District (Old South Suburb Report). It is an interesting read and for the most part I agree with the proposed protection levels. Interestingly the report does mention a dislike of the Hollis&South proposal. They state that the building is out of scale with the neighbourhood.

Old South Suburb Background Report

[Drybrain]

Related to heritage, the province has released a tender for hazardous-materials abatement and "interior, non-structural deconstruction" of the Dennis Building. Basically, they're gonna gut the whole thing but leave the exterior shell intact--for now. I don't know if this is the first phase of a fuller demolition (I assume they'd have to remove all the asbestos, etc., anyway before taking it down), but it stops short of destroying the structure, and paves the way for...

A: Leaving the shell intact and building a new interior, or

B: Careful dismantling and preserving of the facade.

Hoping option A is where things are heading.

[someone123]

The site which shall remain nameless had an article on this. Apparently they are committed to at least preserving the facade and they acknowledge that it's an important part of the city's heritage. Better than nothing.

Hopefully we'll soon see some more plans relating to this. It could be a really great project for the city if done well. If the Dennis Building were well-preserved and the surface parking on the George Street lot and Province House grounds were dealt with it would be a huge improvement.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

The site which shall remain nameless had an article on this. Apparently they are committed to at least preserving the facade and they acknowledge that it's an important part of the city's heritage. Better than nothing.

Hopefully we'll soon see some more plans relating to this. It could be a really great project for the city if done well. If the Dennis Building were well-preserved and the surface parking on the George Street lot and Province House grounds were dealt with it would be a huge improvement.

It would be nice to see a tower built in and around it, but not leaving a fake facade, i.e. building in the lots around, but not above.

Waterside doesn't look good in that regard. I hate the dormers.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

The site which shall remain nameless had an article on this. Apparently they are committed to at least preserving the facade and they acknowledge that it's an important part of the city's heritage. Better than nothing.

Hopefully we'll soon see some more plans relating to this. It could be a really great project for the city if done well. If the Dennis Building were well-preserved and the surface parking on the George Street lot and Province House grounds were dealt with it would be a huge improvement.

I just don't know why a cash strapped government doesn't see the win-win for the government and the city, of spending a bit of time to create an RFP that requires some heritage elements of the Dennis be preserved, inviting proposals from interested buyers.

You preserve the building, you get a major cash injection from the sale, and property tax in perpetuity, as the value of the property increases.

Just get it done.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I just don't know why a cash strapped government doesn't see the win-win for the government and the city, of spending a bit of time to create an RFP that requires some heritage elements of the Dennis be preserved, inviting proposals from interested buyers.

You preserve the building, you get a major cash injection from the sale, and property tax in perpetuity, as the value of the property increases.

Just get it done.

Because the existing building, even preserved, may not be suitable for what the needs of today are. Govt wants to get cars off the grounds of Province House. That likely means several levels of parking underground on this site. You cannot practically do that with the old structure overhead. The floor heights in the Dennis are low and likely undesirable. The capacity of the structure is likely undersized for what the intended uses will be. I could go on and on. I would much rather have govt spend money on building something that meets its needs FIRST, then try to accommodate whatever heritage elements are deemed necessary, than the other way around.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Because the existing building, even preserved, may not be suitable for what the needs of today are. Govt wants to get cars off the grounds of Province House. That likely means several levels of parking underground on this site. You cannot practically do that with the old structure overhead. The floor heights in the Dennis are low and likely undesirable. The capacity of the structure is likely undersized for what the intended uses will be. I could go on and on. I would much rather have govt spend money on building something that meets its needs FIRST, then try to accommodate whatever heritage elements are deemed necessary, than the other way around.

Enough with the "ceilings are too low" stuff. They average about 10 feet, once any drop ceilings are removed. They're fine. There are existing historic commercial buildings in this city with lower ceilings. There are recent example of restorations in other cities with upper-storey ceilings at right feet (Lister Block, Hamilton). The ceilings are not a problem.

It's a seven-storey office building. It's not like some oddball, single-purpose structure whose use has been eliminated, like a velodrome or something. It's an office building. Fix it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

It NEEDS to be preserved. Maybe if the HT hadn't cried wolf so many times about parking lots, this would be saved.

Getting cars off Province House grounds is a poor reason for this structure to be demolished.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Related to heritage, the province has released a tender for hazardous-materials abatement and "interior, non-structural deconstruction" of the Dennis Building. Basically, they're gonna gut the whole thing but leave the exterior shell intact--for now. I don't know if this is the first phase of a fuller demolition (I assume they'd have to remove all the asbestos, etc., anyway before taking it down), but it stops short of destroying the structure, and paves the way for...

A: Leaving the shell intact and building a new interior, or

B: Careful dismantling and preserving of the facade.

Hoping option A is where things are heading.

You gave a good description of the tender, but if anyone would like more details here is a link to the tender documents - http://www.novascotia.ca/tenders/tenders/tender-details.aspx?id=60148215.

Here is a list of the work required (from the tender):

1 Removal and disposal of all plaster.
2 Removal of all thermal insulation and gaskets.
3 Removal of all floor tiles and other identified flooring materials.
4 Removal of all other identified ACM.
5 Removal of Lead waste.
6 Removal of Mercury waste.
7 Inspection of ballasts for PCBs.
8 Disposal of PCB containing ballasts.
9 Removal and disposal of all other interior effects and non-load bearing building components.

Hopefully this is a positive step forward in saving the important heritage aspects of the building.