General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

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.

The point remains, the province needs to address its office space needs with the best building they can get. The heritage components can be incorporated, but must play a secondary role to the primary requirement. As a near-bankrupt, we cannot afford to build another Disney-fied project like Historic Properties that satisfies nothing except a desire to re-create the past.

[ILoveHalifax]

There should not be any parking component to this building. The city councillors want to encourage transit, bikes and skate boards for transportation for the general population and therefore should submit to the same.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

There should not be any parking component to this building. The city councillors want to encourage transit, bikes and skate boards for transportation for the general population and therefore should submit to the same.

Exactly what I was thinking... or pay for parking like everybody else.

They don't even meet that frequently!

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The point remains, the province needs to address its office space needs with the best building they can get. The heritage components can be incorporated, but must play a secondary role to the primary requirement. As a near-bankrupt, we cannot afford to build another Disney-fied project like Historic Properties that satisfies nothing except a desire to re-create the past.

That is a somewhat fair point, but wasn't historic properties done by a private developer? I'm sure it has value above and beyond its tangible value in terms of spinoffs... isn't that what the point of heritage is? I think that's why western cities fight hard to preserve the little scraps they have... otherwise they are just generic cities that most likely wouldn't exist if it wasn't for oil.

I'm sure this is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the province... and the great thing about governments is that their revenue stream is guaranteed.

As I said, this would be great to have a tower around it in the same height as the TD tower... I'm sure there is a stupid viewplane (ironic, a view possibly leading to the destruction of heritage because its not viable).



I think a requirement for something like this, around the same height as the TD tower would be perfect.

[Empire]

The Dennis building would make a great Boutique Hotel. Leave as whole and completely refurbish.

Then build a two tower development on the vacant site, one office and one residential to the max height of course.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

The Dennis building would make a great Boutique Hotel. Leave as whole and completely refurbish.

Then build a two tower development on the vacant site, one office and one residential to the max height of course.

I think this is the sort of case where the city's restrictive height limits, partly fought for by the Heritage Trust and co., tend to hurt heritage buildings. If developers got substantial height bonuses in exchange for heritage preservation, preservation would become a money-maker and developers would stop making up excuses for why heritage buildings must be torn down.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think this is the sort of case where the city's restrictive height limits, partly fought for by the Heritage Trust and co., tend to hurt heritage buildings. If developers got substantial height bonuses in exchange for heritage preservation, preservation would become a money-maker and developers would stop making up excuses for why heritage buildings must be torn down.

I don't have the reference handy, but the citadel view planes predate the HTNS.
The city decided they were important years before they were active, any before anything remotely tall was built.

The view planes can also be complied with and still allow height. The Nova Center does.

Fwiw the minister told me that he's commited to preserving the facade. He feels the building is important to the area, but the interior is 60's dated. The interior gut should be a good first step in preserving the building.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

I don't have the reference handy, but the citadel view planes predate the HTNS.
The city decided they were important years before they were active, any before anything remotely tall was built.

I'm not so sure about this. They may predate the dates given now, but if you look on the HRM website the view plane materials are normally dated 1974 (see LUB). I think the ramparts bylaw is 1978, and supposedly there are some buildings that predate it and violate it. A few taller buildings like the first of the Scotia Square towers, Royal Bank, Fenwick, and Park Vic are from the 1960's and early 70's. The height limits were a reaction to the trend toward highrise construction that had already started.

The HT was founded in 1959 but the more relevant point is that some of the same people who talk about heritage preservation (and stopping development) today were politically active in the 1970's and advocated for these height limits.

As an aside, I don't necessarily think that height bonuses should be tied to particular sites. Developers should be encourage to invest in heritage preservation anywhere, and they should be allowed to use those credits on appropriate sites. A mechanism like that could be used to greatly increase the market value of the Dennis Building; the province could sell it to a developer who would be willing to buy it in exchange for density elsewhere.

Fwiw the minister told me that he's commited to preserving the facade. He feels the building is important to the area, but the interior is 60's dated. The interior gut should be a good first step in preserving the building.

I read this too and it's a positive change from some of the earlier stories. I think this could be a really good development for the area if it's well-executed. A preserved Dennis Building facade with a nice new building on the rest of the lot with underground parking would be a huge improvement.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

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.

Apparently Pacey wants to save the plaster (he posted this on the HT's Dennis Facebook page.) It's like, really Phil, the plaster? The group is so disconnected from the reality of what's actually important on these issues.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Apparently Pacey wants to save the plaster (he posted this on the HT's Dennis Facebook page.) It's like, really Phil, the plaster? The group is so disconnected from the reality of what's actually important on these issues.

He should keep it and the aesbestos, lead, and mercury at his house.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

The HT was founded in 1959 but the more relevant point is that some of the same people who talk about heritage preservation (and stopping development) today were politically active in the 1970's and advocated for these height limits.

Good news, clock is ticking.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Apparently Pacey wants to save the plaster (he posted this on the HT's Dennis Facebook page.) It's like, really Phil, the plaster? The group is so disconnected from the reality of what's actually important on these issues.

Having been inside the Dennis Building I think the only original plaster might be in the entry on the ground floor and is hardly anything remarkable. The other interior spaces I have seen all have low-bid drywall or 1950s cheap plywood paneling on the walls and typical drop ceilings. Absolutely no architectural detail anywhere. Maybe there is some behind all that stuff, I don't know, but I doubt Pacey knows either.

[ILoveHalifax]

Pack up all the asbestos and deliver it to the Pacey household

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Having been inside the Dennis Building I think the only original plaster might be in the entry on the ground floor and is hardly anything remarkable. The other interior spaces I have seen all have low-bid drywall or 1950s cheap plywood paneling on the walls and typical drop ceilings. Absolutely no architectural detail anywhere. Maybe there is some behind all that stuff, I don't know, but I doubt Pacey knows either.

I'd go to bat to preserve the stuff if there was any, but I doubt it. Even if there is anything it's probably just the odd cornice or molding, not a proper interior. In any case, it would be very cool to have the massing of the old structure fully preserved with a state-of-the-art interior.

[ILoveHalifax]

If Phil Pacey wants stuff from the Dennis building he should be charged for it and given a specific time to get it removed from the property. Why would the people of Nova Scotia pay to remove it and deliver it to him?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

If Phil Pacey wants stuff from the Dennis building he should be charged for it and given a specific time to get it removed from the property. Why would the people of Nova Scotia pay to remove it and deliver it to him?

He doesn't want it for himself. He wants it preserved inside the building during restoration. (whatever it might be--in all likelihood there's little or nothing worth salvaging in the interior).

[hokus83]

Can't wait to laugh at Phil Pacey and the HT fighting against development of the surrounding parking lot. Save the Plaster, that building must be preserved mostly with the pre existing Plaster, Nooooooo you can't build anything around the Dennis building.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This is the biggest problem with these folks... they'll fight tooth and nail to not allow a development on the empty lot, and risk the loss of the building itself. Its just plain stupid.

[worldlyhaligonian]

This example is even better than the Toronto one:

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not so sure about this. They may predate the dates given now, but if you look on the HRM website the view plane materials are normally dated 1974 (see LUB). I think the ramparts bylaw is 1978, and supposedly there are some buildings that predate it and violate it. A few taller buildings like the first of the Scotia Square towers, Royal Bank, Fenwick, and Park Vic are from the 1960's and early 70's. The height limits were a reaction to the trend toward highrise construction that had already started.

The HT was founded in 1959 but the more relevant point is that some of the same people who talk about heritage preservation (and stopping development) today were politically active in the 1970's and advocated for these height limits.

As an aside, I don't necessarily think that height bonuses should be tied to particular sites. Developers should be encourage to invest in heritage preservation anywhere, and they should be allowed to use those credits on appropriate sites. A mechanism like that could be used to greatly increase the market value of the Dennis Building; the province could sell it to a developer who would be willing to buy it in exchange for density elsewhere.



I read this too and it's a positive change from some of the earlier stories. I think this could be a really good development for the area if it's well-executed. A preserved Dennis Building facade with a nice new building on the rest of the lot with underground parking would be a huge improvement.

This is excellent, and wholly accurate.

And the usual suspects we hear from today, were part of the planning battles back then. Some of it was good -- like stopping the Cogswell/Harbourfront highway-- but the other parts of their legacy, I think, has been negative and detrimental to the city, view planes and development uncertainty.

That's what a lot of these battles today are about. It's about aging former activists, who are now wealthy property owners, battling to preserve their legacy, largely crytallized in the 1960s and 70's.