General Updates and News

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

AllNS published a funny story about the Doyle Block in which it was pretty obvious that Danny Chedrawe thinks the city should just back off and let him, a developer who has not erected a single half-decent building in his entire career, do whatever he wants without interference in the design and planning of his properties. It's rather extraordinary that he would complain, given how little resistance he's faced to this profoundly bad proposal.

He really came off as flabbergasted that he was subject to an approvals process rather than being given carte blanche.

Did you send him your comments as i suggested ?
I don't like the new design but the council only sees $$$$$ when any proposal is placed before them.
Face facts, you won't find many of our councillors recounting their impressions of the marvellous architecture/play/music/book they have seen or read.
And Beethoven certainly doesn't live upstairs for many of them.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Did you send him your comments as i suggested ?
I don't like the new design but the council only sees $$$$$ when any proposal is placed before them.
Face facts, you won't find many of our councillors recounting their impressions of the marvellous architecture/play/music/book they have seen or read.
And Beethoven certainly doesn't live upstairs for many of them.

I thought about it actually, but couldn't find an email address or anything.

CBC has a story this morning anyway, indicating he looked at reusing the BMO building but couldn't make it work economically (he needed more height to do so, but ye olde viewplanes got in the way.)

Who knows: he may just be leveraging the situation to get in a complaint about the height restriction. Plenty of developers seem to be able to make mid-rise construction work with heritage restoration, in this city and elsewhere.

But if there's any validity to his complaint, it's extremely frustrating. The supremacy of the view again trumping on-the-ground built heritage. Maybe it's worth asking Chedrawe if he'd revisit the plan and restore BMO if a public- opinion campaign swayed political opinion regarding height here.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I thought about it actually, but couldn't find an email address or anything.

CBC has a story this morning anyway, indicating he looked at reusing the BMO building but couldn't make it work economically (he needed more height to do so, but ye olde viewplanes got in the way.)

Who knows: he may just be leveraging the situation to get in a complaint about the height restriction. Plenty of developers seem to be able to make mid-rise construction work with heritage restoration, in this city and elsewhere.

But if there's any validity to his complaint, it's extremely frustrating. The supremacy of the view again trumping on-the-ground built heritage. Maybe it's worth asking Chedrawe if he'd revisit the plan and restore BMO if a public- opinion campaign swayed political opinion regarding height here.

The other alternative, assuming it is not just good politicking on his part, is that this is potentially the sort of thing where public funds for heritage preservation could/should step in. Asking private developers to take a financial hit to preserve heritage (irrespective of the height issue) when they are taking all the risk is tough, and so having public funds to offset the cost of preserving built heritage that the public values makes sense. This is balanced for me though by the fact that, although the risk is all on the developer, as we talked about with the Morse's Tea building there is definitely cache to be had in preserving heritage that can actually make a building more marketable. At the end of the day it is a little of both column A and B, but not a 100% issue of height. Not saying that height limits aren't an issue, but rather that that always seem to be a useful lever that a developer understandably wants to pull.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I thought about it actually, but couldn't find an email address or anything.

CBC has a story this morning anyway, indicating he looked at reusing the BMO building but couldn't make it work economically (he needed more height to do so, but ye olde viewplanes got in the way.)

Who knows: he may just be leveraging the situation to get in a complaint about the height restriction. Plenty of developers seem to be able to make mid-rise construction work with heritage restoration, in this city and elsewhere.

But if there's any validity to his complaint, it's extremely frustrating. The supremacy of the view again trumping on-the-ground built heritage. Maybe it's worth asking Chedrawe if he'd revisit the plan and restore BMO if a public- opinion campaign swayed political opinion regarding height here.

\
Late on November 4 I posted :

He's easy to get along with and includes his family in the public part of his projects.

http://www.westwoodgroup.ca/contact.php

here is the mail address : [email protected]

[someone123]

Fundamentally the problem is that economic incentives for developers are not aligned with the public interest when it comes to heritage buildings. The height limits have made this even worse. The city and province need to fix this by strengthening heritage regulations and improving funding for heritage buildings.

It's great if some developers elect to preserve some buildings for the greater good or if that turns out to be economically advantageous, but that is the system that Halifax has now and it is not working very well. It's leading to lots of wasteful demolition in a city that is still full of empty lots and dumpy little buildings of no architectural or historic value.

[teddifax]

Is there a site for this one going up on Washmill Lake?
https://www.halifax.ca/Commcoun/west/documents/140806hwcc1012.pdf

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by teddifax

Is there a site for this one going up on Washmill Lake?
https://www.halifax.ca/Commcoun/west/documents/140806hwcc1012.pdf

I don't know of any website's but I do have a progress photo from earlier this month;


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

AllNS published a funny story about the Doyle Block in which it was pretty obvious that Danny Chedrawe thinks the city should just back off and let him, a developer who has not erected a single half-decent building in his entire career, do whatever he wants without interference in the design and planning of his properties. It's rather extraordinary that he would complain, given how little resistance he's faced to this profoundly bad proposal.

He really came off as flabbergasted that he was subject to an approvals process rather than being given carte blanche.

It was a bit unfair to him. I heard him actually speaking, and what he was frustrated about, was City Staff bureaucracy unwilling to even consider ideas/proposals that may have great public benefit, and would cost the City nothing (the developer willing to pay for it all).

I find that very easy to believe in this City, given even the idea of temporary shutting down Argyle for a few weeks in summer literally took 5 years for City Staff to allow.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I thought about it actually, but couldn't find an email address or anything.

CBC has a story this morning anyway, indicating he looked at reusing the BMO building but couldn't make it work economically (he needed more height to do so, but ye olde viewplanes got in the way.)

Who knows: he may just be leveraging the situation to get in a complaint about the height restriction. Plenty of developers seem to be able to make mid-rise construction work with heritage restoration, in this city and elsewhere.

But if there's any validity to his complaint, it's extremely frustrating. The supremacy of the view again trumping on-the-ground built heritage. Maybe it's worth asking Chedrawe if he'd revisit the plan and restore BMO if a public- opinion campaign swayed political opinion regarding height here.

Do it, Dry. Send him in your ideas. Be the change you want to see.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by someone123

Fundamentally the problem is that economic incentives for developers are not aligned with the public interest when it comes to heritage buildings. The height limits have made this even worse. The city and province need to fix this by strengthening heritage regulations and improving funding for heritage buildings.

It's great if some developers elect to preserve some buildings for the greater good or if that turns out to be economically advantageous, but that is the system that Halifax has now and it is not working very well. It's leading to lots of wasteful demolition in a city that is still full of empty lots and dumpy little buildings of no architectural or historic value.

There should be significant density / height bonuses for heritage preservation.

Retain facade? Another 5 floors.

Integrate/retain original structure? Add another 3.

That could seriously work.

But, this is Halifax, and we don't want to be Toronto will all their skyscrapers and stuff!!! We're a small town. Basically, a village.

I'm suspicious of anything taller than the apple trees that line my 2km dirt road driveway.

[hokus83]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

There should be significant density / height bonuses for heritage preservation.

Retain facade? Another 5 floors.

Integrate/retain original structure? Add another 3.

That could seriously work.

But, this is Halifax, and we don't want to be Toronto will all their skyscrapers and stuff!!! We're a small town. Basically, a village.

I'm suspicious of anything taller than the apple trees that line my 2km dirt road driveway.

This towns height restrictions is its own worst enemy

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

But, this is Halifax, and we don't want to be Toronto will all their skyscrapers and stuff!!! We're a small town. Basically, a village.

I'm suspicious of anything taller than the apple trees that line my 2km dirt road driveway.

Anything taller than the apple tress is not of human scale and must be opposed! <J. Watts>

[OldDartmouthMark]

I suspect that any height there wouldn't have an effect on viewplanes anyway. Of course, this is all speculation because we don't know the actual situation.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by HalifaxRetales

The little shop with the garage, most recently the Blackboard Collective in the Hydrostone next to the butcher was torn down today to make way for a 5 story building.

According to Explore HRM a building permit has been issued for 5540 Kaye Street for a commercial building with no dwelling units valued at $1'350'862.

Does this match what your source told you?

[Keith P.]

A parking garage? Could do well there actually.

[portapetey]

Opinion piece on the Doyle Block:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/132...character-with-city-block’s-demolition

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Opinion piece on the Doyle Block:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/132...character-with-city-block’s-demolition

Nicely balanced article. I agree whole-heartedly.

I am hoping that the Green Lantern development changes the public tone a bit in terms of realizing that development and preserving what is interesting about our built heritage are not mutually exclusive, and well within the art of the possible.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Opinion piece on the Doyle Block:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/132...character-with-city-block’s-demolition

Excellent job Matthew (who I believe is one of our forum members...)!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Excellent job Matthew (who I believe is one of our forum members...)!

*raises hand*

Thanks. I wish they'd gone with the headline I'd suggested (a "Back to the Future" pun) but, eh, whatever. "Loses character" is accurate too, though not quite the point of the piece.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Nicely balanced article. I agree whole-heartedly.

I am hoping that the Green Lantern development changes the public tone a bit in terms of realizing that development and preserving what is interesting about our built heritage are not mutually exclusive, and well within the art of the possible.

I note that the comments (except for the usual silly ramble from JWC) are mostly saying, forget it, let's get something new. Perhaps the tide has turned and these buildings are the price we pay for no longer protecting empty lots from development.