General Updates and News

[LongDono]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, that's interesting, in that it not only shows the long-proposed International Place, but a new/renewed replacement for the old Trade Mart, a new tower next to that and a couple of new low-rise buildings. But all of that is assuming the existing Cogswell interchange continues and that is not supposed to be the case. I wonder how realistic this is.

Yes, I wondered as well. One wonders if there is a plan B or if they were completely unaware or highly skeptical about the removal of the interchange (something that we all really want to see, I'm sure). That said, there'll be lots of space for towers when the interchange goes...

[Empire]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

On a related note. Demo seems to have begun, or at least preparation for demo. When I walked by the other day the east side of the Rogue's Roost solarium had been ripped our.

It's very unfortunate to lose the sandstone Maritime Life Building (BMO) and the classic brick building on the corner of Sackiville and Spring Garden. There are very few buildings left like this in Halifax. What is surprising is how quite the HT have been as this has been on the books for a few years.

It would be nice to keep these two buildings in exchange for some emergency density bonusing in the center of the block.

Brick Classic
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.643515,-6...WYOn2nCslRf_-JCZo1ZCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Empire

It's very unfortunate to lose the sandstone Maritime Life Building (BMO) and the classic brick building on the corner of Sackiville and Spring Garden. There are very few buildings left like this in Halifax. What is surprising is how quite the HT have been as this has been on the books for a few years.

It would be nice to keep these two buildings in exchange for some emergency density bonusing in the center of the block.

Brick Classic
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.643515,-6...WYOn2nCslRf_-JCZo1ZCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I actually don't find it surprising at all. The Heritage Trust aren't heritage focused. They really couldn't care less about heritage; or at least only care about it to the extent it helps them with their actual/genuine agenda, which is anti-development, but mostly in NIMBY areas.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

They really couldn't care less about heritage;

I'm not actually sure that's quite true. If you read their newsletter it's quite clear that they care about heritage. I think where the disconnect comes from is that they seem to care very much about "people" heritage, whereas most people (including us on this board) think about architectural heritage. I think that explains why the heritage trust fights to protect otherwise "crappy" buildings; those buildings are attached to specific people from Nova Scotia's heritage. On the other hand, they don't fight to protect buildings that are architecturally important/beautiful if they're not attached to any special person.

The BMO building is a great example. It's only one of few buildings in Halifax with that level of style, but it's not all that old and I am not aware of any connections to important or special people. From an architectural and character-of-the-city POV it's a real shame to lose it and so many people on this board care about it. But from where the HT is coming from (in my view) that building just doesn't matter.

I think it shows a need to establish a Built Heritage group in Halifax.

[JET]

[QUOTE=Empire;7247514]It's very unfortunate to lose the sandstone Maritime Life Building (BMO) and the classic brick building on the corner of Sackiville and Spring Garden.

Now that's a whole nother definition of 'between'.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by LongDono

Yes, I wondered as well. One wonders if there is a plan B or if they were completely unaware or highly skeptical about the removal of the interchange (something that we all really want to see, I'm sure). That said, there'll be lots of space for towers when the interchange goes...

Wasn't this plan published before the decision had been made to demolish the Cogswell Interchange? If these guys are reasonable developers they will have a plan b and likely c.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

My main issue with both articles is that it avoids the actual issue of what buildings are heritage value and who should determine that. Frankly; the only people who should be making the determination of whether a building should have historic value/meaning or be on any list should be council - just as they are decision makers at a public hearing. They have the legislative power/authority under the HRM Charter - so let them make the decision.

One of the things we have out here in Calgary which I found really interesting is different levels of heritage preservation. There is still the Provincial and Municipal Historic Designations but then we have an inventory of historic resources list. That is a list that Administration makes recommendations on (additions, removals, updates) to Council on.

So for example: Let's say Halifax wanted to establish the list - administration would create criteria which they could bring to Council for adoption of what makes the list (age, style, etc.). This would allow administration to flag certain buildings (based on the approved criteria) to be monitored so that when an application comes in; heritage would be involved in the process. It wouldn't be protected; but it would be flagged as the City having an interest to preserve it. Then; if things like tax credits for preservation were established (or heaven forbid heritage density transfers) - the City could be in a position to say to the developer: We want you to preserve the building and restore it in exchange we will transfer the density from the site to site X. Then the City could even provide tax incentives to help defer the cost of heritage restoration.

This wouldn't always ensure that historic buildings on the list wouldn't be demolished - each would be on a case by case basis. But at least it would give City staff the leverage to be able to do start discussing things rather than taking a wild guess on whether the building has heritage value or not. Then, if it could not be saved/restored, the heritage group could then provide direction on how the building should be commemorated. I dealt with such an application here in Calgary and the building had no heritage value left when the application came in (it had been gutted and altered way too much). We were able to preserve the sign from a business in the building and when the new building is built there will be plaques commemorating the building. The community wasn't terribly upset the building got torn down - they felt the commemoration was fine.

That to me is a way forward that allows the HT to feel involved (they can help contribute to the criteria for establishing any lists of buildings to monitor and buildings on the list); heritage gets some priority and everyone has the ability to work together to try to retain older buildings of heritage value.

My understanding is that, in theory, the property owner does not have to apply for registration under HRM's heritage registration rules, and council can register something without owners' consent. In practice, I don't believe that's happened here.

HRM's website says "Heritage registation is a voluntary process which begins with the owner making a written request..." http://www.halifax.ca/Heritage-Properties/index.php

Provincial Act that enables the municipality's heritage property program says the Heritage Advisory Committee "may recommend... a building... be registered..." (14(1)). Then, the owner is notified of the recommendation (14(2)). Act only says that the owner must be given opportunity to be heard (15(2)).
http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/heritage.htm

Municipal bylaw says buildings are registered by Council, on advice of Heritage Advisory Committee, in accordance with Act - no mention of owners (7 (2)) http://www.halifax.ca/legislation/bylaws/hrm/documents/H-200.pdf

[Empire]

[QUOTE=JET;7247937]

Originally Posted by Empire

It's very unfortunate to lose the sandstone Maritime Life Building (BMO) and the classic brick building on the corner of Sackiville and Spring Garden.

Now that's a whole nother definition of 'between'.

The BMO building would make an excellent tower base / lobby for a luxury hotel....Waldorf Halifax? min. 20 storeys either directly behind or cut half of the building and tie in leaving the rest of the block minus the brick building on the corner for retail.

BMO
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6433232,-...b_Btx-gDunwnF-1MGPrvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[JET]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

My understanding is that, in theory, the property owner does not have to apply for registration under HRM's heritage registration rules, and council can register something without owners' consent. In practice, I don't believe that's happened here.

HRM's website says "Heritage registation is a voluntary process which begins with the owner making a written request..." http://www.halifax.ca/Heritage-Properties/index.php

Provincial Act that enables the municipality's heritage property program says the Heritage Advisory Committee "may recommend... a building... be registered..." (14(1)). Then, the owner is notified of the recommendation (14(2)). Act only says that the owner must be given opportunity to be heard (15(2)).
http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/heritage.htm

Municipal bylaw says buildings are registered by Council, on advice of Heritage Advisory Committee, in accordance with Act - no mention of owners (7 (2)) http://www.halifax.ca/legislation/bylaws/hrm/documents/H-200.pdf

https://www.halifax.ca/Heritage-Properties/index.php#GettingRegistered

The actual process is that owners submit applications to city staff, and staff decide whether it will proceed to the Heritage Committee. I have a 1905 house, and I couldn't get approved at the staff level; not enough 'points'.

[RoshanMcG]

Not really on the current topic but I just wanted to mention how I've seen a lot on here that Halifax is really one of the only cities of its size that has a skyline and the amount of tall-ish buildings that we have, but I stumbled upon a picture of Anchorage, Alaska and I think they are a pretty good comparison to ours.

They have a city population of 300,000 and a metro population of 396,000 and this is their skyline:


Source

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by JET

https://www.halifax.ca/Heritage-Properties/index.php#GettingRegistered

The actual process is that owners submit applications to city staff, and staff decide whether it will proceed to the Heritage Committee. I have a 1905 house, and I couldn't get approved at the staff level; not enough 'points'.

the points system is probably pretty good way to evaluate, but i think to many points are given for age. - thats how more modern stuff slips through, and doesnt get registered - any why you typically need a compelling personal story to go with the building.

[counterfactual]

[QUOTE=Empire;7248083]

Originally Posted by JET

The BMO building would make an excellent tower base / lobby for a luxury hotel....Waldorf Halifax? min. 20 storeys either directly behind or cut half of the building and tie in leaving the rest of the block minus the brick building on the corner for retail.

I agree. I think you could have a beautiful big development here, which preserved the BMO at its base.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by RoshanMcG

Not really on the current topic but I just wanted to mention how I've seen a lot on here that Halifax is really one of the only cities of its size that has a skyline and the amount of tall-ish buildings that we have, but I stumbled upon a picture of Anchorage, Alaska and I think they are a pretty good comparison to ours.

They have a city population of 300,000 and a metro population of 396,000 and this is their skyline:


Source

Nice work. Anchorage is the first and only really good example of a city that is comparable to ours in both size and relative isolation from other major centres, and you're right, the downtown skyline is somewhat comparable. It actually reminds me a lot more of Saint John's skyline in that photo.

)

Anchorage looks a lot more low-rise outside of the downtown than Halifax though.

Anchorage's data page:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=146

Halifax's:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=66

Glad to finally see a good comparison. I think we're doing pretty well.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I actually don't find it surprising at all. The Heritage Trust aren't heritage focused. They really couldn't care less about heritage; or at least only care about it to the extent it helps them with their actual/genuine agenda, which is anti-development, but mostly in NIMBY areas.

Yup. They seem to be terribly off-mandate most of the time, and don't seem to do much at all to protect real heritage. It's a shame.

[portapetey]

[QUOTE=Empire;7248083]

Originally Posted by JET

The BMO building would make an excellent tower base / lobby for a luxury hotel....Waldorf Halifax? min. 20 storeys either directly behind or cut half of the building and tie in leaving the rest of the block minus the brick building on the corner for retail.

BMO
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6433232,-...b_Btx-gDunwnF-1MGPrvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I also like this idea. I wonder if the developers would hear suggestions?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I'm not actually sure that's quite true. If you read their newsletter it's quite clear that they care about heritage. I think where the disconnect comes from is that they seem to care very much about "people" heritage, whereas most people (including us on this board) think about architectural heritage. I think that explains why the heritage trust fights to protect otherwise "crappy" buildings; those buildings are attached to specific people from Nova Scotia's heritage. On the other hand, they don't fight to protect buildings that are architecturally important/beautiful if they're not attached to any special person.

The BMO building is a great example. It's only one of few buildings in Halifax with that level of style, but it's not all that old and I am not aware of any connections to important or special people. From an architectural and character-of-the-city POV it's a real shame to lose it and so many people on this board care about it. But from where the HT is coming from (in my view) that building just doesn't matter.

I think it shows a need to establish a Built Heritage group in Halifax.

I mean, this is a fair riposte, and I've seen the newsletter, so I know what you're getting at.

But then, there are certain individuals involved with HT-- I won't name names but it's not difficult to figure out who-- that seem to be heavily involved in vocal opposition to pretty much every single development in key downtown parts of the city, and with respect to developments that are not at all impacting at all on "people" history. These same people seem to be involved with pretty much every local group that generally opposes really anything -- HT, STV, Friends of the Commons, Friends of Schmidtville, etc, etc. Same people, different pretext for anti-development aims.

I think there are people in HT that care about history and write it up in the newsletter. But they're not the same people litigating every single major development downtown, from affordable housing in the north end, to Nova, to Commerce Square. None of those concern people history. Nor does Save The View, but the STV are basically the HT.

All that being said, I definitely agree with the Built Heritage part. This should be started. Imagine a local Architectural Heritage group that had authority/recognition from Council and actually worked with developers to compromise.

For example, why not compromise on the Doyle Block? Convince Chedrawe to incorporate the BMO facade and, in return, he can build taller to make up for lost units at lower levels. Maybe even impinge a few meters into the idiotic "view planes".

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

For example, why not compromise on the Doyle Block? Convince Chedrawe to incorporate the BMO facade and, in return, he can build taller to make up for lost units at lower levels. Maybe even impinge a few meters into the idiotic "view planes".

It is a little late now. He has spent a lot of money on the proposal that is in place. Unfair to expect him to drop all that and pivot into asking for something that is expressly forbidden under current rules and would take years to change.

I just don't get the attachment to the BMO/Maritime Life building so many seem to have here. It has never struck me as particularly noteworthy. Imagine the image below with 20 storeys on top. Is that really all that great?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is a little late now. He has spent a lot of money on the proposal that is in place. Unfair to expect him to drop all that and pivot into asking for something that is expressly forbidden under current rules and would take years to change.

I just don't get the attachment to the BMO/Maritime Life building so many seem to have here. It has never struck me as particularly noteworthy. Imagine the image below with 20 storeys on top. Is that really all that great?

With that proposal, it's what has been added on top and the continuation of the "Second Cup glass add-on" at SGR that is very underwhelming.

The current proposal is very disappointing as well. I honestly think that many would be OK with the Maritime Life building being demolished if it were going to be replaced with something better.

But I agree, it's a done deal, so we'll just have to live with whatever piece of garbage is built there. Hopefully I'm wrong and it will be beautiful.

[Keith P.]

In today's Herald, everyone's favorite here, Bev Miller, weighs in. Naturally she tries to defend the flawed viewplanes, making some contradictory arguments in the process, and thinks there is some alchemy that will turn sandstone into gold:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1324289-voice-of-the-people-nov.-26-2015

Viewplane excuse thin

Re: the proposed redevelopment of the Spring Garden Road/Doyle Street block in Halifax.

If only we had known. The developer blames viewplane legislation, which has been in place and supported by Halifax citizens and councils for more than 40 years, to justify the demolition of the entire Doyle Street/Spring Garden Road block because the legislation precluded building towers on the site.

The block includes two very attractive Victorian buildings and the Bank of Montreal, which is one of Halifax’s best pieces of Art Deco architecture. Rather than conserve and rehabilitate these existing buildings on the site and do an infill development, he must demolish the lot.

This, of course, also creates a commercial, environmental and social disaster area by setting up a demolition/construction space on a vital link between Spring Garden Road and downtown for how long? Three to four years?

Give me a break. The assumption seems to be that the developer didn’t know about the viewplanes when he bought the property, or paid too much for the property given the LUB and other restrictions? Poor developer.

At any rate, it is not his fault. As citizens, the responsibility for the loss of these buildings and the mess to be created on that site is clearly on our collective heads. For 40 or more years, Haligonians have consistently confirmed, for all sorts of reasons, the value of the views from the Citadel. Little did we know. Shame on us.

Beverly W. Miller, Halifax

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In today's Herald, everyone's favorite here, Bev Miller, weighs in. Naturally she tries to defend the flawed viewplanes, making some contradictory arguments in the process, and thinks there is some alchemy that will turn sandstone into gold:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1324289-voice-of-the-people-nov.-26-2015

ugh. no Im sure he knew about the viewplanes.
it comes down to what you want. he needs to make money, and to do it he either needs height, or the vacant land. if we gave up some height, maybe we could save a building or 2.

its called negotiation and compromise, but again, since we are unwilling to do that, we loose buildings.

I generally agree with the viewplanes - but the viewplanes are not continuous 360 degree views from the citadel. they are very specific wedges, and despite claims from the opposition, the nova center complies with the legislated views.