Tearing down old buildings after deferred maintenance.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I believe there are 30 out of town MLAs that expense an apartment. I also would guess the average amount for each is about $1500/month. They retain those apartments even though the House only sits a few months of the year. If instead you let them check in to a suite in a newly-developed Dennis Suites Hotel, you would eliminate about $500-$600K in expense claims annually, less the cost of running the place. But you would also have the opportunity to rent out those suites when the MLAs do not need them. The financial argument needs more work and I would not want the province to run a hotel, but the case seems strong on the surface.

Reminds me a bit of The Albert @ Bay in Ottawa (http://www.albertatbay.com). It is a "hotel" made up basically of small apartments/suites. I had a 1-bedroom there for a week (bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living/dining room) when I was on a review panel last year. It is privately run, and is operated like a standard hotel, but also has contracts with various federal government agencies in which they get a preferred rate to put people up there. I could imagine a similar thing here with Dennis, where they could rent suites to MLAs at preferred rates during times when the house was sitting, and then outside of that they are basically just a typical suite-oriented hotel (especially since the house doesn't usually sit in the summer anyway).

[JET]

interesting skyscraper thread on demolitions:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7213621

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

interesting skyscraper thread on demolitions:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7213621

That is an interesting thread. Where's all the detractors that usually chime in here?

Great post by someone123 about this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/pierceys-halifax-demolition-1.3324084

I was appalled that there was no opposition to it whatsoever.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That is an interesting thread. Where's all the detractors that usually chime in here?

Great post by someone123 about this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/pierceys-halifax-demolition-1.3324084

I was appalled that there was no opposition to it whatsoever.

Can't say I miss the Piercey's building at all, BUT that kind of old factory building is always ripe for conversion to all kinds of commercial and living space - it could have been transformed into a hipster heaven.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That is an interesting thread. Where's all the detractors that usually chime in here?

Great post by someone123 about this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/pierceys-halifax-demolition-1.3324084

I was appalled that there was no opposition to it whatsoever.

The amazing thing that I've noticed since moving to Halifax is that although the city has a reputation nationally as a heritage-rich city, and a reputation locally as filled with extremist heritage nutbars, no serious opposition ever occurs concerning any demolition. Certain people practically have an emotional breakdown if a viewplane is threatened, and there are the "it's too tall!" types we find in every city, but I haven't actually seen much if any protesting when it comes to actual demolition of actual historic buildings.

This is odd. I can think of a lot of examples of neighbourhood or city-wide opposition to demolitions in other cities, sometimes resulting in victories.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The amazing thing that I've noticed since moving to Halifax is that although the city has a reputation nationally as a heritage-rich city, and a reputation locally as filled with extremist heritage nutbars, no serious opposition ever occurs concerning any demolition. Certain people practically have an emotional breakdown if a viewplane is threatened, and there are the "it's too tall!" types we find in every city, but I haven't actually seen much if any protesting when it comes to actual demolition of actual historic buildings.

This is odd. I can think of a lot of examples of neighbourhood or city-wide opposition to demolitions in other cities, sometimes resulting in victories.

Good observation. I wonder if there's a collective belief that the Heritage Trust is fighting for it, and the fact that they don't accomplish much means that it's too difficult to affect change.

I have to say, when the Doyle demolitions came to light I contacted the developer and municipal government on different occasions and did not receive one reply - not even an acknowledgement. Pretty frustrating and disheartening, I have to say.

Then there's other groups that get media coverage, like the Schmidtville people - who just got labelled as heretics. I don't think they were able to accomplish much either.

Hey, any suggestions would be appreciated....

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Hey, any suggestions would be appreciated....

The Heritage Trust should be disbanded or turned into something more like Heritage Toronto, which actually engages people, reaches out to the public through advertising, social media, and events (rather than HT's Griffin newsletter). They work with developers, host annual awards celebrating conservation projects and heritage-sensitive development. In short, and not to sound too harsh, it's not just a bunch of senior citizens with a hate-on for tall buildings.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The Heritage Trust should be disbanded or turned into something more like Heritage Toronto, which actually engages people, reaches out to the public through advertising, social media, and events (rather than HT's Griffin newsletter). They work with developers, host annual awards celebrating conservation projects and heritage-sensitive development. In short, and not to sound too harsh, it's not just a bunch of senior citizens with a hate-on for tall buildings.

Another issue is that it's the Heritage Trust of NS, i.e. their mandate has to do with more than Halifax, and they seem to have a fairly rural or small town outlook. They're also fairly focused on history as such whereas a lot of people in Halifax are interested in preserving and enhancing urban character, which is not quite the same thing.

I mostly look at heritage preservation in Halifax as a good way to improve neighbourhoods and streetscapes by making them more architecturally interesting and physically desirable. Having the odd new building on Barrington doesn't bother me as long as the new buildings are of a high quality and the best of the old buildings are preserved. The HT on the other hand seems to view preservation as an end in an of itself; their ideal is areas that look how they might have looked in 1760 or 1860 and have a connection to notable characters from those periods. Again I think this ties in with the rural or small town outlook because that approach is a lot more viable in a place like Lunenburg than it is in a place with the level of development pressure that downtown Halifax has.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another issue is that it's the Heritage Trust of NS, i.e. their mandate has to do with more than Halifax, and they seem to have a fairly rural or small town outlook. They're also fairly focused on history as such whereas a lot of people in Halifax are interested in preserving and enhancing urban character, which is not quite the same thing.

I mostly look at heritage preservation in Halifax as a good way to improve neighbourhoods and streetscapes by making them more architecturally interesting and physically desirable. Having the odd new building on Barrington doesn't bother me as long as the new buildings are of a high quality and the best of the old buildings are preserved. The HT on the other hand seems to view preservation as an end in an of itself; their ideal is areas that look how they might have looked in 1760 or 1860 and have a connection to notable characters from those periods. Again I think this ties in with the rural or small town outlook because that approach is a lot more viable in a place like Lunenburg than it is in a place with the level of development pressure that downtown Halifax has.

A much more nuanced than my own! But yes: HTNS is not about city-building, so for them to be the defacto heritage advocates in a city facing significant development and urbanization is maybe not the right fit.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another issue is that it's the Heritage Trust of NS, i.e. their mandate has to do with more than Halifax, and they seem to have a fairly rural or small town outlook. They're also fairly focused on history as such whereas a lot of people in Halifax are interested in preserving and enhancing urban character, which is not quite the same thing.

A much more nuanced perspective than my own! But yes: HTNS is not about city-building, so for them to be the defacto heritage advocates in a city facing significant development and urbanization is maybe not the right fit.

[Ziobrop]

I believe the HTNS takes positions that are unreasonable and as a result they loose thier place at the table. They may get engaged in a process but I suspect they don't get invited back again.

They certainly don't engage the public - I never hear them interviewed on talk radio, the website is out of date. Though they do have a Twitter presence within the last year

The loss of the infants home at SMU is a perfect example. They failed in thier behind closed door efforts, and only were able to rally public support once the building was lost. Smu has a very prominent archeology program, and may thesis from thier Canadian studies programs have focused on heritage issues, so there should have been a certain level of organizational resistance to the demo.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

The loss of the infants home at SMU is a perfect example. They failed in thier behind closed door efforts, and only were able to rally public support once the building was lost. Smu has a very prominent archeology program, and may thesis from thier Canadian studies programs have focused on heritage issues, so there should have been a certain level of organizational resistance to the demo.

I haven't heard anything about the buildings around 1343 Barrington. My impression is that the developer has applied for demolition permits for 3 buildings, two of which are registered heritage buildings. The only reason why the third isn't registered is that its facade was already destroyed in a bad redevelopment. The side of the building makes it obvious that it was originally a brick Victorian like the other houses nearby. That streetscape, what's left of it, is one of the nicest of its kind in the city, and it's right next to landmarks like Government House.

Regional council has considered (maybe has moved forward with?) turning this southern end of Barrington into a heritage district.

Nearby there are many buildings like 1360 Hollis that could be great heritage buildings but are covered in beige vinyl and, from the perspective of their owners, are probably just being rented out for a few years until they're town down and redeveloped. It's pretty tragic. There are very few neighbourhoods like the old South End in Canada. As a heritage resource it's of vastly more value to the city than a few new apartment buildings would be.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

I haven't heard anything about the buildings around 1343 Barrington. My impression is that the developer has applied for demolition permits for 3 buildings, two of which are registered heritage buildings. The only reason why the third isn't registered is that its facade was already destroyed in a bad redevelopment. The side of the building makes it obvious that it was originally a brick Victorian like the other houses nearby. That streetscape, what's left of it, is one of the nicest of its kind in the city, and it's right next to landmarks like Government House.

Regional council has considered (maybe has moved forward with?) turning this southern end of Barrington into a heritage district.

Nearby there are many buildings like 1360 Hollis that could be great heritage buildings but are covered in beige vinyl and, from the perspective of their owners, are probably just being rented out for a few years until they're town down and redeveloped. It's pretty tragic. There are very few neighbourhoods like the old South End in Canada. As a heritage resource it's of vastly more value to the city than a few new apartment buildings would be.

This is the last thing I heard about that. Sounds positive, but it's not for certain.

Also, the idea that a developer would apply for demolition just to "get the ball rolling" is despicable. The number of really good heritage commercial streetscapes downtown is down to a few blocks, and the fact they there's no civic leadership on this just seems to prove that as a city we're willing to squander what remains. It's bullshit.

[JET]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...nis-building-interest-heritage-1.3573453
Looks like the province is trying to offload the Dennis property and Acadian Recorder building properties to developers, if the facades are maintained. There was also mention on CBC radio that the parking lot would also be bundled in.

[OldDartmouthMark]

That sounds promising, as long as there is some legal stipulation in the sale that at least the facades have to be kept and restored. The government certainly wasn't going to do anything with them.

I have guarded optimism that these will turn into great projects that will maintain the uniqueness and character of the original buildings while affording them a new life and usefulness for the future.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...nis-building-interest-heritage-1.3573453
Looks like the province is trying to offload the Dennis property and Acadian Recorder building properties to developers, if the facades are maintained. There was also mention on CBC radio that the parking lot would also be bundled in.

This has been the plan for ages, I think. I met with Labi Kousoulis regarding the Dennis Building like two years ago, and they were working on this.

Offloading public costs to the the private sector is pretty typical of this government, but given that private developers have expressed interest in actually retaining the Dennis Building, whereas the province just wanted to tear it down, it might be for the best.

Also: the whole thing with council trying to get a last-minute heritage designation at 851 Young is making me wonder if the same thing could be done with the Dennis, in order to direct a better development there. I'd like to find the RFP, but I think the government might just be counting on developer goodwill to retain the Dennis' facade. As far as I'm concerned, retaining the facade isn't enough; it should to retain the building's current massing as well. With the Recorder building, the Dennis Building, and the empty lots between and behind the two, there's ample room for a big development without turning the Dennis into glorified wallpaper for a taller tower).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Perhaps a step in the right direction?

HRM to look at heritage protection

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1363815-hrm-to-look-at-heritage-protection

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Also: the whole thing with council trying to get a last-minute heritage designation at 851 Young is making me wonder if the same thing could be done with the Dennis, in order to direct a better development there. I'd like to find the RFP, but I think the government might just be counting on developer goodwill to retain the Dennis' facade. As far as I'm concerned, retaining the facade isn't enough; it should to retain the building's current massing as well. With the Recorder building, the Dennis Building, and the empty lots between and behind the two, there's ample room for a big development without turning the Dennis into glorified wallpaper for a taller tower).

That one didn't go so well...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-s-cleveland-estate-demolition-continues-1.3573864

But I agree that the Dennis should be more than just saving a facade. The massing was assumed but not articulated by me in my previous post.

Leaving anything to 'developer good will' is not a good idea, IMHO.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That one didn't go so well...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-s-cleveland-estate-demolition-continues-1.3573864

But I agree that the Dennis should be more than just saving a facade. The massing was assumed but not articulated by me in my previous post.

Leaving anything to 'developer good will' is not a good idea, IMHO.

I also noticed the other day that one of the two Bloomfield buildings is in some places open to the elements. It looks like a few dozen pigeons are roosting inside the second storey of one. I'm starting to get worried that when this development finally happens, the province will be like, "Can't salvage these buildings; too far gone."

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I also noticed the other day that one of the two Bloomfield buildings is in some places open to the elements. It looks like a few dozen pigeons are roosting inside the second storey of one. I'm starting to get worried that when this development finally happens, the province will be like, "Can't salvage these buildings; too far gone."

Wow, that is disconcerting. Can't say that I'm holding our provincial government to high regard in how it's dealing with its building stock.