General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Ugh. Your thoughts, though realistic, are very discouraging.

I'm trying to be optimistic and hope that somebody the provincial government will have at least a glimmer of a clue as to how important it is to save as much of these buildings as possible.

Surely there must be some sense of historical importance among the politicians from one of the areas that basically founded Canada...

I think there's a good chance there will be really good proposals from developers. It's a matter of how the government will balance quality and budget. I take it from their RFI that heritage is a concern but not their overriding concern, whereas it certainly is for me at this stage.

So does anyone know how the RFI differs from an RFP, and whether or not the various proposals will be released to the public afterwards?

I mean, christ, much as I would hate to see the Dennis turned into a parking garage, I'd rather see that than have the first four storeys turned into something like this:

[JET]

The sagging floors in the Hansard building also pose a rehab option that's pricier than simply a TD-tower-style facade, which would be a real insult to the building, but entirely possible.[/QUOTE]

1566 Barrington Street, Attica; I remember being in the main floor of that building in the late 1980's when it was an antique shop. The floors were covered with carpeting and the floor was so spongy it felt like the carpets were the only thing keeping me from falling into the basement. Spongy floors are not such a big thing. If there's a will most things can be fixed/improved. Attica is a great example of that.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

1566 Barrington Street, Attica; I remember being in the main floor of that building in the late 1980's when it was an antique shop. The floors were covered with carpeting and the floor was so spongy it felt like the carpets were the only thing keeping me from falling into the basement. Spongy floors are not such a big thing. If there's a will most things can be fixed/improved. Attica is a great example of that.

Oh, there's a way, no doubt. It's the will(ingness) to spend the money needed to do it right that may be lacking.

[teddifax]

I can't remember seeing anything on the building going up at 303 Washmill Lake Court. It is going to be a huge building. Is there a site for this one? It is at about 10 storeys now and still going. It is across from the faux-copper topped building that openend last year and is supposed to have 3 other buildings.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Yes, while it is better than nothing, Disneyfied facadism such as on the TD project is really a loss and should not have been allowed to happen. Here's how the real building looked before demolition (at the link).

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6485206,-...XdSlaGgbEkvmvefyR6jcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

The sagging floors in the Hansard building also pose a rehab option that's pricier than simply a TD-tower-style facade, which would be a real insult to the building, but entirely possible.

1566 Barrington Street, Attica; I remember being in the main floor of that building in the late 1980's when it was an antique shop. The floors were covered with carpeting and the floor was so spongy it felt like the carpets were the only thing keeping me from falling into the basement. Spongy floors are not such a big thing. If there's a will most things can be fixed/improved. Attica is a great example of that.

Yup. But they will often use whatever excuse they can to try to convince the public that it's better to just tear it down or subject it to some form of structural taxidermy. Hidden in the rhetoric is a simple fact that it's cheaper and faster to do this, and thus more profitable.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Of course at least some in our local development community don't see it that way. Peter Polley, the head of Polycorp developments, told the site that shall not be named yesterday that restoring it will be too expensive and irresponsible to taxpayers, so the province should just tear it down and make a park. This is the kind of thinking that leads me to fear that the low-bid option, regardless of how crappy it is, will win out in the end and the building will be ruined.

That feedback item left me shaking my head.

Converting this part of the block into a park would not even be an improvement to the public spaces nearby, because they were designed around the George Street axis. Public spaces like the Grand Parade and Province House grounds work better when they are well-defined and enclosed.

The spending trade-off as presented in that feedback was also suspect. How is building a park instead of selling the space off to developers going to result in net savings for the province (and city which stands to collect taxes on prime developed land)? And why should we jump to assuming that we have to go with an inferior building to save money before the bids are even known?

This kind of thinking reminds me of "knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing". Except in this case the price is not known but instead plucked from the air.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yes, while it is better than nothing, Disneyfied facadism such as on the TD project is really a loss and should not have been allowed to happen. Here's how the real building looked before demolition (at the link).

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6485206,-...XdSlaGgbEkvmvefyR6jcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

What "should not have been allowed to happen"? The original building was quite literally falling down. I remember going by and seeing the collapsed ceiling inside. So they did what appears to me to be a nice job of reconstruction with a pretty faithful rendition of what might have been there when the place was new. That is now "facadism"? If that was facadism, what isn't?

Cripes. Some people always have to be unhappy.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What "should not have been allowed to happen"? The original building was quite literally falling down. I remember going by and seeing the collapsed ceiling inside. So they did what appears to me to be a nice job of reconstruction with a pretty faithful rendition of what might have been there when the place was new. That is now "facadism"? If that was facadism, what isn't?

Cripes. Some people always have to be unhappy.

Ha ha... You wouldn't know this, but I am actually quite a happy guy in day to day life. In fact it's kinda sounding a little like a pot/kettle situation, but I digress...

Maybe I'm mistaken. Are you telling me that the building was restored? They kept the stone walls and stayed failthful to the interior structure of the building? If so I apologize - I was under the impression that they ripped out all that and just built 'a bank building' behind it.

Oops... just looked back at page 15 of the TD thread and found this pic:



http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=177100&page=15

Looks like facadism to me - apology retracted.

Still a happy person, though...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Another one from page 18... no facadism to be seen here (unless you actually look at the photo...)



But they did do a nice job on the Disneyfication of it.

[Keith P.]

You need something to be there to restore it. It was rotted and leaking and unrentable in its found form. But go ahead, whine about "Disneyfication".

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You need something to be there to restore it. It was rotted and leaking and unrentable in its found form. But go ahead, whine about "Disneyfication".

Right now you're not offering any valuable information over and above what the photos are showing, which is typical. I would contest your claim of unrentable as there were tenants in the building until just before it was gutted.

Evidence:

June 2012 - busy storefront.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6486347,-...big!2e0!5s20120601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Stores vacated Sep. 2012
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=177100&page=13


I see the usual cycle starting here - you seem to prefer to simply dig your heels in and yell louder than the next guy rather than introduce researched, factual information. Then throw in a few thinly disguised personal insults by accusing the person with an opposing view of "whining" or "not wanting change" or "always having to be unhappy" or any other demeaning descriptor you can manage to think of at the time.

But, whatever, you know we will always inherently disagree on this topic, and at this time I don't see much point in clogging up the forum with our 'debate'. I will not further engage on this topic with you.

Have a nice evening, Keith.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

That feedback item left me shaking my head.

Converting this part of the block into a park would not even be an improvement to the public spaces nearby, because they were designed around the George Street axis. Public spaces like the Grand Parade and Province House grounds work better when they are well-defined and enclosed.

The spending trade-off as presented in that feedback was also suspect. How is building a park instead of selling the space off to developers going to result in net savings for the province (and city which stands to collect taxes on prime developed land)? And why should we jump to assuming that we have to go with an inferior building to save money before the bids are even known?

This kind of thinking reminds me of "knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing". Except in this case the price is not known but instead plucked from the air.

I don't really even understand why he was weighing in on it, let alone why they would report his comments.

Oh well.

Quick question on TD tower facadism--I don't recall if they've at least turned that facade into a working storefront. That 2012 picture really makes apparent what a unique and impressive storefront space it is. Some of that could be recaptured if it actually served as the doorway to a functioning commercial business.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Quick question on TD tower facadism--I don't recall if they've at least turned that facade into a working storefront. That 2012 picture really makes apparent what a unique and impressive storefront space it is. Some of that could be recaptured if it actually served as the doorway to a functioning commercial business.

I am pretty sure the preserved facade was shown as a storefront with its own entrance in the floor plans, along with the sandstone-clad portion to the south. It might take a while but businesses will move in eventually assuming the area continues to improve.

One sad aspect of this is that there used to be an interesting four storey brick building with another two-storey glass storefront next door where that gravel lot was. It was torn down just a few years before this project; had council apply pressure to preserve the building for a while instead of rubber stamping the demolition permit it might still be there.

There were highrise redevelopment plans for years on this site, which is why the buildings were left to deteriorate even though one or both were registered heritage buildings. The problem isn't that they weren't economically viable to operate, it's that replacing them with a larger building was more lucrative (for the building owners who know as far as I know don't even live in Canada anymore).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Right now you're not offering any valuable information over and above what the photos are showing, which is typical. I would contest your claim of unrentable as there were tenants in the building until just before it was gutted.

Evidence:

June 2012 - busy storefront.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6486347,-...big!2e0!5s20120601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

You know what? I was mistaken. I was thinking of the Kelly's Building next door. That was the one with the collapsed ceiling. The businesses that were in this one I had patronized a few times and while their spaces were not in great shape, they were functional. I would presume that at some point the new space will also house a retail operation of some sort.

[someone123]

Here's a picture of the building that formerly housed Kelly's Leather. I am not sure when the business closed; I just remember it being vacant. The building was in very rough shape before it was demolished, but it was unusual and a bit imposing (I think this part of Granville is one of the few parts of Halifax with a larger city feel):


http://www.halifaxhistory.ca/Kellys.htm

Early TD tower renderings showed this facade preserved as part of the redevelopment. Had the facade been stabilized for a while and preserved I think it would have added a lot of architectural interest and could have become a nice retail space.

There's a larger list of demolished buildings here: http://www.halifaxhistory.ca/Vanish.html

There's a handful of losses on that list (Kelly, YWCA facade, maybe a portion of the infirmary, maybe the former Simpson's) but a lot of them were not great. A few, like the old Dal management building, were awful. The old generating station I would argue is a great example of adaptive reuse rather than a loss.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here's a picture of the building that formerly housed Kelly's Leather. I am not sure when the business closed; I just remember it being vacant. The building was in very rough shape before it was demolished, but it was unusual and a bit imposing (I think this part of Granville is one of the few parts of Halifax with a larger city feel):


http://www.halifaxhistory.ca/Kellys.htm

Early TD tower renderings showed this facade preserved as part of the redevelopment. Had the facade been stabilized for a while and preserved I think it would have added a lot of architectural interest and could have become a nice retail space.

That webpage you cite gives all the details. It closed and was vacant since the early 1980s. In the 1990s an assessment of the vacant building concluded it was not feasible to save it due to its poor condition. In 2005 HRM Council funded another study to determine if it could be incorporated into any sort of new development. It was determined it was not feasible and it was demolished the next year. I am unaware of an renderings of the TD Building redevelopment existing at that time.

In reality the building sat vacant and rundown for over 30 years and several attempts to prevent the inevitable failed.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That webpage you cite gives all the details. It closed and was vacant since the early 1980s. In the 1990s an assessment of the vacant building concluded it was not feasible to save it due to its poor condition. In 2005 HRM Council funded another study to determine if it could be incorporated into any sort of new development. It was determined it was not feasible and it was demolished the next year. I am unaware of an renderings of the TD Building redevelopment existing at that time.

In reality the building sat vacant and rundown for over 30 years and several attempts to prevent the inevitable failed.

Even then, an NFB-style project using the facade and building a new rear portion to the building could have been done, I guess, but yeah, sometimes a building really does get so far gone than it's unsalvageable.

Too bad, it was very unique.

[someone123]

Here's the rendering (from the TD thread):

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You know what? I was mistaken. I was thinking of the Kelly's Building next door. That was the one with the collapsed ceiling. The businesses that were in this one I had patronized a few times and while their spaces were not in great shape, they were functional. I would presume that at some point the new space will also house a retail operation of some sort.

Apology accepted.