Development Rumours

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Perhaps, but not in regard to the three square boxes proposed for demolition, surely? There's nothing to save there.

Perhaps the heritage folk are now on a crusade to save vintage vinyl siding.

[JET]

"They want to keep the relevant heritage aspects of the two buildings. The current rules make rehabilitation very difficult. All of the brick and other elements such as windows will be removed and replaced on 1349-53 Barrington Street"
What does that even mean, they want to keep the aspects, but remove the elements?
If the brick and windows are removed, what is left. Sounds crazy to me.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Perhaps, but not in regard to the three square boxes proposed for demolition, surely? There's nothing to save there.

Those buildings are identified as "contributing resources" in the HCD background documents. The two on Bishop date back to the mid-19th century. 5144 I can take or leave, but 5134 is absolutely fine. If it were were simply re-sided with decent shingles again it would present an entirely different aspect to the street. I wonder how many good buildings in this city have been lost because they get clad in aluminum siding and just end up looking like dumpy boxes.

As for 1363 Hollis, it should be a heritage building, no question. It's complementary to the larger building across the street, and the only thing that makes it look so plain is the cladding. Re-clad it and we'd have a very different take on it, I think. The property inventory for the HCD says: "The building serves as an important addition to the conservation district, not only because it is one of the few Italianate structures within the boundaries, but also to flesh out the full range of historical styles, from Georgian through to mid-century."

And the plans for the Barrington properties sound thoroughly un-inspiring, like they'll just do the bare minimum they have to do to avoid a big stink. And again, what in god's name does it mean to remove the brick?

If a developer is unwilling to exercise some sensitivity and sophistication within the existing built environment of a historic city, they should stick to greenfield subdivisions. if they apply for demolition of heritage buildings to "get the ball rolling" on their development, they're sleazebags. This is just more of the same lot consolidation and wholesale demolition that Halifax's amateurish development community think is prerequisite for development.

I cannot wait until Halifax's current spurt of growth is over; it's starting to diminish the city's built environment more than it's improving it. Planners and developers in this city need to regroup and figure out what the hell they're doing rather than keep up this un-planned, piecemeal hodgepodge of mostly mediocre garbage being erected all over the place. The idea that people want to start messing around with something like the Black-Binney building is insane.

[IanWatson]

You can see 1363 Hollis in this photo from 1947: https://novascotia.ca/archives/Halifax/archives.asp?ID=147

It's the one just to the right of the big telephone pole. I wonder if all that brick is still under the siding.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

It's the one just to the right of the big telephone pole. I wonder if all that brick is still under the siding.

I'm sure it is. This is why an interim control bylaw to delay demolitions and developments in the lead-up to the HCD adoption would have been great. If Lawen at. al. don't have a demolition permit by the time the HCD is adopted, they sure as hell shouldn't get one afterwards.

[JET]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

You can see 1363 Hollis in this photo from 1947: https://novascotia.ca/archives/Halifax/archives.asp?ID=147

It's the one just to the right of the big telephone pole. I wonder if all that brick is still under the siding.

Vinyl siding over brick , reminds me of All In The Family, very nice granite block foundation. Great fan light over the door of 1360, be interesting to see what's under that siding. Wonder who owns it?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Haven't had much time to be on here lately, other than to argue with Keith, but it looks like more of the same.

Quick thoughts:
(1) Removal and replacement of brick on 1349 - 1353 Barrington sounds proposterous to me. The brick as laid is the main character-defining element in my eyes. I'm highly skeptical that they would ever be able to replace it with the same effect that the craftsmen were able to achieve back in the day. Sounds like Dexel are on some good drugs.
(2) The disembowelment of 1333 - 1335 should not be allowed to happen. Obviously, they just don't understand the concept of historical significance.
(3) The 'boxes' on Bishop and Hollis, again, are 19th century buildings that didn't always have vinyl siding on them. Hopefully we are able to see past that, especially if some had the siding applied over brick. Lots of potential there, and I think significant in maintaining the area as a heritage zone... if that's ever going to happen.
(4) I mean this: anybody talking about messing with Black Binney House, or thinking about allowing it to happen needs to have their head examined. My God, we need some politicians with some balls (or "gumption" - not trying to be gender-specific) around here to put their foot down and legislate the hell out of stuff like this.

I remain, disgusted.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Haven't had much time to be on here lately, other than to argue with Keith, but it looks like more of the same.

Quick thoughts:
(1) Removal and replacement of brick on 1349 - 1353 Barrington sounds proposterous to me. The brick as laid is the main character-defining element in my eyes. I'm highly skeptical that they would ever be able to replace it with the same effect that the craftsmen were able to achieve back in the day. Sounds like Dexel are on some good drugs.

It sounds so preposterous that I can't imagine it means what it sounds like. No one I've asked has been able to clarify it though.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

(3) The 'boxes' on Bishop and Hollis, again, are 19th century buildings that didn't always have vinyl siding on them. Hopefully we are able to see past that, especially if some had the siding applied over brick. Lots of potential there, and I think significant in maintaining the area as a heritage zone... if that's ever going to happen.

It's so representative of a particular time in the country's history, and there's so little left that any loss, at this point, significantly diminishes the area. These buildings should be retained in whole (actually, I'd concede the smallest own on Bishop, TBH) as should the Barrington buildings.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

(4) I mean this: anybody talking about messing with Black Binney House, or thinking about allowing it to happen needs to have their head examined. My God, we need some politicians with some balls (or "gumption" - not trying to be gender-specific) around here to put their foot down and legislate the hell out of stuff like this.

I remain, disgusted.

Yes. Unfortunately our three-years-and-you-can-do-whatever demolition timeline makes it hard to be too staunch, or politicians could just piss off a property owner. The city/province needs the legislative power to say, at times, "you can't tear this down. Ever."

[someone123]

Article about the sale of lands and buildings around St. Mary's: http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/201...ax-heritage-property-grafton-street.html

This article didn't have as much detail but in the publication that shall remain nameless there were some comments from the new owner about how they'd take a while to redevelop, and how the heritage buildings were great and worth preserving. Pretty encouraging overall. This block is already nice and with some careful redevelopment and restoration is could be great.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

(3) The 'boxes' on Bishop and Hollis, again, are 19th century buildings that didn't always have vinyl siding on them. Hopefully we are able to see past that, especially if some had the siding applied over brick. Lots of potential there, and I think significant in maintaining the area as a heritage zone... if that's ever going to happen.
(4) I mean this: anybody talking about messing with Black Binney House, or thinking about allowing it to happen needs to have their head examined. My God, we need some politicians with some balls (or "gumption" - not trying to be gender-specific) around here to put their foot down and legislate the hell out of stuff like this.

I remain, disgusted.

If you take a careful look at some of the seemingly simple "boxes" you will find interesting details like granite foundations, which are a sign that they are fairly old (likely pre-1850, and some in the area go back to the 1700's). This little part of Hollis could be really amazing with a bit of restoration work. That has already been demonstrated with Keith Hall. The simpler buildings are not as historically significant but they create a coherent context for the landmarks.

Black-Binney is a national historic site. Are there any other examples of condo towers being grafted onto the back of national historic sites in Canada? It seems crazy. Typically (almost universally?) national historic sites have preserved and restored grounds and complete structures. Most small towns in Nova Scotia have one or more old houses from the 18th and 19th century that have been fully preserved and turned into museums. Proportionally speaking it would make sense for Halifax to have a few of those.

What percentage of buildings downtown is historic at this point? What is the percentage of the city that's been declared a national historic site? The GDP of the city that "can't have nice things" was $19B in 2015. The amount of money that it would take to preserve the small core of remaining heritage buildings in the city is a comparative pittance, and there are tons of other sites available for development. This situation exists only because the city and province are being negligent and there are a few small developers who look for the most profitable properties to exploit for maximum profit regardless of the wider impact of the city. There is really no need for it, and there would be almost no downside to dramatically improved heritage protections.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

(4) I mean this: anybody talking about messing with Black Binney House, or thinking about allowing it to happen needs to have their head examined. My God, we need some politicians with some balls (or "gumption" - not trying to be gender-specific) around here to put their foot down and legislate the hell out of stuff like this.

Who is talking about doing anything to the Commissionaire's office building except you and our own version of Phil Pacey, Mr. Drybrain? I have seen nothing on that subject.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Who is talking about doing anything to the Commissionaire's office building except you and our own version of Phil Pacey, Mr. Drybrain? I have seen nothing on that subject.

Someone is because there were comments about it in a discussion at a heritage Committee meeting. Though the details arnt know to us.. Someone evidently has a plan or an idea to do something with that building.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Who is talking about doing anything to the Commissionaire's office building except you and our own version of Phil Pacey, Mr. Drybrain? I have seen nothing on that subject.

One of the Ghosns is in the process of buying it. I've seen a few different sources allude to his desire to remove most of the building (except the facade) and build new behind it.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

One of the Ghosns is in the process of buying it. I've seen a few different sources allude to his desire to remove most of the building (except the facade) and build new behind it.

That is crazy. Like we have circa 1819 Palladian-style mansions to burn. The idea that any developer would propose tearing down a two-century-old, municipally designated heritage building and federal historic site, in a conservation district, illustrates how tremendously skewed the development climate is here. I'd very much like to assume that this is a non-starter. But this is Halifax, so who knows.

However, my understanding was that the idea was to tear down the addition in the rear, leaving the original building intact and wedging a tower in behind it. Which would be terrible but somewhat less insane.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That is crazy. Like we have circa 1819 Palladian-style mansions to burn. The idea that any developer would propose tearing down a two-century-old, municipally designated heritage building and federal historic site, in a conservation district, illustrates how tremendously skewed the development climate is here. I'd very much like to assume that this is a non-starter. But this is Halifax, so who knows.

I didn't really get the impression they were contemplating tearing it down, but it does sound like they might plan on building an addition in the rear as you say. I'll reserve judgement until the plans come out. Depending on how it's done it could be a big improvement since the grounds and building aren't in great shape currently.

One thing to keep in mind is that there are some design controls downtown now. The addition to the Benjamin Weir house was rejected by some combination of the HAC and DRC. So maybe this will be rejected too if it's deemed to have too much of an impact on the heritage building.

I'm not really in favour of the "snowglobe" style of heritage preservation but I do wish there were more rigid planning rules in place around preserving physical architectural heritage assets whether they're on registered heritage buildings or not.

[IanWatson]

The Tramway Building is for sale: http://looplink.halifax.cbre.ca/ll/19850592/1598-Barrington-Street/

It's odd because I think it's only been a few years since the current owner bought it.

[yal]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The Tramway Building is for sale: http://looplink.halifax.cbre.ca/ll/19850592/1598-Barrington-Street/

It's odd because I think it's only been a few years since the current owner bought it.

Starfish should buy it and restore it properly! It is the ugliest building on barrington right now.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The Tramway Building is for sale: http://looplink.halifax.cbre.ca/ll/19850592/1598-Barrington-Street/

It's odd because I think it's only been a few years since the current owner bought it.

Great news.

Starfish will definitely buy it up and restore -- they're almost single-handedly reviving Barrington.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Great news.

Starfish will definitely buy it up and restore -- they're almost single-handedly reviving Barrington.

Would be cool if the upper levels were converted to residential - adding more units downtown would be great.

[someone123]

ANS is reporting that 13 companies have submitted bits to redevelop the Dennis Building, Hansard Building (Acadian Recorder), and the empty lot surrounding them. HTNS is one bidder along with a mix of developers, some of whom have a track record of good heritage developments (e.g. Starfish and Steve Caryi, who is working on the NFB Building) and others less so. It sounds like there may be some diverse and creative proposals for the properties. The redevelopment might include improvements to Granville Street and an extension of the pedestrian mall.

One deficiency of the RFP, in my opinion, is that the province is not requiring that the upper 3 storeys of the Dennis Building be saved. Those floors may be built out of brick but they are an interesting component of the building, along with the copper cornice. They are an indication of how the city grew and evolved over time. Knocking those floors off would be like knocking the top brick levels off of Morse's Teas/Jerusalem Warehouse, or the silly proposal to cut the Champlain Building down from 6 floors to 4. Hopefully the winner will preserve at least the entire facade.

Earlier ANS also reported that the new owner of the Waverley Inn intends to keep operating it. A few weeks ago they suggested that the obvious outcome would be for the building to be knocked down and replaced by something new. This is a landmark that has been operating as a hotel since the 1870's and has had guests like Oscar Wilde, P. T. Barnum, and George Vanderbilt. In almost any other city it would be a protected heritage property.

What stands out to me from all of this is that one organization can say a building is unsalvageable or not economically viable while another may consider it very attractive to carry on maintaining or sympathetically redevelop the same property (even though profit margins may be a bit smaller). I don't put a lot of stock into single opinions that tend to be repeated as fact by the media, nor do I tend to believe reports that heritage requirements will grind all development in the city to a halt (a particularly weak argument when so few development sites have heritage buildings on them).