General Updates and News

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To put it in perspective, the Ralston building, a federal government property, had steel reinforcements stuck in over the stone cladding to prevent it from falling on pedestrians when it was similar in age as the St. Paul's bldg in the photo I posted in said thread. Now, it's about 10 years older than that and it's being torn down, despite having a heritage designation on it. But it's a federal building... is that a Halifax or Nova Scotia failing as well? Is it because of Haligonians' "defeatist" attitude?

...It's not like nobody cares or nobody tries, as has been alluded to.

The Ralston situation though, is that normal? Would this fly in any other major Canadian city - the federal government allowing one of their (heritage-designated!) office buildings to deteriorate to the point that they were forced to essentially staple it back together and making no effort to even sugar-coat this? There was 0 dignity to any of this, and I have a hard time picturing the same situation playing out in say, Ottawa, or QC, or Victoria, but maybe it does. At no point did the public here demand better AFAIK. It's not hard to picture an alternate scenario where there would have been a huge public backlash and the situation was spun into a national scandal. The problem is that people (if they cared at all) found the situation unfortunate but not really noteworthy. We are not in control.

Yes all cities have their problems and Someone123 is pretty quick to recognize these (and when he does, often other SSPers will say that he's being too critical of Vancouver or that he idealizes Halifax ). I do think that he makes good points here though. We have an advantage (a fairly extensive and unique stock of heritage architecture) and we do a relatively poor job of A - capitalizing on this and B - making sure that we don't lose it. We do an ok job at both but a lot of other cities even within Canada there is more effort given (or at least a better regulatory system in place) for way less real payoff (as in smaller and/or less interesting collections of heritage architecture are better protected).

Of course there are a lot of other things that we do well/better than other cities but taking advantage of and protecting our stock of heritage buildings isn't one of them. It's not necessarily a case of people not caring, not being resourceful, or what have you - mostly it's just that some laws need to be tweaked. But for laws to be tweaked it needs to be seen as important enough to the public.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hali87

The Ralston situation though, is that normal? Would this fly in any other major Canadian city - the federal government allowing one of their (heritage-designated!) office buildings to deteriorate to the point that they were forced to essentially staple it back together and making no effort to even sugar-coat this? There was 0 dignity to any of this, and I have a hard time picturing the same situation playing out in say, Ottawa, or QC, or Victoria, but maybe it does.

Gut feeling, but while it's hard to imagine it in Ottawa (seat of government) or Victoria (obsessed with its heritage) it's very easy to imagine it in, say, Edmonton or even Toronto. Part of the problem is that no one looks at the Ralston Building and thinks "heritage." If it was an ornate Victorian building, we'd probably have a much different conversation about it.

The other thing is that I think Haligonians by and large care about the city's heritage. I think the municipal government and city council are too afflicted by habitual timidity to take the kind of action needed, and I think most MLAs simply don't care, too wrapped up in the parochial concerns of their respective districts. This is where the tightfisted scarcity mentality comes in. There's no obvious, immediate economic benefit correlated with beautifying the capital city.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

The problem is that people (if they cared at all) found the situation unfortunate but not really noteworthy. We are not in control.

It was remarkable how the media in Halifax matter-of-factly reported the slow trainwreck that was the Ralston Building situation, and how most people seemed to think it was normal for a heritage building to be neglected, eventually sit derelict for a few years, then be demolished. Had a significant portion of people in Halifax considered this unacceptable, the federal government easily could have been pressured enough for the outcome to be different. Halifax's MP is even an urban planner and belongs to the governing party.

It's not necessarily a case of people not caring, not being resourceful, or what have you - mostly it's just that some laws need to be tweaked. But for laws to be tweaked it needs to be seen as important enough to the public.

In Nova Scotia, heritage registration used to be mostly voluntary on the part of the property owner and all it did was prevent demolition for 3 years. Now it's 5 years. There's little incentive to register in most cases. In many other places, registration is not voluntary, the bar for what's considered historic is lower, demolition is banned for registered buildings, and there are "carrots" in the form of property tax rebates and the like to encourage registration. And by other places I just mean provinces like Newfoundland, I'm not talking about Venice here.

I hope that one day Halifax ends up with strong but fine-grained heritage protections that focus on maintaining and increasing heritage value while permitting as much development as possible. This means expanding the number of heritage buildings, raising minimum standards, and adding some more incentives to cover maintenance and restoration costs.

Under the improved system something like the DongDu Pacific Building scenario would have been completely different. Ideally the building would have already been well-maintained or the expanded incentives would have induced the owner to restore the building properly. Failing that, the city should still have declared the maintenance standard of the building and a proposed metal awning contraption unacceptable. Eventually the city should have hired a company to do the restoration work, billed DongDu, and placed a lien on the property.

This sounds extreme but in practice once the standards go up the preventable Pacific/Dennis/Armoury/Roy/Ralston/Bank of Canada/Kelly type crises stop happening in the first place.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Gut feeling, but while it's hard to imagine it in Ottawa (seat of government) or Victoria (obsessed with its heritage) it's very easy to imagine it in, say, Edmonton or even Toronto. Part of the problem is that no one looks at the Ralston Building and thinks "heritage." If it was an ornate Victorian building, we'd probably have a much different conversation about it.

Unfortunately most of the major 1950's-era buildings in Halifax are now gone, so there will be nothing left of that style to preserve once people start thinking of it as historic.

[Keith P.]

The real news story here is how the hell the Ralston Building ever got a heritage designation. It's not even a good example of the type of cookie-cutter pattern designs the Feds were building in the 1950s. In what bizarro world would that be considered worthy of saving?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The real news story here is how the hell the Ralston Building ever got a heritage designation. It's not even a good example of the type of cookie-cutter pattern designs the Feds were building in the 1950s. In what bizarro world would that be considered worthy of saving?

I don't really agree that it is cookie cutter. What other building in Halifax is like the Ralston?

Setting aside the question of architectural merit it still seems inefficient from an economic and environmental perspective to under-maintain this building, let it fall apart, then move the offices to the suburbs and rebuild something else in a city full of empty lots. Like I said, we have every level of government paying lip service to climate change but then they treat large buildings like they're to be disposed of every 30 years. I don't really see this notion that buildings have a 30 year "lifespan" in many places aside from Halifax. They have an indefinite lifespan as long as they are maintained, and actual maintenance costs paid tend to be small compared to actual construction costs, particularly if those construction costs will end up being amortized over such a short period.

[Colin May]

John Dobson, his designs for buildings and streetscapes have lasted for a long time.
I asked an HRM planner if he knew the name 'John Dobson' and after he replied in the positive we had a brief discussion of streetscapes.
Didn't ask him if he knew of Ian Nairn.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Gut feeling, but while it's hard to imagine it in Ottawa (seat of government) or Victoria (obsessed with its heritage) it's very easy to imagine it in, say, Edmonton or even Toronto. Part of the problem is that no one looks at the Ralston Building and thinks "heritage." If it was an ornate Victorian building, we'd probably have a much different conversation about it.

I think that if this had played out the way it had in Edmonton, it would have been held up as an example of how much the Federal Government doesn't care about Western Canada. This is despite the fact that Edmonton has a very utilitarian, 9-to-5 downtown where aesthetic and tourist appeal are not priorities, and with all due respect to them, we should be aiming higher than "Edmonton might have been ok with it". But again I couldn't see this playing out easily in the West (particularly AB/SK) because of its potential to become "symbolic". Whether or not it's a heritage building it shouldn't have to be stapled together like that - the whole image of it just screams of neglect and austerity. If anything the fact that it's not even that old makes it even more outrageous.

It would actually make a good example of exactly how much the Federal Government cares about Atlantic Canada if those kinds of conversations were happening, but they're not, and that's a major cultural difference between here and the West. Another is that we seem to be weirdly ok with just letting things crumble until it's almost certain that something bad will happen - see the examples of not only the Ralston, and the Dennis, and the Pacific, and the Armouries, but also the Quinpool rail bridge that's finally getting replaced. It was in terrible condition - what about all the other ones? No one ever really talks about these things. See also the fenced-off areas and the Martello Tower at York Redoubt - a National Historic Site - they're not even trying anymore! Isn't it weird that this kind of thing is normal to us?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hali87

ItAnother is that we seem to be weirdly ok with just letting things crumble until it's almost certain that something bad will happen - see the examples of not only the Ralston, and the Dennis, and the Pacific, and the Armouries, but also the Quinpool rail bridge that's finally getting replaced. It was in terrible condition - what about all the other ones? No one ever really talks about these things. See also the fenced-off areas and the Martello Tower at York Redoubt - a National Historic Site - they're not even trying anymore! Isn't it weird that this kind of thing is normal to us?

It is a trait of government and quasi-government organizations to not maintain infrastructure. The Feds have plenty of money to waste on re-election fodder and squeaky-wheel new initiatives, but maintenance of fixed assets does not buy headlines on the CBC nor lead to photo opps for MPs **cough**AndyFillmore**cough** desperately tying to buy their re-election. The Province of NS is broke so their lack of maintenance is less surprising but in both cases maintenance budgets are easy to chop and are the first things to be cut. And HRM would rather spend millions on unused bike lanes and flyover ramps than repair streets, and prefers spending $50 million on palatial new libraries and 4-pad arenas to maintaining the existing ones. See the sorry state of our roads, bridges and hospitals and other public facilities. It is a fundamental flaw in our govt system.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is a trait of government and quasi-government organizations to not maintain infrastructure... maintenance of fixed assets does not buy headlines on the CBC nor lead to photo opps for MPs...

This one thing increases costs soooo much. If we didn't have to replace things so 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 often, I suspect we'd have a healthier stock of existing buildings and the new buildings could be free to be new, rather than try and replace neglect.

[Jonovision]

This small project in Dartmouth now has a name. The UPside.

20190428_130952 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

The Ralston situation though, is that normal? Would this fly in any other major Canadian city - the federal government allowing one of their (heritage-designated!) office buildings to deteriorate to the point that they were forced to essentially staple it back together and making no effort to even sugar-coat this? There was 0 dignity to any of this, and I have a hard time picturing the same situation playing out in say, Ottawa, or QC, or Victoria, but maybe it does. At no point did the public here demand better AFAIK. It's not hard to picture an alternate scenario where there would have been a huge public backlash and the situation was spun into a national scandal. The problem is that people (if they cared at all) found the situation unfortunate but not really noteworthy. We are not in control.

Yes all cities have their problems and Someone123 is pretty quick to recognize these (and when he does, often other SSPers will say that he's being too critical of Vancouver or that he idealizes Halifax ). I do think that he makes good points here though. We have an advantage (a fairly extensive and unique stock of heritage architecture) and we do a relatively poor job of A - capitalizing on this and B - making sure that we don't lose it. We do an ok job at both but a lot of other cities even within Canada there is more effort given (or at least a better regulatory system in place) for way less real payoff (as in smaller and/or less interesting collections of heritage architecture are better protected).

Of course there are a lot of other things that we do well/better than other cities but taking advantage of and protecting our stock of heritage buildings isn't one of them. It's not necessarily a case of people not caring, not being resourceful, or what have you - mostly it's just that some laws need to be tweaked. But for laws to be tweaked it needs to be seen as important enough to the public.

Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been going 24/7 for the past week or so.

Firstly, I want it to be clear (as I thought I was trying to be) that I agree with most of someone123's assertions regarding how the various levels of government deal with heritage properties. I always tend to find his posts informative, well researched and written, and well grounded. I most often agree with his points, and I tend to think that we both share a similar appreciation for heritage structures and history in general.

However, I also want to address my thoughts about the negativity expressed:
- Perhaps I should not have reacted so strongly to the negative comments about Halifax/Nova Scotia, but I have a strong passion for the area and have started to resent the typical media portrayal of Halifax as being ground zero for just about every socially unacceptable trait that exists. While there is definite truth and history associated with much of it, the degree to which it is portrayed seems to be exaggerated compared to the reality as observed.

Thus, I am disappointed when I read:

Nova Scotia is incredibly utilitarian and doesn't really value its past much aside from the folksy stuff.

...which I believe to be grossly inaccurate, and an unfair generalization.

There is a lingering sense that Nova Scotia is poor and Halifax is a small town and so it's futile to try to have nice things.

...disagree. I have not observed this as being the general feeling here.

there's a lack of appreciation that a good quality public realm will have a significant positive impact on the people in it.

...disagree. Most I talk to have the opposite viewpoint, in fact.

No new bridges needed, no trains needed, no new roads.

...I don't hear anybody saying that, except perhaps the hard-core cyclists that believe building new roads creates more car traffic.

is the nearly 50 year old MacKay still called the "new bridge"?

...not very often. Most call them by their assigned names, though some of the older people who were around when the MacKay was built are still in the habit of using those terms. Besides, I don't believe the use of colloquialisms is necessarily an accurate reflection of one's perception of the need for new infrastructure.

This is all very noticeable looking at NS from afar.

...perhaps living away from Halifax/NS gives one a different perspective, but it can also serve to detach oneself from the culture/vibe of living there. As time passes, it is a likely outcome to become less in tune with the vibe of the place while allowing old memories to intensify and become skewed to the point that they may no longer be accurate.

-------These two comments below from another poster---------

I think the problem is that Halifax once had a history of having very "worldly" people. Now, many of the critics are people that have never really lived anywhere else... or seen what is possible. It is culturally a shame when comparing ourselves to similar sized cities in North America and elsewhere.

...utter BS, and see my comment above.

People need to actually live in different places for EXTENDED periods of time to see how things can be done.

...as if living in another part of the world somehow makes you more qualified to determine how Halifax should progress, or the ideas that people who live there should have.
----> Nobody is more qualified to make Halifax the best HALIFAX it can be, than somebody who lives there and is intimately familiar with the customs, concerns and trends affecting the local people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The bad news is that this barely seems to register in Halifax right now; the result that looks shoddy someplace else was created by newly increased heritage preservation grants (which are still inadequate, but a step in the right direction).

...I don't think this is an accurate statement, for reasons mentioned in a previous post. Additionally, one must also consider that the comments on messageboards like these are typically from somebody who is at "enthusiast" level and may not reflect the opinions of the average citizen in other cities, so it's not fair to say that this refurbishment would be unacceptable to people in other places.

On the subject of St. Paul's Building, and the reason I drew the Ralston into the conversation, is the idea that a historical disservice was done to the building when the cornice was changed and cupola removed. The pic I had posted in the other thread was dated 1951, but we don't know when it happened exactly. By the photo, though, we know it wouldn't have been any more than 60 years old when it was done.

The idea of preserving a 60 year old building for heritage purposes would not have been a very popular idea in most places in the 1940s-50s. In fact, most of us know that the general attitude was quite the opposite with the urban renewal trend that was just starting around then, in the shadow of WWII when the idea of new beginnings and stepping away from the shadows of the past were popular, and understandable, outlooks. The fifties was all about modernity - a new world with new styles and new technology, a brighter outlook as we move away from the dark years of the war.

So, as suggested, perhaps those elements were removed to modernize the look of the buildings, maybe they had deteriorated to the point of falling apart, maybe they were putting the aging building at risk due to the loading on the older structure. No matter the reason, preserving the history was not a popular attitude. These were considered old, dated buildings, an eyesore to many, and were judged on a practicality and economic scale -rather than an aesthetic one - by most.

Where does the Ralston fit in? Well it was being conceived around the same time. It was being styled in the new modern sense that was becoming so popular at the time and that stood in stark contrast to the ornate Victorian buildings that were still lingering from the previous century.

It was, basically, a collection of boxes, clad in stone which was attached, apparently, in a manner that did not take into account the effect of Halifax's humid environment and thus apparently lead to early corrosion of the fastening system (an assumption, as I haven't seen a report on the failure mechanism of the cladding fasteners).

So today, we now have a 63-year-old building, that holds high value among enthusiasts of mid-century architecture, but to most casual observers doesn't hold the charm and design sense of earlier architectural styles (personally, I have never found it very appealing). Its version of ornamentation (the cladding) has been failing, but has been repaired 'by MacGyver' to keep the building functional.

Would this building be completely restored if it were in another city? I'm not sure that it would. Considering that 24 Sussex had been allowed to deteriorate to the point that our current Prime Minister did not want to move his family into it says something about the feds' will to maintain 'significant' buildings and the public's ability or will to make sure that it happens.

Going back to the St. Paul's Building, the recent refurbishing definitely does not qualify as a full restoration, but is it all that bad? The building still has eye appeal but is still devoid of some of its ornamentation that was removed approximately 70 years ago. Personally, I'd love to see some of those features reinstated. Is it practical? I'm not sure, as in today's world it is much more difficult to find craftsman who can duplicate the decorative elements, and custom-built features are mulitiple times more expensive than off the shelf stuff. For example, a family friend is restoring the curved windows in his Victorian-era home in NB, and has literally payed several thousands of dollars per pane of glass for those windows multiplied by however many windows he is replacing.

I'm not excusing an incomplete restoration, but as a realist I understand that businesses have to justify their expenses, and without sufficient government-supplied incentives (as mentioned), it would be difficult to make a business case for it.

On the topic of Boston, it does appear that they have a fairly robust and effective heritage-defending organization. Heck, they are even fighting to preserve the Citgo sign, which is much more than we were able to do about the Morse's Tea signage that was unceremoniously painted over, and more than apparently Vancouver has been able to do about the BowMac sign (though I haven't heard any updates about it recently).

Sorry for the wordy response, but I felt I had to comment about my own posts and the comments by others. I'm not sure if I've effectively made my points, but I'm sure I will soon learn whether I have...

[Hali87]

Without really having the time or energy to give that post the response it deserves, I think that this discussion re: NS not valuing heritage, not thinking big, etc, is in the sense of NS-the-entity. I agree that many (most?) individual people here do care about these things but this does not seem to translate well to the institutional level. (Conversely I do encounter the “but we’re small and poor” mentality often enough at an individual level for me to consider this a significant “thing” - if this is not your experience then frankly I’m glad to hear it!)

[OldDartmouthMark]

Thanks! Long, detailed response not required or expected!

I've said what I felt I had to say, and I'm now done with it and moving on. I appreciate your taking the time to read it through.

[OldDartmouthMark]

As condos rise, the cost of buying a parking spot in Halifax reaches $30K

A real estate listing on Wellington Street in the city's south end posted on the website Viewpoint has a parking space listed for $29,900. That doesn't include the condo fees for the spot, which are $67 per month.

Across the street, realtor Larry Allen is selling condos in the Gorsebrook Park development, which is under construction. Parking spaces are sold separately for an additional $36,000. He said 80 per cent of the spots have been sold to condo purchasers.

[OldDartmouthMark]

After $1.1M refit, Province House's south garden sports new look

Speaker Kevin Murphy has agreed to unlock the garden gate on Prince Street at Province House. It will allow the public direct access to the south garden, which last year underwent a $1.1-million overhaul.

The last time the garden gate was opened was the summer of 2014.

It will also mark the first time in at least five years, since the shooting on Parliament Hill sparked a security crackdown at legislatures across Canada, that the grounds to the Nova Scotia legislature will have public access, other than through the main vehicle gate on Hollis Street.

But...

The government has shelved plans to restore the north garden, currently a paved lot used by MLAs to park their vehicles.

[OldDartmouthMark]

This story bolsters someone123's and Hali87's argument. Maybe I was wrong to dispute their claims, or maybe the media is looking for an angle to create a story... or both.

I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed that the people interviewed for the article can't seem to see the big picture. If this attitude continues, Halifax will stagnate, and the health care crisis will still not likely be fixed as that will require a complete rebuild of the management system, along with money.

Resistance to new art gallery on Halifax waterfront is growing

But in a province where some people say there's a healthcare crisis, there are also those who believe the gallery money could be better spent.

Even artist Liz Mac, whose first instinct two weeks ago was to be excited when she learned Nova Scotia was investing in a new art gallery.

“But then my second thought was, ‘why now?’” Mac said. “You know, we have a lot of other things that need to be taken care of.”

even passersby aren't entirely sure it's the best way to spend the money.

“I think they could use that $70 million to help early childhood education and the health care crisis,” one Halifax resident said.

“Money into the arts is wonderful, but we've got a very urgent crisis in the health care system, so that should be number one,” said another.

But Natalie Edinger also understands shortages in the healthcare system.

“I understand that different money gets allocated to different-things,” she said.

A diabetic since she was four, she took the extraordinary step of launching an online petition to convince the government to change course on the plan.

Thousands have already signed it.

“I'm hoping I'll get a lot more,” she said. “I'm hoping I'll have at least one signature for every person that's waiting for a doctor right now.”

“It's the wrong time, and I don't think we can afford it,” Mac said. “We can't afford to fix the healthcare problem, then why are we trying to fix the arts problem?”

[Keith P.]

Spending $80 mil on a new art gallery is absolutely the wrong move right now. The arguments in favor of spending that on a gallery are weak at best while the need for more spending to fix hot spots within the healthcare system is massive. We do not have unlimited funds and this is a very bad move in the eyes of most of the public.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Spending $80 mil on a new art gallery is absolutely the wrong move right now. The arguments in favor of spending that on a gallery are weak at best while the need for more spending to fix hot spots within the healthcare system is massive. We do not have unlimited funds and this is a very bad move in the eyes of most of the public.

But I think it is completely valid to point out that the provincial health care budget has already been growing rapidly and makes up almost half of the total. At some point you have to take a step back and reconsider if money is being spent efficiently, and find a way to address lesser priorities too.

I always assumed Nova Scotia was in a particularly weak fiscal position but I checked the data and it does not support this view: http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-fiscal/prov_fiscal.pdf

In terms of balanced-budget-to-GDP, NS is #2 in Canada. Ontario and Alberta are running 1.4% and 2% of GDP deficits. Nova Scotia is running a 0.5% of GDP surplus.

Debt to GDP peaked in 1999 in Nova Scotia and has been going down since then (plus interest rates have fallen). 5 other provinces have higher debt to GDP ratios now.

In my opinion, the mindset that Nova Scotia's provincial government is in crisis is not very accurate or helpful.

This chart is pretty interesting (the picture has improved since 2016 when this was made):


Source

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Going back to the St. Paul's Building, the recent refurbishing definitely does not qualify as a full restoration, but is it all that bad?

My point is that in many other cities, it would be considered unacceptable. Like in Montreal or Quebec City. I don't think there's any good reason for the standards along Barrington to be lower. Halifax actually should have a higher ability to pay for good quality restoration than Quebec City, because there are fewer buildings like this relative to the size of the economy. At this point, keeping buildings like this in good shape is a relatively small burden.

This ties in with what I meant about Nova Scotia being utilitarian. Day-to-day utility and property ownership are given a relatively high importance compared to what I see in other areas. So many brick Victorian buildings are "just another building" for property owners to do with as they see fit while in other cities their exteriors would be treated like public amenities. Halifax does this for some buildings like City Hall or the Citadel, but the line is drawn at a pretty extreme end of the spectrum and a lot of mid-range heritage buildings get left out.

If we're going to talk about Vancouver, almost nothing here would count as heritage in Halifax. A bunch of protected buildings are circa 1900 wooden houses. And Vancouver is considered to do relatively poorly when it comes to heritage preservation. Victoria or Portland for example are more historic (though their 19th century historic buildings are still modest compared to Halifax). Portland has a lot of historic neighbourhoods full of buildings that aren't particularly exceptional but come together to create a cohesive feel that you wouldn't get if you let property owners do whatever they felt like. Boston is like this too.

Personally, I'd love to see some of those features reinstated. Is it practical? I'm not sure, as in today's world it is much more difficult to find craftsman who can duplicate the decorative elements, and custom-built features are mulitiple times more expensive than off the shelf stuff. For example, a family friend is restoring the curved windows in his Victorian-era home in NB, and has literally payed several thousands of dollars per pane of glass for those windows multiplied by however many windows he is replacing.

But it's obviously practical. It happens on some buildings in Halifax but not others. And in many other cities it happens for all buildings deemed to have heritage value.

The disparity I see is that Halifax is a place where you see ambitious new developments like the Nova Centre or Queen's Marque, but where it's considered potentially economically infeasible to rebuild a cornice on one of the most prominent street corners in the city. Maybe the property owners don't want to pay for it, but the money and capability to do this obviously exist, and the municipality and province have the ability to manipulate incentives to get it to happen. Within certain bounds, they determine what is and isn't economical.

I think people who live in Halifax should be demanding more; government apathy reflects apathy of the citizens. Maybe I am out of touch and this is happening. But at the end of the day we should judge that by successful restoration and preservation and so far I'm not seeing it. I think 2009-2019 was actually worse than 1999-2009, probably because development pressure rose without a commensurate increase in heritage protection. Hopefully something will change in the next decade. Maybe it should start with people demanding that all of the Dennis Building facade be maintained, not just the lower half.