General Updates and News

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by someone123

Not sure if they are registered heritage buildings

Neither of the two buildings that came down on Blowers over the last two months (the one across from MEC went first) were registered but both were under active consideration for potential heritage registration. Council directed staff to evaluate all the potential heritage buildings that were identified in the Downtown Plan. The first batch has come through the Heritage Advisory Committee. That doesn't mean that all of them will get registered, just that HRM will actually review each unregistered, but potentially important building Downtown. The owners of the two Blowers properties have effectively ended any discussion of their properties since they demolished before that process could reach a conclusion. Hard not to be cynical about the timing.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I read somewhere online (maybe AllNS, but can't remember) that the developer has no specific plans for it currently.

Ramia owns it so I wouldn't expect anything of any sort of quality. In addition to the Nova Centre, which I recently heard is infested with rodents, he owns the really terrible Barrington Gate building next door (but for some reason is the first pick for MLAs looking for a rental unit while the legislature is sitting...).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by spaustin

The owners of the two Blowers properties have effectively ended any discussion of their properties since they demolished before that process could reach a conclusion. Hard not to be cynical about the timing.

Likely a smart move on their part to sidestep the iron grip of the HRM bureaucracy.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Likely a smart move on their part to sidestep the iron grip of the HRM bureaucracy.

In this case smart/sleazy are interchangeable.

I assume this is the building being discussed?

https://goo.gl/maps/kz6d4S91EEMLD7rB8



Source

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Likely a smart move on their part to sidestep the iron grip of the HRM bureaucracy.

Definitely was a smart move if you feel no social responsibility or see value in heritage. You're far better off to demolish before we can restrict your options. When it becomes a race, sadly HRM will always lose (Young Ave houses showed that). Need the power to enact a holding bylaw or just an amendment to the Heritage Act to allow for a freeze in demolitions so that buildings can be properly assessed. Council mightn't have registered either Blowers property, but we'll never know now.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by spaustin

Need the power to enact a holding bylaw or just an amendment to the Heritage Act to allow for a freeze in demolitions so that buildings can be properly assessed. Council mightn't have registered either Blowers property, but we'll never know now.

It's disappointing that these issues never seem to get fixed. The same pattern has repeated itself over and over in the city, with developers rushing to tear down or redevelop buildings before registration or before the creation of heritage conservation districts. This building on Blowers has been in a vulnerable state for many years.

And the conservation districts themselves are pretty weak, e.g. Pacific Building still crumbling years after the Barrington heritage district was created, and the Roy facade was not rebuilt to the same quality level of what existed before. So I wonder if they were even a net gain compared to having an elective pool of funding for heritage restoration.

It's sad because I think the costs of getting this right are small and the effect on the city could be major. There isn't much of a difference cost-wise to the city or developers (there is no way this little building was more than a rounding error to Ramia compared to the Nova Centre) between the status quo and having a really nice looking Barrington-Argyle area for example. It is purely bad planning and bad regulations. I suppose we could blame developers but the blame game solves nothing and good development should not depend on some kind of moral code above and beyond the rules that developers must follow. When it comes to developer behaviour the municipality should hope for the best but assume the worst.

[spaustin]

You're not wrong someone123 and HRM's hands are far from clean when it comes to the loss of historic buildings Downtown. After the Downtown Plan identified a list of potential heritage buildings, nothing was done to seriously look at them. Not until Councillor Mason moved a motion a year or two ago. In that time, 1/3 of the potential properties were demolished, the most significant of which was the old BMO branch at the corner of Spring Garden and Queen (a real loss).

I have to disagree with you about the Barrington Street District though. The incentives that were made available on Barrington have meant that most of the buildings along the street have seen work, including the old NFB shell and the beautiful work to save the very imperiled Green Lantern. The Pacific Building is the outlier. The Roy and old Zellers were facaded, but to be fair, they were proposals that came in before the District was finalized. I think Barrington has been fairly successful on the whole.

[someone123]

Part of what I find disappointing about Barrington is that it could be (or could have been) a real showcase but it still falls below the norm of a lot of other cities (I am not talking London or Paris but maybe Portland ME or perhaps St. John's). Maybe it'll look a bit better soon when the old Zeller's and Green Lantern plus NFB are done.

Examples of problems:

- Tramway Building stripped down for years along the Barrington facade
- DaVinci College Building is a blank corrugated metal box
- Multiple buildings that are in OK shape have missing or poorly maintained cornices. Examples are the Apothecary Building, Mezza, or Julep. Even restored heritage buildings in Halifax tend to be stripped down.
- Some buildings don't fit at all and could be renovated to fit in better. Examples are the weird One Government Place entry and Mary's
- The street itself and public realm is pretty lackluster
- Of course the Pacific Building looks terrible, which is particularly frustrating because it and that whole block could be a gem

The good thing is most of these improvements can happen whenever as long as the buildings are stabilized and nothing is torn down.

Part of what I can't get past is that Halifax has torn down so much, probably 2/3 or more of its historic masonry commercial buildings. There is very little left compared to the size of the city, and what is left would in principle be easy to keep in tip top shape. I think a big part of this not really economics but rather that other municipal governments were interventionist while Halifax maintained a laissez-faire attitude for a very long time. Even now, and with its modest conservation districts, it is nowhere near front of the pack in North America, and it's far behind what it should be as one of Canada's most historic cities.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by spaustin

Definitely was a smart move if you feel no social responsibility or see value in heritage. You're far better off to demolish before we can restrict your options. When it becomes a race, sadly HRM will always lose (Young Ave houses showed that). Need the power to enact a holding bylaw or just an amendment to the Heritage Act to allow for a freeze in demolitions so that buildings can be properly assessed. Council mightn't have registered either Blowers property, but we'll never know now.

The hand-wringing about this Blowers building is noteworthy because it is far from your own district and the building is in no way noteworthy. One suspects a personal connection to it for you in one of its past lives, just like Mason with the Khyber. Imagine if the millions of dollars that HRM has/will be sinking into that dump were spread around for preservation of actual heritage. One must also question the property valuation process if a largely derelict old building with little prospect of reuse is valued more than a cleared lot ready for development.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The hand-wringing about this Blowers building is noteworthy because it is far from your own district and the building is in no way noteworthy. One suspects a personal connection to it for you in one of its past lives, just like Mason with the Khyber. Imagine if the millions of dollars that HRM has/will be sinking into that dump were spread around for preservation of actual heritage. One must also question the property valuation process if a largely derelict old building with little prospect of reuse is valued more than a cleared lot ready for development.

Hey Keith, as usual I'm not surprised by your opinion. Same ol' same ol'.

However, I'm a little perplexed by your implication that the Kyber building doesn't qualify as having "actual heritage" (your words). Why do you say that, and what are, in your opinion, the requirements for a building to have "actual heritage"?

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by someone123

Part of what I find disappointing about Barrington is that it could be (or could have been) a real showcase but it still falls below the norm of a lot of other cities (I am not talking London or Paris but maybe Portland ME or perhaps St. John's). Maybe it'll look a bit better soon when the old Zeller's and Green Lantern plus NFB are done.

Examples of problems:

- Tramway Building stripped down for years along the Barrington facade
- DaVinci College Building is a blank corrugated metal box
- Multiple buildings that are in OK shape have missing or poorly maintained cornices. Examples are the Apothecary Building, Mezza, or Julep. Even restored heritage buildings in Halifax tend to be stripped down.
- Some buildings don't fit at all and could be renovated to fit in better. Examples are the weird One Government Place entry and Mary's
- The street itself and public realm is pretty lackluster
- Of course the Pacific Building looks terrible, which is particularly frustrating because it and that whole block could be a gem

The good thing is most of these improvements can happen whenever as long as the buildings are stabilized and nothing is torn down.

Part of what I can't get past is that Halifax has torn down so much, probably 2/3 or more of its historic masonry commercial buildings. There is very little left compared to the size of the city, and what is left would in principle be easy to keep in tip top shape. I think a big part of this not really economics but rather that other municipal governments were interventionist while Halifax maintained a laissez-faire attitude for a very long time. Even now, and with its modest conservation districts, it is nowhere near front of the pack in North America, and it's far behind what it should be as one of Canada's most historic cities.

Totally correct. There are no incentives from the city or the province to maintain or keep historic buildings, many of which have already been gutted over time by renovations geared toward whatever commercial venture was going into the spot at the time.

I always found it funny that the Heritage Trust seemed to grapple onto the protection of the interiors of various buildings that were being incorporated into new structures...facadism as they called it. There really wasn't much inside that was left to save.

There are no tax breaks and until recently, no grants to update the exterior of the buildings which improvements require stone masons or fine carpenters with experience in restoration work.

Simply, property owners are better off to run their buildings into the ground, demolish them and build more efficient buildings with more commercial space or residential units.

City staff and council by extension are completely to blame. I don't really blame the owners or developers.

[RoshanMcG]

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Part of what I find disappointing about Barrington is that it could be (or could have been) a real showcase but it still falls below the norm of a lot of other cities (I am not talking London or Paris but maybe Portland ME or perhaps St. John's). Maybe it'll look a bit better soon when the old Zeller's and Green Lantern plus NFB are done.

Examples of problems:

- Tramway Building stripped down for years along the Barrington facade
- DaVinci College Building is a blank corrugated metal box
- Multiple buildings that are in OK shape have missing or poorly maintained cornices. Examples are the Apothecary Building, Mezza, or Julep. Even restored heritage buildings in Halifax tend to be stripped down.
- Some buildings don't fit at all and could be renovated to fit in better. Examples are the weird One Government Place entry and Mary's
- The street itself and public realm is pretty lackluster
- Of course the Pacific Building looks terrible, which is particularly frustrating because it and that whole block could be a gem

The good thing is most of these improvements can happen whenever as long as the buildings are stabilized and nothing is torn down.

Part of what I can't get past is that Halifax has torn down so much, probably 2/3 or more of its historic masonry commercial buildings. There is very little left compared to the size of the city, and what is left would in principle be easy to keep in tip top shape. I think a big part of this not really economics but rather that other municipal governments were interventionist while Halifax maintained a laissez-faire attitude for a very long time. Even now, and with its modest conservation districts, it is nowhere near front of the pack in North America, and it's far behind what it should be as one of Canada's most historic cities.

Interesting statement.

I was musing tonight that if a person of average architectural knowledge were dropped in the middle of downtown Halifax without knowledge of its history or where they were, and you asked them when did they think the city was founded - what would they guess? 1890? 1910? 1920? I wonder...

They would not likely guess 1749. Just a thought.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Hey Keith, as usual I'm not surprised by your opinion. Same ol' same ol'.

However, I'm a little perplexed by your implication that the Kyber building doesn't qualify as having "actual heritage" (your words). Why do you say that, and what are, in your opinion, the requirements for a building to have "actual heritage"?

I was not saying that the Khyber lacks actual heritage. I perhaps worded it somewhat awkwardly but was referring to the now demolished building. Having The Green Bean as a hangout for NSCAD students in the '90s does not create a heritage designation.

Having said that, the millions that HRM is about to pour into the Khyber boondoggle would be better spent on helping out a number of other actual heritage buildings.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by RoshanMcG

Well, that's an ugly scar, and no active plans for imminent construction?

The owner should not have been allowed to demolish this building without cause. Tax implications could be the reason, but this is difficult to justify from an aesthetic point of view.

The only justifiable reasons IMHO is if the building was no longer structurally stable, was a fire risk or if it was being repeatedly inhabited by vagrants despite attempts to fortify the property.

Have they at least cleaned up the property to remove the rubble? They should also put up a decent fence to hide the view.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I was not saying that the Khyber lacks actual heritage. I perhaps worded it somewhat awkwardly but was referring to the now demolished building. Having The Green Bean as a hangout for NSCAD students in the '90s does not create a heritage designation.

Having said that, the millions that HRM is about to pour into the Khyber boondoggle would be better spent on helping out a number of other actual heritage buildings.

Thanks for the explanation, Keith. I now know what you were trying to say.

Regarding its heritage cred, the fact that it was built in 1888 with its Gothic Revival cues is enough. It's a very unique building and a fixture on Barrington Street. If the city has to put some money into it, so be it. There is value beyond dollars and cents in that it would be impossible to duplicate in today's world.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, that's an ugly scar, and no active plans for imminent construction?

The owner should not have been allowed to demolish this building without cause. Tax implications could be the reason, but this is difficult to justify from an aesthetic point of view.

The only justifiable reasons IMHO is if the building was no longer structurally stable, was a fire risk or if it was being repeatedly inhabited by vagrants despite attempts to fortify the property.

Have they at least cleaned up the property to remove the rubble? They should also put up a decent fence to hide the view.

That IS an ugly scar! Can't see how this is better for the area than just leaving the building standing.

For a while I had held out hope that somebody would strip the ugly layers of paint off the masonry and do something to improve the building, but obviously that wasn't to be. Instead, downtown Halifax will continue to be dotted with empty lots into the future, I suppose.

Wonder which one will be next?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Well, that's an ugly scar, and no active plans for imminent construction?

The owner should not have been allowed to demolish this building without cause. Tax implications could be the reason, but this is difficult to justify from an aesthetic point of view.

The only justifiable reasons IMHO is if the building was no longer structurally stable, was a fire risk or if it was being repeatedly inhabited by vagrants despite attempts to fortify the property.

Have they at least cleaned up the property to remove the rubble? They should also put up a decent fence to hide the view.

Removing the platform used by the graffiti vandals to deface the adjacent building should be reason enough. I gather it has the same owner as that of the now-empty lot so one presumes that repairs are imminent.

[Citizen_Bane]

I'm offended that the developer seems to have not taken into consideration my tax dollars (and everyone else's) that went in to the very recent beautifying and improvement of the street infrastructure in the immediate area. Removing the building is an ugly slap in the face. No fence or other temporary measure will likely compensate for a full building facade in the streetscape.

The city seems awfully slow on recognizing the value of the pubic realm to the developer and translating that value into some protection for the citizens of HRM through the development and enforcement of appropriate by-laws. Any argument that the value of the public realm exists is quickly quashed when comparing the value of two identically sized lots, one in city centre Halifax and, say, one in the village of Sheet Harbour. No sane developer is going to do an even switch-a-roo of lots.

There's little doubt that the developer made a sound business decision, but, if business decisions and profit are the ONLY focus of developer maybe the US would be a better home for them. .......ahhhhhhhh... my rant for the day.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Citizen_Bane

I'm offended that the developer seems to have not taken into consideration my tax dollars (and everyone else's) that went in to the very recent beautifying and improvement of the street infrastructure in the immediate area. Removing the building is an ugly slap in the face. No fence or other temporary measure will likely compensate for a full building facade in the streetscape.

The city seems awfully slow on recognizing the value of the pubic realm to the developer and translating that value into some protection for the citizens of HRM through the development and enforcement of appropriate by-laws. Any argument that the value of the public realm exists is quickly quashed when comparing the value of two identically sized lots, one in city centre Halifax and, say, one in the village of Sheet Harbour. No sane developer is going to do an even switch-a-roo of lots.

There's little doubt that the developer made a sound business decision, but, if business decisions and profit are the ONLY focus of developer maybe the US would be a better home for them. .......ahhhhhhhh... my rant for the day.

I can think of a few (thankfully) Communist totalitarian states that might be a better home for those who believe govt should control property owners to such an extent, too.

What if this lot becomes a landscaped pocket park? Or a beer garden? Or some other thing in the absence of new construction? Maybe even HRM, with its deep pockets of taxpayer gold to spend waste, could be convinced to pitch in and aid the cause. The millions they spent to turn Argyle into a haven for the bar-going students and under-30s, and unwelcome to anyone else, offends me. Just so you know.