[Moncton] Downtown Developments

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jonny golden

Do they want to demolish it?

Well, this was an item on the agenda for the September meeting of the Heritage Conservation Board:

84, rue Highfield Street (Maison Killam House) – Determination of eligibility for designation under the Heritage Conservation Act

So, it appears they are exploring the status of this building as it pertains to the act. This might mean they plan to demolish it, or perhaps they are planning significant modifications to the building and they want to see if the act would allow it. I have no indication what the recommendations of the conservation board were.



The site plan for the adjacent Ashford development appears to show this building in good health, and somewhat integrated with the overall project. I get no feeling from the site plan that this building is in danger of demolition, but times change.........

[MonctonRad]

As to the above - this was in Mayor Dawn Arnold's FB post following the meeting tonight:

A recommendation to amend a Heritage by-law to designate the house at 84-86 Highfield (the “doll house“ or “Killam House”) as a designated municipal heritage property. The Public Hearing will be on Nov. 16th.

It would be interesting to know the politics around this. The city obviously wants to preserve this building and prevent any substantial change. It appears Ashford intended to keep this building too, based on the site plan above. Did Ashford plan on some modifications to the building that the Heritage Advisory Board was nervous about? Is this the reason for the emergency designation of this property? We'll know more when the documentation for the public presentation becomes available..........

[flyer99]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

As to the above - this was in Mayor Dawn Arnold's FB post following the meeting tonight:





It would be interesting to know the politics around this. The city obviously wants to preserve this building and prevent any substantial change. It appears Ashford intended to keep this building too, based on the site plan above. Did Ashford plan on some modifications to the building that the Heritage Advisory Board was nervous about? Is this the reason for the emergency designation of this property? We'll know more when the documentation for the public presentation becomes available..........

It's strange. This house was on the Canadian list but never placed on the Municipal list. Thus, when Ashford purchased it, the city had not listed it as a historical building. However now, after construction of the Ashford development is well underway, the city is attempting to add it to the Municipal list. Ashford said last night at City Council that parking will now be difficult. How can the city make this change after construction has begun? What is going on here? This potential change by the city should have been made known to Ashford long before construction began.

[gehrhardt]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

As to the above - this was in Mayor Dawn Arnold's FB post following the meeting tonight:

It would be interesting to know the politics around this. The city obviously wants to preserve this building and prevent any substantial change. It appears Ashford intended to keep this building too, based on the site plan above. Did Ashford plan on some modifications to the building that the Heritage Advisory Board was nervous about? Is this the reason for the emergency designation of this property? We'll know more when the documentation for the public presentation becomes available..........

According to the site plan, there is an extension to the building that is to be demolished. They probably needed permission to do so.

[Taeolas]

CBC Article on the issue

Looks like the developer altered their plans to preserve the property... but now that they are building it, they have "discovered" the altered plans won't work. That sounds a bit fishy to me to be honest.

Patrick Gillespie, president of The Ashford Group of companies, told councillors that once construction started, it became clear the plan wouldn't work as intended.

He said keeping the house meant driveways to underground parking and surface parking both go onto Elm Street. The underground entrance dips down and turns 90 degrees, something he said makes entry harder.

He also said large moving trucks would likely need to park on the street.

"Even though the architect said it works, it doesn't work," Gillespie said.

The company in August applied for another demolition permit, triggering a formal heritage review of Killam House and a decision by the Heritage Conservation Board. The board instead recommended council add the house to the heritage list.

It's not good for the city to basically be retroactively preserving a building. But for a developer to "suddenly" discover their revised plans won't work and attempting to go back to the original doesn't smell good either.

I wonder if moving the building might be a better solution, either shifting it on the property or moving it somewhere else entirely?

[MonctonRad]

Moncton house a developer wants to demolish may end up with heritage designation instead
Owner constructing six-storey apartment building beside house constructed in 1898-99
Shane Magee · CBC News · Posted: Oct 06, 2020 7:00 AM AT | Last Updated: 31 minutes ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/moncton-council-heritage-house-ashford-1.5751283

The two sides of the argument:

The property was added to the Canadian Register of Historic Places based on a 2005 vote by Moncton council, but had not been added to the municipal list. The federal registry calls it a example of well-preserved Queen Anne architecture featuring a "witch's cap" turret with gable dormers.

Keeping the house meant driveways to underground parking and surface parking both go onto Elm Street. The underground entrance dips down and turns 90 degrees, something he said makes entry harder.

He also said large moving trucks would likely need to park on the street.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Looks like the developer altered their plans to preserve the property... but now that they are building it, they have "discovered" the altered plans won't work. That sounds a bit fishy to me to be honest.

I agree. Ashford originally wanted to demolish the Killam House, but changed their tune when the city raised objections, modifying their plans so that the house could stay. Now that construction is well underway, Ashford is saying "whoops, my bad, the house doesn't work after all and has to be demolished." This seems a tad disingenuous.

The house has good bones, and I think it's important to preserve some quality older buildings like this in the core as the city develops, as a nod to our architectural history. The city should proceed with their heritage designation ASAP.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I agree. Ashford originally wanted to demolish the Killam House, but changed their tune when the city raised objections, modifying their plans so that the house could stay. Now that construction is well underway, Ashford is saying "whoops, my bad, the house doesn't work after all and has to be demolished." This seems a tad disingenuous.

Having stated the above however, I do not necessarily believe that Ashford was being dishonest with the city, or trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Ashford could quite legitimately have had second thoughts on the engineering problems related to the parking lot in behind the new apartment building, and the tight radius of the 90 degree turn to the underground parking lot.

The primary concern however should be what can be done to save this house, a building which has some innate architectural value.

A compromise is possible. Just how important is this small surface parking lot behind the apartment building anyway? If the lot were sacrificed, then it would be easy to broaden the turning radius of the ramp leading to the underground parking, which would solve most of the problem. Of course, the issue of moving vans remains, but there still might be other options to deal with this. Hopefully the city and Ashford will be able to work constructively together so that both parties can be satisfied.

[flyer99]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Having stated the above however, I do not necessarily believe that Ashford was being dishonest with the city, or trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Ashford could quite legitimately have had second thoughts on the engineering problems related to the parking lot in behind the new apartment building, and the tight radius of the 90 degree turn to the underground parking lot.

The primary concern however should be what can be done to save this house, a building which has some innate architectural value.

A compromise is possible. Just how important is this small surface parking lot behind the apartment building anyway? If the lot were sacrificed, then it would be easy to broaden the turning radius of the ramp leading to the underground parking, which would solve most of the problem. Of course, the issue of moving vans remains, but there still might be other options to deal with this. Hopefully the city and Ashford will be able to work constructively together so that both parties can be satisfied.

I read where this house requires A LOT of work to get back in shape. It would most likely cost Ashford a bundle to fix it up as opposed to demolishing it to make parking easier. I have nothing against Ashford for this at all but I do question how the city could turn around after construction is underway and now add this building to their designated list. This is not a precedent to set.

Also, is it going to be something the city has to get used to? In other words, we could eventually see a city with many large buildings everywhere with small buildings including houses here and there between them. If we want to have a city that is growing, vibrant, with new structures (especially in the downtown area) then let the city grow. We do not need little buildings preserved everywhere. If we really want to preserve them, then move them to places where they will never be demolished. I speak here of the downtown area of the city. Let it grow and flourish without heritage building issues.

[adamuptownsj]

It's perfectly reasonable for the city to come down on Ashford hard. They said they would keep it, they conveniently changed their minds. If they get to retroactively decide to demolish a building, the city can retroactively call it heritage.

[OliverD]

I really don't see how moving trucks having to park in the street is an issue. That happens in many cities and in the grand scheme of things is a minor inconvenience.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by flyer99

I read where this house requires A LOT of work to get back in shape. It would most likely cost Ashford a bundle to fix it up as opposed to demolishing it to make parking easier. I have nothing against Ashford for this at all but I do question how the city could turn around after construction is underway and now add this building to their designated list. This is not a precedent to set.

If the renovation costs for the Killam House are very high, then this should be a consideration, but, the house has some architectural merit and is somewhat iconic. All things being equal, every possible course of action to preserve this building should be employed. As for who is the party most in the wrong here (Ashford vs the city), this is a moot point. The most important thing is the future nature of the downtown west end, and how do we achieve it.

Originally Posted by flyer99

Also, is it going to be something the city has to get used to? In other words, we could eventually see a city with many large buildings everywhere with small buildings including houses here and there between them. If we want to have a city that is growing, vibrant, with new structures (especially in the downtown area) then let the city grow. We do not need little buildings preserved everywhere. If we really want to preserve them, then move them to places where they will never be demolished. I speak here of the downtown area of the city. Let it grow and flourish without heritage building issues.

I am gratified to see the Avenir Centre inspired rejuvenation going on in the downtown west end. There are a number of new mid rise apartment buildings in varying stages of planning and approval in the works. Many of these new buildings will be replacing aging single family homes in varying stages of decrepitude. Good riddance.

There are however some houses in this neighbourhood worthy of preservation, and one of the best features of a vibrant downtown can be the eclecticism of different types of built form lying right next to one another. This can stand in stark contrast with the typical suburban monocultures we see throughout North America in the early 21st century.

Of course, context is everything. Trying to preserve a clapboard Victorian home on a major block in the densest portion of the core of a city would be a futile and unproductive exercise. The downtown west end however is what I would call "dense urban fringe", and larger apartment buildings interspersed with stately older houses in this sort of neighbourhood would provide welcome variety to the urban streetscape. To this end, I think the Killam House would be well worth efforts at preservation. The building would work well as a professional office of some form, or a higher end restaurant, or perhaps a boutique on the ground floor with apartments upstairs. If a new use for this building could be found, renovations might end up being profitable and worthwhile...........

[MonctonRad]

How about this as a compromise solution for Ashford's parking concerns:



Swapping out the entrances for the surface parking in the rear and the entrance for the driveway for the underground parking garage:

1) - This could broaden the radius for the 90 degree turn into the underground structure, making it easier to navigate.
2) - This would also preserve some of the surface parking spots (roughly 8 spaces instead of 14).
3) - there would be room for a moving van to back into the parking lot so that tenants can move into and out of the building, and also that that furniture could be delivered. This would solve the problem of having the moving vans parked on the street instead.

This would seem to ease a lot of Ashford's concerns..........

[BlackYear]

Good idea MonctonRad, that was my first thought. And in fact, that was my first question asked when I first seen the construction plans. Why the heck did they place the underground garage entrance in such a tight corner?

My thoughts on the house. Get rid of it. Either tear it down or move it to another location where it can be appreciated. The way it stands now, it will be completely engulfed by a 6 story complex just a couple of meters away, and also completed hidden by a massive tree right in front of the house.

I'm all for conserving heritage and all where it makes sense, but here, it doesn't make sense. Do we or do we not want to build up the urban downtown core?

Here's an idea. Ashford should go knock on the door of the house next door to this heritage house and ask the owner, "Do you want a free house?". Yes, then tear down the house next door, rebuild the foundation, slide the heritage house over to this property. A nice landscape make-over and your done. Ashford can pay that owner for the demo, foundation, moving of house, property taxes for 5 years. Everybody wins, everyone is happy.

I could probably say the same for the old YWCA building on the Aquilini property. If you want them to pour $40 million to redevelop this block, let them have their way with it.

[josh_cat_eyes]

Originally Posted by BlackYear

Good idea MonctonRad, that was my first thought. And in fact, that was my first question asked when I first seen the construction plans. Why the heck did they place the underground garage entrance in such a tight corner?

My thoughts on the house. Get rid of it. Either tear it down or move it to another location where it can be appreciated. The way it stands now, it will be completely engulfed by a 6 story complex just a couple of meters away, and also completed hidden by a massive tree right in front of the house.

I'm all for conserving heritage and all where it makes sense, but here, it doesn't make sense. Do we or do we not want to build up the urban downtown core?

Here's an idea. Ashford should go knock on the door of the house next door to this heritage house and ask the owner, "Do you want a free house?". Yes, then tear down the house next door, rebuild the foundation, slide the heritage house over to this property. A nice landscape make-over and your done. Ashford can pay that owner for the demo, foundation, moving of house, property taxes for 5 years. Everybody wins, everyone is happy.

I could probably say the same for the old YWCA building on the Aquilini property. If you want them to pour $40 million to redevelop this block, let them have their way with it.

The difference with the former YMCA building is its right on the corner of the lot, it’s a historically significant building for Moncton (at least in my opinion it is anyway) and I think you could almost build another building right up next to this one without any problems.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by josh_cat_eyes

The difference with the former Y(W)CA building is its right on the corner of the lot, it’s a historically significant building for Moncton (at least in my opinion it is anyway) and I think you could almost build another building right up next to this one without any problems.

Agreed. I also think it's considerably more difficult to move a brick or masonry building than a wooden clad structure because the brick is a lot more brittle, and doesn't have any flex like wood would have.

While the Killam House could conceivably be moved (with difficulty), I think the old YWCA Building has to be preserved in place. Of the two buildings, the YWCA is the more iconic, but it would be nice to see them both preserved.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by BlackYear

Good idea MonctonRad, that was my first thought. And in fact, that was my first question asked when I first seen the construction plans. Why the heck did they place the underground garage entrance in such a tight corner?

My thoughts on the house. Get rid of it. Either tear it down or move it to another location where it can be appreciated. The way it stands now, it will be completely engulfed by a 6 story complex just a couple of meters away, and also completed hidden by a massive tree right in front of the house.

I'm all for conserving heritage and all where it makes sense, but here, it doesn't make sense. Do we or do we not want to build up the urban downtown core?

Here's an idea. Ashford should go knock on the door of the house next door to this heritage house and ask the owner, "Do you want a free house?". Yes, then tear down the house next door, rebuild the foundation, slide the heritage house over to this property. A nice landscape make-over and your done. Ashford can pay that owner for the demo, foundation, moving of house, property taxes for 5 years. Everybody wins, everyone is happy.

I could probably say the same for the old YWCA building on the Aquilini property. If you want them to pour $40 million to redevelop this block, let them have their way with it.

C'mon. They're not building something where this house sits. They're jimmying around a parking garage entrance.

[flyer99]

Originally Posted by BlackYear

Good idea MonctonRad, that was my first thought. And in fact, that was my first question asked when I first seen the construction plans. Why the heck did they place the underground garage entrance in such a tight corner?

My thoughts on the house. Get rid of it. Either tear it down or move it to another location where it can be appreciated. The way it stands now, it will be completely engulfed by a 6 story complex just a couple of meters away, and also completed hidden by a massive tree right in front of the house.

I'm all for conserving heritage and all where it makes sense, but here, it doesn't make sense. Do we or do we not want to build up the urban downtown core?

Here's an idea. Ashford should go knock on the door of the house next door to this heritage house and ask the owner, "Do you want a free house?". Yes, then tear down the house next door, rebuild the foundation, slide the heritage house over to this property. A nice landscape make-over and your done. Ashford can pay that owner for the demo, foundation, moving of house, property taxes for 5 years. Everybody wins, everyone is happy.

I could probably say the same for the old YWCA building on the Aquilini property. If you want them to pour $40 million to redevelop this block, let them have their way with it.

I totally agree with all of this. I guess that's what make the world go round - differences of opinion. Bringing the Aquilini property into this, Why have a $40M+ development with a little brick building sitting on the corner? Just dump it and get on with the development. Let's let development occur. It's almost like that atrocious brick building at the west of the Avenir Centre. I doubt it's historic but it gives a tinge to the entire centre development. If you want to have good architectural lines you don't want old houses or buildings to get in the way. My opinion only and opinions vary.

[adamuptownsj]

Demolishing vernacular architecture to let contemporary 4-and-ones (which will look like crap in 20 years and are identical from San Diego to St. John's) can have underground parking aligned just-so is terrible urbanism.

[MonctonRad]

The new apartment building on the SW corner of St George & Weldon has secured a tenant for one of it's ground level CRUs - the Grand King Indian Grocery Store. This should be a good addition to the increasingly diverse neighbourhood developing along St George.