General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

...which is precisely why I was careful to say that I was only speaking in technical terms and that amending or repealing expropriation statutes was highly unlikely. Perhaps you missed those highly salient points. (Note to self: next time, use boldface, italics and underlining.)

I understood exactly what you were saying and how you were saying it. None of that discounts the fact that you were suggesting individuals do not have rights to property when faced with the heavy hand of govt.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I understood exactly what you were saying and how you were saying it. None of that discounts the fact that you were suggesting individuals do not have rights to property when faced with the heavy hand of govt.

I wasn't suggesting it at all - I was stating it as a simple fact of law.

[Empire]

When an individual or developer purchases a building in the historic center of Halifax they should be well aware that there will be significant pushback to any attempt to demolish the building. The pushback appears to be greater from the general public than from council or planning. Now that development has finally reached brownfield sites in the Robie St. area, council should exercise more authority to protect our unique architecture in and around downtown. The opportunity for significant increased tax revenue through new development is not limited to the downtown now.

IMO height limits have done a lot of damage to the historic fabric of the city. Areas that can accommodate tall buildings without demolition of historic architecture should become a focus of council. Cogswell and the Robie / Kempt Rd. strip are prime areas where additional height should be permitted. Limiting height in areas that are well equipped to manage additional height is placing increased pressure on historic structures.

The concept of owner’s absolute rights was evident in the loss of grand architecture on Young Ave. where vacant lots now sit inside poorly installed security fencing (1). In link (2) below, we can see that the building on the right was not subject to any architectural guidelines even though it is in a historic streetscape. Property owners must abide by a myriad of regulations when modifying a property through the building permit system. Fences are to be limited to a certain height, garden sheds require a minimum setback from the property line and street set backs for housing additions (must align with neighbouring properties) etc. The building permit system should have protective covenants for historic features. If a perspective home owner intends to remove the historic character of building in the downtown area and there are regulations in place to prevent that, then they are free to purchase in a neighbourhood without such restrictions.

After all of the destruction and demolition that has occurred in Halifax, it is very disappointing that unique and quality architecture such as 1535 Birmingham can be destroyed with such ease (3).

(1) Young Ave. lost architecture:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.6319853,-...fDjM6nJAf6NcCVJ5lsiWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

(2) Historic features lacking:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6521816,...ss3hU_0t_As0RMOtAW67w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(3) Birmingham – Halifax architecture under threat:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6437383,...ndtInWn5YDS-K7jH5_zzw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Adolf did to Jewish property owners in Germany in the 1930s. Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

No Keith it is what is done in England, the guys that defeated Hitler. In England old property is protected, and ownership does not trump that.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by JET

No Keith it is what is done in England, the guys that defeated Hitler. In England old property is protected, and ownership does not trump that.

Invoking Nazi treatment of Jews to try and silence someone's opinion. A new low even for him.

You are absolutely right. England in fact has quite strong laws when it comes to limitations on historic built property, which do not trump ownership. I remember when a colleague of mine who owns an old home near Cambridge was doing a renovation, and by law was required to use a specific historically accurate form of plastering using horse hair mixed with the plaster. The fact that she owned the property did not change the fact that by law she was obligated to maintain the heritage of it.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Invoking Nazi treatment of Jews to try and silence someone's opinion. A new low even for him.

I should report your post for deliberate characterization of what I wrote as something completely different than what was written. No surprise though considering the source.

The overreaching power of English Council govts to act as gods over those trying to develop small businesses or renovate their homes is intoxicating stuff for those who love the heavy hand of govt intrusion. Fortunately it never really caught on over here in the colonies.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I should report your post for deliberate characterization of what I wrote as something completely different than what was written. No surprise though considering the source.

The overreaching power of English Council govts to act as gods over those trying to develop small businesses or renovate their homes is intoxicating stuff for those who love the heavy hand of govt intrusion. Fortunately it never really caught on over here in the colonies.

Too bad it hasn't caught on "over here" have you looked around this town and really analyzed the new architectural style of Halifax?

[OldDartmouthMark]

I keep expecting to see the word "freedom" used in this tripe about property rights.

There are standards imposed in every part of our lives that most of us willingly agree to - it's part of living in a civilized society. More on topic: having special requirements imposed to treat heritage properties properly are in principle no different than the many other requirements that are imposed on buildings in various city environments. Yet some of you only complain if it involves saving or restoring a heritage building.

Meanwhile, the people who create the loudest resistance against heritage preservation are on the side that wins 99% of the time anyhow. Curious, that.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There are standards imposed in every part of our lives that most of us willingly agree to - it's part of living in a civilized society.

The example being discussed was the most egregious in recent times but sadly far from unique. The abuse of unchecked power by govts everywhere inevitably leads to the trampling of citizens who do not comply. Examples abound. Govt is capable of great good, but also great evil if it heads down the wrong path. It all depends on how one defines "the greater good".

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I should report your post for deliberate characterization of what I wrote as something completely different than what was written. No surprise though considering the source.

The overreaching power of English Council govts to act as gods over those trying to develop small businesses or renovate their homes is intoxicating stuff for those who love the heavy hand of govt intrusion. Fortunately it never really caught on over here in the colonies.

Anyone who uses the term ‘Uncle Adolf’ really can’t accuse others of using inappropriate statements, it does seem to be a tactic used by conservatives who make ridiculous statements yet appear offended when held accountable.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Anyone who uses the term ‘Uncle Adolf’ really can’t accuse others of using inappropriate statements, it does seem to be a tactic used by conservatives who make ridiculous statements yet appear offended when held accountable.

Fine then. I will edit my original comment.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Fine then. I will edit my original comment.

Maybe just delete it, and the rest of us can do the same with any related posts; might result in improved discourse.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Fidel did to property owners in Cuba after La Revolution, or Comrade Lenin in the '20s, or Chairman Mao in 1949.* Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

*Edited to change totalitarian despot references to more appropriate leftist examples

Fidel did take property from Americans and have it owned by Cubans, I suggest we do that in Chester

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

20220219_115958_HDR by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

20220219_115934_HDR by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr


I couldn't seem to find an EastWest thread for this project on West Street so I'll park these pics here. The stone-work cladding which from a distance appears to be sandstone is actually solid concrete block. Nice looking building. Nice windows. Solid.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

20220219_114757_HDR by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

20220219_114841_HDR by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

Brewery Park is looking great.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Fidel did to property owners in Cuba after La Revolution, or Comrade Lenin in the '20s, or Chairman Mao in 1949.* Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

*Edited to change totalitarian despot references to more appropriate leftist examples

I still have to question the idea that acts of communist revolution are equivalent to a law that's been on the books in Canada since 'forever' and is rarely (if ever) used? Not to mention that compensation to land owners is required (not that this would completely negate the negative effects of having your land expropriated). However, I do understand that your statement is meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek so enough about that.

All that said, I still don't think it applies to heritage buildings. There's a difference between having your property taken away from you and being required to maintain certain heritage elements of your building.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

20220219_114757_HDR by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

20220219_114841_HDR by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

Brewery Park is looking great.

Looks cute and all but I can’t help but point out how cheap the finishings are. It could be a Halifax exhibit in one of those Chinese theme parks that emulates other parts of the world.

[Jonovision]

I think they look quite nice. But hard to tell the quality from the pics.
Is that stucco though on the two end pieces? I remember that being a material that was no longer allowed?!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Looks cute and all but I can’t help but point out how cheap the finishings are. It could be a Halifax exhibit in one of those Chinese theme parks that emulates other parts of the world.

No good deed goes unpunished by some in this forum.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I still have to question the idea that acts of communist revolution are equivalent to a law that's been on the books in Canada since 'forever' and is rarely (if ever) used? Not to mention that compensation to land owners is required (not that this would completely negate the negative effects of having your land expropriated). However, I do understand that your statement is meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek so enough about that.

All that said, I still don't think it applies to heritage buildings. There's a difference between having your property taken away from you and being required to maintain certain heritage elements of your building.

We were talking about a slightly different situation though. That being Coun Sam I Am Austin and some of his supporters here looking to designate privately-owned and barely qualifying old properties as "heritage" over the objections of their owners and without much groundswell of support from neighbors, who do not want the same to happen to their properties.

That does not mean they are taking away the property, but that they are imposing significant costs and restrictions upon the property owner should they ever wish to renovate. So no, Mr. Property Owner, you cannot use drywall, you must use horsehair plaster. And no, you cannot use clapboard siding, you must use cedar shingles and must paint them only certain approved colors. And forget about building that addition.