[Halifax] Richmond Yards | 103-47-41-40-32 m | 31-13-12-10-8 fl | U/C

[pc123]

crane is coming down today on the 12 story building

[OldDartmouthMark]

I was a little curious about the name, Richmond Yards, since historically the Richmond area was considered to be north of Young St.

So I looked at the Richmond Yards site and read the description:

At the corner of Almon and Robie on the site of the historic warehouses and train tracks that flavoured the history of the North End, Richmond Yards is Halifax’s newest district.

I started to think this is yet another historic inaccuracy, and in the sense of the description statement and the name, it didn't seem to add up... I always thought Richmond Yards was considered to be the railroad yards located along the waterfront near the site of the old station/rail yard (near current day shipyards).

However, it then became a little more interesting when I looked up a 1910 map on the Halifax Municipal Archives. Apparently there was a railroad car manufacturing site (originally the Silliker Car Company, then later the Nova Scotia Car Works Limited), that was bound by the back of the lots of the properties on Clifton Street, Almon Street, Windsor Street, and North Street. So, not exactly "Richmond Yards", but next door to the former lands of a railroad-related company.

I was able to find a photo of the yards, showing damage that occurred from the Halifax Explosion on the NS Archives:


Kind of interesting to learn about the history of the area, and to 'test' whether development naming has any historical truth to it. In this case, it's a bit of a stretch, but there is at least some historical correctness to the name.

[Keith P.]

The only reference I had locally for Richmond was the former Richmond School (for heathens, a.k.a. Protestants to us Catholic kids growing up in the '60s ) between Fort Needham and Devonshire Ave, west of Mulgrave Park.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I was a little curious about the name, Richmond Yards, since historically the Richmond area was considered to be north of Young St.

Interesting. I'd never heard that definition, but confess to never having been sure exactly where Richmond began or ended. But I certainly always considered Russell Street (which is, of course, south of Young) to be in Richmond, as did the folks I knew who lived there.

[ns_kid]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Interesting. I'd never heard that definition, but confess to never having been sure exactly where Richmond began or ended. But I certainly always considered Russell Street (which is, of course, south of Young) to be in Richmond, as did the folks I knew who lived there.

I, too, have never been sure of the boundaries of Richmond, and suspect that, like most neighbourhoods, such boundaries are only loosely defined. (For example, I grew up in Crichton Park, and always considered that the community was roughly contained in the Crichton Avenue-Crichton Park Road-Lyngby Avenue triangle, but I'd be hard-pressed to say why a few streets in any direction outside that area should be excluded.)

I would, however, argue that "Richmond Yards" is nothing more than a marketer's fiction. I don't believe the area west of Robie and south of Almon would ever have been considered part of Richmond, nor was there ever a rail yard there, although a few businesses would have had rail spurs. (Some of these survived to the 80s, including one that served the old Piercey's on Robie Street.) In 1917, as ODMark points out, there was a spur running west of Kempt Road, nearly to North Street, serving the Nova Scotia Car Works (located in the block bounded by Windsor, Almon, Clifton and North). The Intercolonial Railway shops were located east of Windsor at the corner of Young until moving to Fairview in the 20s, after the south end rail cut opened.


Source: Rolly Martin Country Blog

A 1895 map by GH Bradford shows "Richmond" as roughly the area west of Campbell Road (Barrington Street) and east of Fort Needham; north of Young and south of Vestry. As for the actual Richmond Yard, a map reproduced in an article by Douglas N.W. Smith in Canadian Rail in 1992 clearly labels the old Intercolonial yard between Campbell Road and the Harbour as "Richmond Yard".


Source: Rolly Martin Country Blog

I think we can agree that some of these definitions are pretty fluid, but I suggest that the developer's appropriation of the name is an historical stretch.

(As a sidebar, I'll admit I don't find this one as objectionable as the cluelessly-named "Mont Blanc Residences". As a cop friend observed, as we drove by shortly after the sign first went up, it was akin to opening the Titanic Marina.)

[eastcoastal]

I was pretty excited about this development... I guess I still am, but as it's going up, I feel like the taller tower is going to crowd Almon Street - it's starting to feel VERY overbearing at street level, and I imagine that'll be only exacerbated as it grows taller. Perhaps the height should have been pushed more to the interior of the site?

I still think that connections through the site will be great (a privatized street grid) and like the variety of building types on the site. Just feeling a little dubious about how it feels for someone walking past.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by ns_kid

I grew up in Crichton Park, and always considered that the community was roughly contained in the Crichton Avenue-Crichton Park Road-Lyngby Avenue triangle, but I'd be hard-pressed to say why a few streets in any direction outside that area should be excluded.

Interesting. I too am intimately familiar with that neighborhood, but always considered the streets north of Lyngby (Clearview, Lawnsdale, Richards, Guy, Overdale, and even Birchwood Terrace and Kingston Crescent as far west as the golf course) to be Crichton Park

I would, however, argue that "Richmond Yards" is nothing more than a marketer's fiction. I don't believe the area west of Robie and south of Almon would ever have been considered part of Richmond...I think we can agree that some of these definitions are pretty fluid, but I suggest that the developer's appropriation of the name is an historical stretch.

Agree completely.

(As a sidebar, I'll admit I don't find this one as objectionable as the cluelessly-named "Mont Blanc Residences". As a cop friend observed, as we drove by shortly after the sign first went up, it was akin to opening the Titanic Marina.)

Yes. "Richmond Yards" is an essentially harmless, if irritating, bit of pompous grandiosity and puffery. But "Mont Blanc Residences" is just grotesquely insensitive. Reminds me of when I coached minor basketball years ago and a new club called "Halifax Explosion" joined the league (may still exist, for all I know). Talk about tone deaf...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

I was pretty excited about this development... I guess I still am, but as it's going up, I feel like the taller tower is going to crowd Almon Street - it's starting to feel VERY overbearing at street level, and I imagine that'll be only exacerbated as it grows taller. Perhaps the height should have been pushed more to the interior of the site?

I still think that connections through the site will be great (a privatized street grid) and like the variety of building types on the site. Just feeling a little dubious about how it feels for someone walking past.

HRM Planning has always been oblivious on this issue. Going all the way back into the '70s they allowed the CIBC and TD buildings to go right up to the sidewalk on Barrington, continuing a choke point that should instead have been made more compatible with the newly-widened Barrington St on the north side of Duke St. More recently they allowed new (albeit short) buildings to be constructed on Young St between Agricola and Robie in a similar fashion, creating the traffic bottleneck that has now become.

[Half-Axed]

They do play fast and loose with community names. Signage on the Bedford Highway would indicate that I live in Rockingham, but no one I've ever known in Halifax would call my neighbourhood anything but Clayton Park (although technically I don't think it's that either - maps indicate another name but it's one I've literally never heard a single person refer to.)

[OldDartmouthMark]

Regarding the "Richmond Yards" post that I made above, I have to qualify my comments as a product of my amusement over development marketing. To me it seems not unlike a glossed-over used car salesman-style pitch, and I tend to equate 'romantic' naming, like this, to be the development version of "only driven to church on Sunday by a little old lady". Every now and then I find it to be a fun exercise to check a name-claim to see if it stacks up.

Having said that...

Originally Posted by ns_kid

I, too, have never been sure of the boundaries of Richmond, and suspect that, like most neighbourhoods, such boundaries are only loosely defined. (For example, I grew up in Crichton Park, and always considered that the community was roughly contained in the Crichton Avenue-Crichton Park Road-Lyngby Avenue triangle, but I'd be hard-pressed to say why a few streets in any direction outside that area should be excluded.)

I didn't grow up in Crichton Park, but had many friends who lived there. I had always defined the area as being bounded by Brightwood Golf Course, Woodland Ave., Mic Mac Blvd., and Crichton Ave. That's a good illustration of how opinions can vary when boundaries haven't clearly defined (or have been, but are not well known in the public realm).

Regarding Richmond, I understand there still is some debate as to the actual boundaries defining the area. I think it's likely that the definition evolved over time, or perhaps a well-known definition was lost with the passing of older generations.

From what I have read, the definition of Richmond ranged from being north of North Street (when Richmond was part of Halifax county, and Halifax's northern border was defined by that street), to being the area between Young and Duffus. I finally settled on 'north of Young St.' based on Plate U of the Hopkins’ City Atlas of Halifax, 1878, which labels Richmond as the area roughly defined by the railway yards to the north to Young St. at the south, but realize that this labeling may have been done for the convenience of this particular map (i.e. "Plate T", to the south of Young, doesn't have any Richmond labelling, but if Plate U had covered more streets to the south, they may have been included as Richmond).

I'm not sure if the lands a bit to the north that later contained Rockhead Prison would have been considered Richmond, though. So, really it's my best guess based on labeling from the period.

Originally Posted by ns_kid

I would, however, argue that "Richmond Yards" is nothing more than a marketer's fiction. I don't believe the area west of Robie and south of Almon would ever have been considered part of Richmond, nor was there ever a rail yard there, although a few businesses would have had rail spurs. (Some of these survived to the 80s, including one that served the old Piercey's on Robie Street.) In 1917, as ODMark points out, there was a spur running west of Kempt Road, nearly to North Street, serving the Nova Scotia Car Works (located in the block bounded by Windsor, Almon, Clifton and North). The Intercolonial Railway shops were located east of Windsor at the corner of Young until moving to Fairview in the 20s, after the south end rail cut opened.


Source: Rolly Martin Country Blog

A 1895 map by GH Bradford shows "Richmond" as roughly the area west of Campbell Road (Barrington Street) and east of Fort Needham; north of Young and south of Vestry. As for the actual Richmond Yard, a map reproduced in an article by Douglas N.W. Smith in Canadian Rail in 1992 clearly labels the old Intercolonial yard between Campbell Road and the Harbour as "Richmond Yard".


Source: Rolly Martin Country Blog

I think we can agree that some of these definitions are pretty fluid, but I suggest that the developer's appropriation of the name is an historical stretch.

(As a sidebar, I'll admit I don't find this one as objectionable as the cluelessly-named "Mont Blanc Residences". As a cop friend observed, as we drove by shortly after the sign first went up, it was akin to opening the Titanic Marina.)

I have to say that I agree, perhaps I was being a little too generous, but it really just amounts to a bit of a snicker for me to see 'lifestyle marketing', while selling some feel-good notion of a history that didn't really exist there. In one sense, dishonest, but overall somewhat harmless (but an eye-roller nonetheless).

Thanks for sharing your opinions and research!

P.S. Just to complete the discussion, here's a crop of the 1910 Halifax map showing the rail spur to the Silliker Car Works.



Thanks for bearing with me. I sometimes go down these rabbit holes of minutia, and I just have to share whether folks are interested or not...

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I didn't grow up in Crichton Park, but had many friends who lived there. I had always defined the area as being bounded by Brightwood Golf Course, Woodland Ave., Mic Mac Blvd., and Crichton Ave.

That's as good a definition as any. My quibble with the boundary initially suggested was that it excluded any streets north of Lyngby, including Guy Street and Richards Drive, which absolutely were part of the development. After all, the subdivision was developed by a fellow named...Guy Richards. Also, all of the dwellings on Crichton Avenue pre-dated the development of Crichton Park, which effectively infilled the lands behind it to the north. It was always a technical point of petty debate among kids whether you lived in Crichton Park at all if your house was on Crichton Avenue...talk about rabbit holes of minutia...

[someone123]

There were some interesting updates on this on the Developments HFX FB page. The Mister Transmission building on the corner is fenced off and there was a comment about it being redeveloped as part of Richmond Yards. Another comment suggested Shoppers will move into Richmond Yards and the old building will be open for redevelopment.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another comment suggested Shoppers will move into Richmond Yards and the old building will be open for redevelopment.

That's interesting, considering that the Shopper's building isn't all that old. It makes sense, though as I'm sure that the lands of the old A.E. Fowles dealership plus the former Piercey's/Dominion Textiles location are prime for redevelopment, given the action that the area has seen recently (plus the demand for more residential buildings). I wonder if the newer Rona building would be included as well?

[RoshanMcG]

Some different colour glass being applied on the tower:

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by RoshanMcG

Some different colour glass being applied on the tower:

I have to say I like how Bright that tower glass looks on a very cloudy and foggy day.

[RoshanMcG]

[someone123]

Thanks for the pictures. I guess it's up to 17/30 floors or so? In other words, you can more or less add the Gladstone highrise heights onto this base to imagine what the final result might be.

That vinyl-clad house with cars jammed in behind stands out like a sore thumb. The buildings along Cunard aren't great either. I don't mean to be negative but it's always seemed like the city could look much better with essentially trivial renovations, and there is no real coordination of character. Imagine if Alamo Square in San Francisco were similar to Halifax. There is no way that part of SF happened with laissez-faire planning (except for the Halifax sacred cow of height limits) and private landlords/developers calling all the shots.

[Jstaleness]

The crane is so visible when heading that direction on Main St. Dartmouth. Right now it's still all crane in view, but the structure should be in full bloom soon.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

That vinyl-clad house with cars jammed in behind stands out like a sore thumb. The buildings along Cunard aren't great either. I don't mean to be negative but it's always seemed like the city could look much better with essentially trivial renovations, and there is no real coordination of character.

But... "affordable housing"! Something I hear does not exist in San Fran any longer.

[Hali87]

If the city really wanted to go out of its way, something they could do would be to set aside a certain amount of funding for every building fronting [whichever street, park, public space], to bring and maintain facades up to whatever "standard". When left up to individual property owners it does inevitably drive up rents (and/or the buildings just continue to look stale and incoherent). It would be a public realm improvement but a purely aesthetic one, and I don't think it's high on the priority list for most people at this time.

A more likely outcome is that most of the vinyl-clad houses along major streets and the Commons will just get demolished and redeveloped into midrises.