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

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I wonder if OldDartmouthMark might be able to find us a pic or two showing what the building looked like prior to it being vinylized? The building is kept neat and tidy but that's the best that can be said about it. The windows appear too small...likey cheap replacements.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

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.

I think this is a mistake and the city would be better off if the common public perception became a bit subtler. Once these buildings are gone they are gone and Halifax has very few historic streetscapes left. Those couple blocks along North Park Street are one potential example and Agricola could still be preserved.

There is no dilemma between affordable housing and preserving this tiny portion of housing stock that occupies a tiny share of land even in the urban core (if we want to complain about preserving housing, why not the neighbourhoods of less remarkable housing 10 blocks to the west). Furthermore subdivided old houses awaiting demolition are not a very good type of affordable housing.

It's unfortunate because there have been advocates for preservation but they never really stuck to architectural preservation, but rather promoting their view of how the city should be (mostly based on the 70's it seems), and so this eventually was seen as being an impractical or extremist view set against pro-development views. Development and character preservation are two compatible goals that should be central to the city's plans.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by 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.

I was recently in New England and was particularly attuned to this when visiting different cities. Some (Bangor in particular, I noticed) are full of old houses whose character has been badly damaged with this kind of lazy, cheap modification. Other cities, especially wealthier or tourist towns, are better-preserved.

Boston was the most revealing. This was the first time I did much exploring beyond the touristy parts of town, and the contrasts were interesting, even if predictable. The marquee neighbourhoods are all well-preserved, as are the wealthier parts of outlying areas (Cambridge, Somerville, etc.)

Other areas, however, had a scruffier look not at all unfamiliar from parts of the North End, like Chelsea, with plenty of shack-ified houses and apartment buildings. Even South Boston has some of this.

That roughly squares with the Halifax’s South End/North End divide, and the relative state of repair in each—except that since Halifax is so much smaller, there are more historically poorer and therefore more poorly preserved neighbourhoods are located right near downtown in more visible areas, including directly adjacent to major parks and along significant thoroughfares.

I also do think that there’s a cultural difference, though—my gut feeling is that the typical Halifax property owner over the years, especially investor landlords, were more likely than their Boston equivalents to view their property in utilitarian terms, and view aesthetics as a frill. Probably some combination of economics, a complicated love/hate relationship with history and notions of progress, and plain old Canadian plainness.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That roughly squares with the Halifax’s South End/North End divide, and the relative state of repair in each—except that since Halifax is so much smaller, there are more historically poorer and therefore more poorly preserved neighbourhoods are located right near downtown in more visible areas, including directly adjacent to major parks and along significant thoroughfares.

Some of it is "growing pains" and Halifax is a bit unusual in that it's both fairly old (IMO people underestimate this because it wasn't founded in 1605; there is not a big stock of even circa 1800 buildings in the oldest North American cities) and growing/changing quickly now, so the role of these areas needs to be reassessed.

I also do think that there’s a cultural difference, though—my gut feeling is that the typical Halifax property owner over the years, especially investor landlords, were more likely than their Boston equivalents to view their property in utilitarian terms, and view aesthetics as a frill. Probably some combination of economics, a complicated love/hate relationship with history and notions of progress, and plain old Canadian plainness.

What stands out to me in Halifax is the lack of demolition controls and the fact that you often see eyesore properties in what would otherwise qualify as marquee heritage districts in other cities , implemented by most of the property owners in an uncoordinated way. I'd find it pretty frustrating to be on a beautiful block of houses with one investor landlord shack.

An example of what I mean:


(Google Streetview)

This is an almost-great block of houses and in theory one day, presumably, a developer could buy these and demolish them to build something like those ugly apartments along Cunard. Banning demolition on this block and restoring that vinyl box with glass blocks would have almost no practical drawbacks and could be trivially funded by the municipality with no impact on the cost of living in the units.

[Keith P.]

Those triple-deckers in Southie were originally built as "affordable housing" back in the their day (late 1800s/early 1900s) and while the original configuration was for 3 families, in the '30s and beyond many were converted/cut up into tenements or rooming houses, with the kind of results you might expect. In more recent times some areas have gentrified and you see those getting restored and converted back to a single family per floor or even an owner-occupied building with perhaps one rental unit. But almost none have any parking (though that is less of an issue for a city with a proper transit system) and these are very expensive restorations if improvements were not done incrementally over the years. Vinyl siding is likely the least of their problems.

[someone123]

I dunno. If you look at South Boston it's remarkably consistent compared to any part of Halifax including higher end areas (South End Halifax is not well preserved either). Broadway has lots of nice old commercial buildings and there are many neighbourhoods with preserved old buildings and almost no parking lots or anything resembling the Clayton Park Specials that have gone up in parts of Halifax. It's hard for me to imagine that's just by accident, and if a developer like the one doing the demos on Robie or Young Avenue (or South Street, or ...) showed up he would be allowed to do whatever he wanted. I doubt that it has less development pressure than Halifax did in 2005.

The transit argument does not really work that well for South Boston. A lot of it is bus only and likely has walk scores lower than a lot of inner Halifax.

The Halifax equivalent of South Boston would be something like the old North End up to North Street. That's maybe 1/10 the scale. It's hard for me to imagine the city even working in a concerted way to get Barrington South into a decent state (3-4 blocks along 1 street); in fact it's been sliding in the opposite direction with lots of talk and not much visible action.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I often wallked this section of Cornwallis St. for years on my way to and from work. I remember the blue home in question as having a hair salon/hair cuts sign in the door window and assuming the home was business owner occupied. Not a high end salon by any means. I would guess that the inside looks as bad as the outside. Still, I bet the porperty would fetch a pretty penny these days. The adjacent homes and Dee's Ice cream shop to the right have all had the Hal Forbes treatment.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Ban vinyl siding and create a whole local industry around forestry, shingle maintenance and affordability through subsidy.

It would pay for itself in the taxes of the skilled workers, keep / create jobs here, and improve aesthetics (not to mention environmental factors) that boost tourism.

Vinyl siding is atrocious and should be banned on the peninsula at the very least!

[Empire]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Ban vinyl siding and create a whole local industry around forestry, shingle maintenance and affordability through subsidy.

It would pay for itself in the taxes of the skilled workers, keep / create jobs here, and improve aesthetics (not to mention environmental factors) that boost tourism.

Vinyl siding is atrocious and should be banned on the peninsula at the very least!

Absolutely agree. IMHO vinyl siding limits the potential to the homeowner by governing the colour, never appears to be straight and is subject to UV damage and wind destruction.

[Keith P.]

Now, now. Once again the urban planners want to make life more difficult for property owners by sacrificing affordability on the altar of their dogma.

Look at this: https://www.brownstoner.com/real-estate-...sale-141-quincy-street-wood-frame-mantel

What's that on the adjacent house? My god, it's siding! Yet it hasn't hurt the asking price of this $2 million gem in NYC.

[Good Baklava]

In some recent research I’ve been preparing for publication, homes in richer neighbourhoods would be reclad in stucco or aluminium while poorer census tracts were dominated by new vinyl siding. While it may be damaging to the heritage elements for many it’s very practical. I must say that poorly done stucco can ruin the authenticity of a nice brick building as much as any vinyl, but is somehow tolerable due to being a traditional technique.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Now, now. Once again the urban planners want to make life more difficult for property owners by sacrificing affordability on the altar of their dogma.

Look at this: https://www.brownstoner.com/real-estate-...sale-141-quincy-street-wood-frame-mantel

What's that on the adjacent house? My god, it's siding! Yet it hasn't hurt the asking price of this $2 million gem in NYC.

It's not really obvious from that picture what kind of siding it is though.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OliverD

It's not really obvious from that picture what kind of siding it is though.

Even if it is vinyl, there's a pretty huge difference between this NYC house and the vinyl-clad cubes, shorn of detail and decoration, that we're talking about here.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I wonder if OldDartmouthMark might be able to find us a pic or two showing what the building looked like prior to it being vinylized? The building is kept neat and tidy but that's the best that can be said about it. The windows appear too small...likey cheap replacements.

I assume you're talking about this one?


Here's a pic from April, 1956:

Source

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Even if it is vinyl, there's a pretty huge difference between this NYC house and the vinyl-clad cubes, shorn of detail and decoration, that we're talking about here.

That's because Halifax has mostly featureless old wood-frame cubes in the working-class areas, having somehow missed the trend in the 19th century to build much of its housing stock from stone. The house on the corner that sparked this was likely never anything particularly special.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That's because Halifax has mostly featureless old wood-frame cubes in the working-class areas, having somehow missed the trend in the 19th century to build much of its housing stock from stone. The house on the corner that sparked this was likely never anything particularly special.

I have some insight to that last point you made Keith on Halifax missing the stone construction of the 19th century. The oldest stone or brick building still standing in Halifax is Wellington Barracks at Stadacona. The Brits of the time had a horrible time getting mortar to set in our notorious freeze thaw Winters.
That frustration and experimentation is why it took them 28 years to build the present Citadel Fortifications. Wellington barracks was the first brick constructed building in Halifax that did not fall apart after two Winters thanks to the lessons learned at the Citadel. Halifax being a city that only really prospered during wartime, stone or brick construction for civilian needs was rarely justified.

Keep in mind those Brits did not leave Canada until 1906.39 years after Confederation.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I have some insight to that last point you made Keith on Halifax missing the stone construction of the 19th century. The oldest stone or brick building still standing in Halifax is Wellington Barracks at Stadacona.

There are stone buildings going back nearly to the city's founding. For example the original part of the Carleton is from 1760. If you go to Quebec City you will see lots of old brick and stone buildings and the climate there is harsher. The difference between Boston and Halifax is minimal.

Halifax had a large inventory of old stone and brick buildings that was demolished from 1950-2022.

I don't mean to be cranky about it but these "why Halifax is uniquely bad and it's pointless to try to have nice things" stories are usually dubious and are a sort of meme I mostly hear from there. It's remarkable how quickly Halifax slid from people arguing that it can't afford nice buildings to people arguing that it can't have nice buildings because it's too expensive. My contention is that most of the problems are attitudinal and fixable. For example with heritage all that's needed is for council to start registering buildings regardless of owner approval (the owner often being an investment buyer from a couple years ago who will earn a great return regardless). That is why I continue to bang the drum.

[Empire]

Due to a the fact that we lack a healthy supply of brick and stone buildings, much emphasis should be placed on maintaining the great wooden structures that we have and restoring features that have been stripped away because of lazy maintenance. This would include removing vinyl. The hydrostone area is a prime example of how vinyl has diminished the character of quality stone buildings. It is the 'Hydrostone' not 'Hydrovinyl'

Hydrostone - vinyl
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6650836,...RbHTRjVv9tHjxx1sRYzrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6650582,...grmYDJ5OT9e32E5064m9g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Source - google maps

[OldDartmouthMark]

I don't have much to add to this conversation, so I'll just pop in a few bullet points:

- Vinyl siding does have its advantages in that it's tough and doesn't require constant maintenance. It doesn't blow off in wind storms generally, unless it's installed improperly, same said for hanging straight. Yes you are fixed on the colour and it does fade after a decade or two but it does fade evenly, and unless you want to change the colour of your house every 10 years or less, not sure if the fixed colour is that big of a deal (masonry buildings are also fixed in colour unless you want to paint over the brick like many did in the 1960s and 1970s... barf!).

- I love the Hal Forbes-type of sprucing-up with Victorian-style gingerbread and the associated detail painting of said gingerbread, but Keith has a point in that many of these homes were just utilitarian 'boxes' that were built on a modest budget to serve as residences and just that. One could argue that the retro-detail adding is not a true restoration, but is actually 'Disneyfying' (I hate that term but feel it is at least slightly applicable here) these old homes to try to make them something that they weren't. I like it, and it's pretty to look at, but it's not really historical preservation in its purest form. Coming from the automotive side of things, I hate when somebody says an antique car has been "restored" when it has a bunch of modifications done to it that are clearly not original, so maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine...

- I have long observed that NS has a higher percentage of wooden construction to masonry construction than comparable cities in the US. I've heard many others have this similar observation. I have spent many hours looking at old photos of Halifax/Dartmouth, and while I am aware that many nice masonry/stone buildings were lost during the 'slum clearance' or for other reasons, I won't for one second think that Halifax is comparable to Boston on any level. Or even smaller cities like Portland, ME, for that matter.

- Halifax is what it is, though, and I do wish there was more appreciation for our history and our built heritage for what it was, and for what is left of it.

[Empire]

- Vinyl is used on many large apartment buildings leaving broad surfaces exposed to wind. There are many examples of patched siding that doesn't render a colour match either due the stock being no longer available or because of UV fading.

- IMO natural tones of brick and stone would not deter as many purchasers as yellow or bright blue vinyl siding.

- Vinyl is not maintenance free as it requires expensive routine pressure washing to remove black mold and algae.
source Google search:
"The mold and algae are attracted to the sidings because of the dirt ,dust and sugars that are attached to the vinyl. Most people may be unaware that trees and other vegetations release into the air ultrafine particles of sugars at different times of years. Some of these sugars settle on the vinyl"

- a new building can have features added that were present in past Halifax architecture without it being 'Disneyfing', it is simply recognizing quality architecture.