General Updates and News

[Hali87]

It would be nice if the St. Pat's-Alexandra redevelopment could accomodate the Friendship Centre and the clinic - I wonder if either group has approached the developer? I've noticed that there's often an artificial "us-against-them" mentality between non-profit and for-profit groups that often results in them not even bothering to try to come up with a plan that both can be happy with. Or the city could use density bonusing; maybe the developer could build 2 extra floors, for example, as long as one of the floors is for non-profit groups.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The Micmac Friendship Center is an unsightly dump and a drag on the area and should be demolished. As for the community health clinic, how can they need an entire school? That is a large building complex and to state that it should be handed over to them is bureaucratic empire-building at its best. Of course, they have no way to maintain something that large so they would soon be back knocking on the taxpayers door for more money. We don't need more run-down buildings in this part of town, thanks.

Keith, The North End Clinic has always maintained their buildings and makes some effort to do so. They just recently fixed up the front of their building, even though it wasn't looking all that shabby. Taxpayers do fund the clinic, the same as we fund hospitals and doctors offices. The Northend Clinic has always provided an excellent service to a very large and mixed population. The Friendship Centre and the clinic probably could have utilized the whole school, doubtful that the clinic would use all that space on their own, unless they moved all their services there.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by Hali87

It would be nice if the St. Pat's-Alexandra redevelopment could accomodate the Friendship Centre and the clinic - I wonder if either group has approached the developer? I've noticed that there's often an artificial "us-against-them" mentality between non-profit and for-profit groups that often results in them not even bothering to try to come up with a plan that both can be happy with. Or the city could use density bonusing; maybe the developer could build 2 extra floors, for example, as long as one of the floors is for non-profit groups.

I have heard that the developer has talked to the groups and wants to work with them. If awarded the site he would go through another process similar to that undertaken for Fenwick Tower.

[someone123]

That seems like a reasonable way to proceed, although some undesirable nonprofits would probably have a hard time making a deal with a developer. Not sure if the clinic or Friendship Centre qualify.

It makes far more sense to take a step back and create new mixed-use developments than it does to simply shoehorn public uses into existing aging buildings.

[JET]

Originally Posted by someone123

That seems like a reasonable way to proceed, although some undesirable nonprofits would probably have a hard time making a deal with a developer. Not sure if the clinic or Friendship Centre qualify.

It makes far more sense to take a step back and create new mixed-use developments than it does to simply shoehorn public uses into existing aging buildings.

do you have a list of desirable and undesirable non-profits? I'm sort of wondering how you decide what list to put them under. I worked for a non-profit for twenty years, so you've piqued my curiosity.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JET

do you have a list of desirable and undesirable non-profits? I'm sort of wondering how you decide what list to put them under. I worked for a non-profit for twenty years, so you've piqued my curiosity.

My personal list doesn't matter, and I don't know enough about these particular places to say either way. Here in Vancouver there are SROs and drug clinics that I would not want to live close to. Those blocks are so bad that there are people doing drugs and engaging in prostitution on the street or in alleys. It is a kind of continual horror show. I don't think anybody would choose to live around there. Thankfully, Halifax is not nearly as bad, but my point is that, political correctness aside, there are pretty clear-cut "undesirable" buildings and public institutions.

I would guess that developers have a handle on what does or does not scare off potential tenants or buyers of their buildings. That's what's important when looking at development potential of a property.

The need to support nonprofits is also a liability if they're not covering the costs. The site worth $4M as an empty lot might be worth very little if it requires demolition of a major building and comes with other strings attached (including development restrictions). No doubt that is a factor in why there are so many empty properties in that area.

[JET]

plan to replace halifax Hospital

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/12/14/ns-centennial-hospital.html

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by JET

plan to replace halifax Hospital

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/12/14/ns-centennial-hospital.html

If they're going to consolidate at the QEII great. Maybe we can stitch Tower Road back together. I just hope that if they're going to take the building down, the site doesn't sit empty being squandered under government ownership. If the track record for the old infimary is illustrative, I think we can count on a solid redevelopment around 2025-2030.

[ScovaNotian]

The building they are planning to tear down wouldn't be the one they put new siding on only a year a two ago, would it?

[Waye Mason]

There are a lot of buildings on that site in addition to the Centennial. Technically the Jubilee wing, the older wing, is not mentioned, so that is the one with windows instead of glass walls, to the north.

There is also the old nurses dorm, and of course the research building and the Dickson, where a lot of lab/diagnostic stuff is, then you get into IWK and the Grace farther west.

I wonder what that press release means. I think it would be hard to take down just the Centennial wing.

[kph06]

This is an interesting site. It is an architecture firm with a few proposed projects, most of which are on the peninsula, but no addresses, it would be interesting to try to figure out the locations.

[pblaauw]

The IWK-Grace is not part of the Capital District Health Authority. It's a seperate entity.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

The IWK-Grace is not part of the Capital District Health Authority. It's a seperate entity.

Yep. Not talking about corporate structure, talking about what is on that block of land.

The Metro today said it is Centennial AND Jubilee being torn down, so that whole end of the property.

[q12]

From the thechronicleherald.ca:

VG's Centennial building to be demolished under new upgrade plan
December 14, 2011 - 3:35pm BY CLARE MELLOR STAFF REPORTER


http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/defau...icle_main_image/articles/centennial2.jpg
The Centennial building, shown here, at the Victoria General Hospital site, is expected to be demolished as part of a plan by the Nova Scotia government to upgrade upgrade Capital Health's aging infrastructure. (TIM KROCHAK / Staff)

UPDATED: 8:45 p.m.

The province says it has plans to demolish the main Victoria General building in Halifax and bring specialized inpatient medical services under one roof at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre.

It is all part of a decision to modernize and upgrade aging health-care facilities in the Capital district health authority — the province’s largest — over the next five years, however, estimated costs and the timeline for the project aren’t yet known.

Read more here: http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/...ing-be-demolished-under-new-upgrade-plan

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Yep. Not talking about corporate structure, talking about what is on that block of land.

The Metro today said it is Centennial AND Jubilee being torn down, so that whole end of the property.

Yeah it would definitely have to be both the Centennial and Jubilee. Much of what is in the Dickson can remain as is. It is really a matter of centralizing those aspects that are tertiary care under one roof, and the testing labs, and outpatient clinics can remain.

One complication that I can think of is that although much of the routine Nuclear Medicine is in the Dickson, the PET/CT is in the Victoria and the associated cyclotron which was just installed in specially renovated space is in the Centennial. Too bad, because it is a serious amount of money that was spent creating those lab/imaging spaces.

[JET]

Originally Posted by ScovaNotian

The building they are planning to tear down wouldn't be the one they put new siding on only a year a two ago, would it?

The siding was put on to make it fit for use until it is torn down. The Centennial has the patient floors and is seen as the first priority. I would expect that the parking lot would revert to public land (park) and the current building land would be used for other hospital uses; maintaining some building around the PET/CT.

http://www.whwarchitects.com/projects/healthcare/capital_health/main.html

[Hali87]

From yesterday's Herald:

A public hearing would be held at the rezoning stage, said Coun. Russell Walker (Fairview-Clayton Park), and that would provide a chance for residents to tell the municipality what they would like to see at that location.

Jono Developments has proposed a mix of residential, affordable housing and community space. At least five to 10 per cent of the project would be set aside for community or non-profit groups.

Joe Metlege, president of Jono Developments, said he wants the site to be an organic part of the community and said he approached the Micmac Native Friendship Centre in the summer to see if they could submit a joint bid.

Metlege said he intends to meet with community stakeholders to hear about their vision for the development.

"I want to get a good understanding of what (the community’s) aspirations are, and also what their concerns are," he said. "If there are bigger issues between the community and the city, it may be, but as far as this particular site is concerned, I can only see great optimism and great opportunity for everyone."

Full story http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/42666...-pastor-berates-council-over-school-sale

I'm optimistic about the next paradigm of developments in Halifax. It's funny but I actually know some of the big development families from having gone to school and playing sports with their kids growing up (although in many cases these same kids are the ones taking over now!). Namely the Metleges, the Fares and the Spatzs. From what I remember they were all very down-to-earth people and from what I've seen in the media they have a legitimate interest in making this city a better place to live.

[Hali87]

This is exactly what I meant when I said "artificial us-against-them mentality"...

From today's Herald:

Councillors relied on a staff report and recommendation to make its decision, but Moloney said it was her understanding that none of the city councillors read what was in the proposals presented by the community groups.

Moloney said her group presented two proposals. The first, made jointly with the Micmac Native Friendship Centre, would have seen the Friendship Centre use the larger of the two buildings on the property while the health centre would have moved into the smaller structure, which is known as the former boys school.

Alternatively, Moloney said the health centre suggested that it should be allowed to take over the former boys school if the property was sold to a commercial developer.

Either proposal would have allowed the health centre to get out of its cramped Gottingen Street space and still stay in the community, she said.

In a separate interview, Metlege said he doesn’t believe the community groups read his proposal.

“I find it kind of funny that they want to fight,” he said. “They don’t have any idea what they are going to fight because I haven’t put any proposal forward.”

Metlege said he plans on meeting with the three groups and with many other community groups in the area “to see what their needs are and to try and incorporate them in the new development.”

(...)

But Moloney said she can’t envision any of the folks who use the clinic, the Friendship Centre or the Baptist church feeling comfortable in the kind of building she believes Metlege would build. For that matter, she doubts any of the groups could afford whatever the developer would want for rent.

But Metlege said he’s interested in tearing down fences rather than building them.

“I don’t believe in segregating communities. I don’t believe in ghettoizing communities. I believe in creating social classes within communities,” he said. “I’m somewhat shocked (that) that is coming from the people that you have been speaking to.”

He said he believes that what he is proposing would be something they community groups would like.

“I believe we need to integrate communities. We need to integrate classes. We need to integrate different income levels and different housing styles all within the same community and same developments in order to break down social stigmas,” he said.

“But, having said that, it has to be very clear we are residential real estate developers and we will be developing a residential project on that site. If we can incorporate components of community facilities that will complement the development and the area, you know we are certainly happy to have those conversations.”

It will likely be two years or more before construction could begin on the site, Metlege said.

Full story here: http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/42827-groups-vow-fight-school-property

[JET]

In a separate interview, Metlege said he doesn’t believe the community groups read his proposal.

“I find it kind of funny that they want to fight,” he said. “They don’t have any idea what they are going to fight because I haven’t put any proposal forward.”

Are those two statements not contradictory? Does he have a proposal?

[someone123]

I guess that article was hastily thrown up, because it was full of errors.

On their face those two statements (one a quotation from Metledge, the other a description by the author) do seem contradictory, but I think "proposal" in one case means a formal development proposal and in the other means the rough initial bid for the property. Metledge did include room for a public component in his initial bid and there is the potential for flexibility on his part. It is a mistake to presume that he is an "evil developer" and will be building gated high-priced condos and ignoring the rest of the community.

They don't provide a direct quote from Moloney but if that's her attitude then it's a very poor one. Many people around Gottingen seem to have an attitude of entitlement coupled with the idea that there are some groups who belong there and others who do not. I am not sure if that is a cause or a symptom of the problems in that neighbourhood but the attitude and decay certainly fit together.