wrote the Heritage Trust stating my disapproval in their appeal and this was their response:
Thank you for your letters. They expressed similar concerns so I am replying to you at the same time. I would welcome your ideas about what, specifically, Heritage Trust should be doing to protect heritage buildings.
The Trust speaks for the protection, retention and re-use of our built heritage, which is a form of economic development. If we speak against proposals it is not because they are modern. The new library is a stand-alone building almost on its own stage and is, indeed, a landmark. However, that is rather different from the usual situation, where new development impacts the existing building stock. Sensitively designed, new buildings complement their heritage neighbours. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect is not “friendly” to what we wish to protect.
It is hardly“anti-progress” to speak in favour of upholding legal protections that have been built into planning law. While residents may take it for granted, the Citadel is a major attraction for visitors and a source of wealth to the city and province. We welcome far more tourists than convention goers and it makes sense to protect such an important tourist attraction. The Citadel’s siting was based on prominence and being able to see – and to be seen --for distances in several directions. Now, unless you are on a huge cruise liner, when sailing into the harbour you can barely see the Citadel. The view towards the harbour has been equally compromised. Progress is change for the better, but some change leads to a poorer environment, especially for heritage; it is not “progress”. That is why we focus on ensuring that the protection we have in law is maintained.
It is all too easy to argue for “special cases” that should override the Plan. The YMCA proposal is an example. The apparent pressing need for more sports/gym facilities on the Peninsula -- and perhaps a desire to help out the good people at the Y -- was used to argue for extra height for a new development at Sackville and South Park. And yet I read -- with some surprise -- in yesterday’s paper that “more gym space is not required on the Halifax peninsula despite the recent shuttering of multiple gyms, a municipal staff report says.” The CBC building is a solid, landmark building with public value (and a lot of embodied energy). The argument for sending it to the landfill seems rather weak right now. (You might appreciate architect Sydney Dumaresq’s article at
http://htns.ca/pdf_Griffin/Vol35.3-Sep10.pdf , p. 3.)
The process, under which permission was granted to move ahead with a different design for the Nova Centre, and the overriding of some planning rules concern The Trust, not the visual qualities of a ”modern” building. While others may not feel they can speak out about it, silence does not necessarily mean agreement with what happened. As to any economic arguments for or against the Nova Centre, I leave them to people like Allan Robertson (Save the View) and the Auditor General of NS, who know far more than most of us about evaluating and analyzing data. I don’t believe that either one puts any faith in the projections of economic benefits accruing from the Centre.
Regards,
Linda Forbes
Prev
Linear Mode
