General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Funny that this or this or this work as viable commercial/restaurant space. (That first one is split into two restaurants, both of which are huge on the inside.) Clearly someone found a way to make these similar spaces viable.

Totally irrelevant. Those are not what was deemed necessary for the Taj Mahal restaurant to operate successfully. So now you not only want to tell a business owner what his property should look like, but also tell him what kind of business to run?

There's nothing wrong with the Taj Mahal that a mysterious late-night fire wouldn't fix. That's what happens when you impose undue restrictions on what people can do with their buildings. If that happened, I suppose you would support the city spending a few hundred thou to prop up the facade for a couple of decades until some fool comes along and decides it can be reconstructed in the spirit of what used to be there.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by spaustin

I lived in the yellow building for a year before I bought my house in Dartmouth. Picked it deliberately after I had to move out of the old Vic because I love old buildings. It was actually once the Elmwood Hotel and there is still frosted glass with Elmwood written on it on the front door. It's unique and is one of only a few large wooden buildings left (5269 South Street, Victoria Hall and 5673 Cornwallis being the only others I can think of). The owners of Elmwood actually make good rental income off the property and they do minimal maintenance so I presume it's fairly profitable. My understanding is that development isn't really their thing. They're apartment operators who bought this place when property downtown wasn't worth anything. They've actually just finished adding basement apartments.

The issue of course is that Elmwood isn't a heritage building and it doesn't fill the lot. Under a different owner, it could easily be a target for demolition and our heritage rules don't have much in the way of teeth or incentives to stop that. Hopefully it's something that can be addressed. I'm all for allowing greater height next door and on the Superstore block (that just makes sense) but Elmwood is worth saving.

Here's an old pic from the NS archives going back to 1895-1905 when Elmwood was a hotel.

Cool. It does look well maintained (today, I mean). Maybe the owner can be persuaded to register it as a heritage property before selling it, if they plan on doing so.

[ILoveHalifax]

I haven't been inside that old yellow place for 30 years and IMO, it was in poor shape at that time. Doesn't look like it has had much by way of repair in that all this time.

[haligonia]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

I haven't been inside that old yellow place for 30 years and IMO, it was in poor shape at that time. Doesn't look like it has had much by way of repair in that all this time.

I imagine that if the place is still being rented today, some interior updates must have been made since then.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Totally irrelevant. Those are not what was deemed necessary for the Taj Mahal restaurant to operate successfully. So now you not only want to tell a business owner what his property should look like, but also tell him what kind of business to run?

There's nothing wrong with the Taj Mahal that a mysterious late-night fire wouldn't fix. That's what happens when you impose undue restrictions on what people can do with their buildings. If that happened, I suppose you would support the city spending a few hundred thou to prop up the facade for a couple of decades until some fool comes along and decides it can be reconstructed in the spirit of what used to be there.

Keith, I'm not sure what you support, development for development sake or the complete demolition of every building that appears to be "run down" or not profitable for developers.

If you take a long hard look at the new buildings that have been constructed in the last 30 years in Halifax could you really point out one that has any architectural merit?

Halifax is the Grand Olde Dame and it's being destroyed by cheap, non-descript, concrete paneled, vinyl sided, chipboard garbage!

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Empire

Keith, I'm not sure what you support, development for development sake or the complete demolition of every building that appears to be "run down" or not profitable for developers.

If you take a long hard look at the new buildings that have been constructed in the last 30 years in Halifax could you really point out one that has any architectural merit?

Halifax is the Grand Olde Dame and it's being destroyed by cheap, non-descript, concrete paneled, vinyl sided, chipboard garbage!

If we leave every old run down building that is not profitable for developers we will become known for our slums just as we were known for our slums back in the 50s

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Totally irrelevant. Those are not what was deemed necessary for the Taj Mahal restaurant to operate successfully. So now you not only want to tell a business owner what his property should look like, but also tell him what kind of business to run?

There's nothing wrong with the Taj Mahal that a mysterious late-night fire wouldn't fix. That's what happens when you impose undue restrictions on what people can do with their buildings. If that happened, I suppose you would support the city spending a few hundred thou to prop up the facade for a couple of decades until some fool comes along and decides it can be reconstructed in the spirit of what used to be there.

If you really want to see what we are doing wrong, then thumb throught this thread and look at the Quebec pics......

What Halifax does wrong.........
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=163051&page=94

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

If you really want to see what we are doing wrong, then thumb throught this thread and look at the Quebec pics......

What Halifax does wrong.........
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=163051&page=94

We don't have anything like that except for the re-creation of Historic Properties. But that is very Disney-fied. The random old building one finds in Halifax, in most cases, is run down and usually exists in isolation, making it difficult to be commercially viable.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

We don't have anything like that except for the re-creation of Historic Properties. But that is very Disney-fied. The random old building one finds in Halifax, in most cases, is run down and usually exists in isolation, making it difficult to be commercially viable.

But your assumptions about what is and isn't viable are just that, assumptions. Your idea that Halifax has crazily restrictive bylaws around property use is actually the opposite of the real situation, and I hope you're kidding about arson--nobody has the right to risk adjacent properties (and lives) lives by burning down their properties if they don't get to do whatever they want with them.

I'm not trying to troll or be a jerk, but really. You and ILove are often sound like the anti-Paceys, just as extreme on the other end of the spectrum. Seriously: The urban clearcutting and rebuilding tactic was tried once, and it failed EVERY time, in EVERY city.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by spaustin

I lived in the yellow building for a year before I bought my house in Dartmouth. Picked it deliberately after I had to move out of the old Vic because I love old buildings. It was actually once the Elmwood Hotel and there is still frosted glass with Elmwood written on it on the front door. It's unique and is one of only a few large wooden buildings left (5269 South Street, Victoria Hall and 5673 Cornwallis being the only others I can think of). The owners of Elmwood actually make good rental income off the property and they do minimal maintenance so I presume it's fairly profitable. My understanding is that development isn't really their thing. They're apartment operators who bought this place when property downtown wasn't worth anything. They've actually just finished adding basement apartments.

The issue of course is that Elmwood isn't a heritage building and it doesn't fill the lot. Under a different owner, it could easily be a target for demolition and our heritage rules don't have much in the way of teeth or incentives to stop that. Hopefully it's something that can be addressed. I'm all for allowing greater height next door and on the Superstore block (that just makes sense) but Elmwood is worth saving.

Here's an old pic from the NS archives going back to 1895-1905 when Elmwood was a hotel.

This is a fine old building and I hope that it is properly maintained and upgraded so that it will last for another 100 - 200 years.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

But your assumptions about what is and isn't viable are just that, assumptions. Your idea that Halifax has crazily restrictive bylaws around property use is actually the opposite of the real situation, and I hope you're kidding about arson--nobody has the right to risk adjacent properties (and lives) lives by burning down their properties if they don't get to do whatever they want with them.

I'm not trying to troll or be a jerk, but really. You and ILove are often sound like the anti-Paceys, just as extreme on the other end of the spectrum. Seriously: The urban clearcutting and rebuilding tactic was tried once, and it failed EVERY time, in EVERY city.

Well said.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

But your assumptions about what is and isn't viable are just that, assumptions. Your idea that Halifax has crazily restrictive bylaws around property use is actually the opposite of the real situation, and I hope you're kidding about arson--nobody has the right to risk adjacent properties (and lives) lives by burning down their properties if they don't get to do whatever they want with them.

I'm not trying to troll or be a jerk, but really. You and ILove are often sound like the anti-Paceys, just as extreme on the other end of the spectrum. Seriously: The urban clearcutting and rebuilding tactic was tried once, and it failed EVERY time, in EVERY city.

Let me tell you about ILove.
I am anti anybody, Phil Pacey or Drybrain, who thinks that they have all the answers and know how everybody else should live. I was raised by a control freak and I see too many in these conversations. Nobody is right all the time and on every issue.
I am anti those who are so sure that we should have saved all the rat infested slums in Halifax. I am anti those who insist that Scotia Square is a failure. It may not be perfect but it is better than what was there. I am anti the Jennifer Watts who visit Scandanavia and come back to tell us we have to build all new buildings with wood. I am anti those who read a book and think that they now are the authority on cities. I am anti those who live on the 14th floor and yet think that nobody else can live on the 19th floor because it is too high. I am anti those who live on a 40 by 100 foot lot telling everyone else their lot is too big. I am anti those who want to restrict traffic on their street to just those who live on the peninsula. I would love to see those in the suburbs block off the freeways that run thru their areas, so nobody could get in or out of the city. I am anti anybody who has not run a restaurant telling restaurant owners how to run their business, or those who have not been in retail telling store owners where they should set up shop. I am anti those who want everyone who lives on the peninsula to have to live in substandard accommodations because we do not want to build anything new. I am anti those who walk or ride bikes or use transit telling everybody they should not drive their cars.
I see a lot of our current thoughts on cities being an experiment and someday 50 years down the road we will look back and realize we too have made mistakes

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Let me tell you about ILove.
I am anti anybody, Phil Pacey or Drybrain, who thinks that they have all the answers and know how everybody else should live. I was raised by a control freak and I see too many in these conversations. Nobody is right all the time and on every issue.
I am anti those who are so sure that we should have saved all the rat infested slums in Halifax. I am anti those who insist that Scotia Square is a failure. It may not be perfect but it is better than what was there. I am anti the Jennifer Watts who visit Scandanavia and come back to tell us we have to build all new buildings with wood. I am anti those who read a book and think that they now are the authority on cities. I am anti those who live on the 14th floor and yet think that nobody else can live on the 19th floor because it is too high. I am anti those who live on a 40 by 100 foot lot telling everyone else their lot is too big. I am anti those who want to restrict traffic on their street to just those who live on the peninsula. I would love to see those in the suburbs block off the freeways that run thru their areas, so nobody could get in or out of the city. I am anti anybody who has not run a restaurant telling restaurant owners how to run their business, or those who have not been in retail telling store owners where they should set up shop. I am anti those who want everyone who lives on the peninsula to have to live in substandard accommodations because we do not want to build anything new. I am anti those who walk or ride bikes or use transit telling everybody they should not drive their cars.
I see a lot of our current thoughts on cities being an experiment and someday 50 years down the road we will look back and realize we too have made mistakes

Nailed it.

[worldlyhaligonian]

I love it how you reference the "cutting the top floor off"... this tactic is used so that 18 becomes the new 19 and and its a downward spiral from there. The misinformation and tactics of the anti-development camps is exactly how they should not be operating.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by bluenoser

Barrington Street height limit increase considered

Proposal will affect Westin Nova Scotian, Via Rail and Atlantic Superstore

CBC News
Posted: Mar 15, 2013 9:41 AM AT
Last Updated: Mar 15, 2013 12:00 PM AT

The Halifax Regional Municipality is considering increasing the height limit for several properties at the south end of Barrington Street, including a lot that has been vacant since a fire two years ago.

Although the current height restriction on the site is 45 feet or approximately 13.7 metres, planners with the municipality want to change that to nearly 22 metres — approximately seven storeys.
.
.
.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/15/ns-barrington-height-limit.html

------

Allnovascotia.com (May 1st, 2013 edition) provided results of the HRM Council vote on this issue. (my hand-typed excerpt is below):

City Hall Desk
Amy Pugsley Fraser
.
.
.
South Barrington Change Proposed

Despite rejection from its Design Review Committee, regional council has approved a staff plan to get moving on relaxing height restrictions on a few select properties in the South Barrington precinct.

A public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Downtown Halifax Secondary MPS & LUB will be held at an upcoming meeting.

Coun. Waye Mason (Downtown-Peninsula South) made the motion to increase the 10- and 13-metre height limits to 22 metres for properties at 1161-1203 Hollis St., 1075-1145 Barrington St. and 5161-5175 South St.

One building that housed Cafe Chianti burned down a few years ago.

Mason said the heritage aspects of the building no longer need to be protected through height limits.

Heritage Trust's Phil Pacey was opposed to the switch.
"We like the idea of keeping those height limits"

The Trust also want to see the city get moving on the Barrington South Conservation District to ensure the streetscape is protected for years to come.

CAO Richard Butts says the city will be bringing that plan forward in about a year.

The story didn't indicate who voted in favour and who voted against. Here is an illustration of the area that was in question (my sketch over a Bing Maps Birds eye view - https://imageshack.us/scaled/large/32/staffproposalforcornwal.jpg). The good thing is that it will be discussed at a public hearing so people can have their say.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Let me tell you about ILove.
I am anti anybody, Phil Pacey or Drybrain, who thinks that they have all the answers and know how everybody else should live. I was raised by a control freak and I see too many in these conversations. Nobody is right all the time and on every issue.

I see a lot of our current thoughts on cities being an experiment and someday 50 years down the road we will look back and realize we too have made mistakes

I'm not trying to tell people how to do their business, but it's important to realize that being against certain developments, or advocating for changes or compromises from property developers, is not anti development. It's part of being a citizen. We don't have a society in which property ownership gives you 100 per cent control over the property you own--we have community standards to abide by, and when you own a property in a city, what you do with it affects the whole community, so the whole community has some right to weigh in on it. (That's why your neighbour on a residential street can't, say, turn his house into a dance club.)

You and I both dislike substandard living conditions and sanctimonious cyclists and NIMBYs trying to prevent anything from happening. But it seems like you think old buildings are always or at least usually always substandard, cyclists are all sanctimonious and providing bike infrastructure is a waste, and lobbying developers or advocating for heritage protection is in and of itself anti-development.

And while you believe a lot of our current thinking on cities is theoretical or experimental, and we may regret it in 50 years, what about the fact that the ideas you're espousing reflect last century's theories, which, as a society we DO regret? (Tearing down too many buildings, highways through downtowns, treating private automobiles as the main means of transportation and relegatin others to secondary status.) You may think all that was dandy, but there's increasingly broad consensus that we made a lot of mistakes. The solution isn't to make them again.

Anyway, getting into circular arguments. Signing off!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I'm not trying to troll or be a jerk, but really. You and ILove are often sound like the anti-Paceys, just as extreme on the other end of the spectrum. Seriously: The urban clearcutting and rebuilding tactic was tried once, and it failed EVERY time, in EVERY city.

Preposterous.

You are stating that every urban redevelopment in the past 50 years has been a failure. That will come as a surprise to those who are living in vibrant, modern cities around the world.

The problem in Halifax is that we make huge issues out of saving buildings simply because they are old, not because they are old and good. We fail to see the possible because we remain slavishly devoted to the past and seem unable to move on from that. I would argue that the little development we have seen over the past 30 years in Halifax downtown has been vastly inferior to what it could have been because we have been forced to limit ourselves to ensuring it was "compatible" with the run-down old buildings nearby. The result has been a series of squat, short, faux-Victorian red brick buildings with styrofoam cornice detailing that look absolutely awful.

We need to wipe the slate clean. That doesn't mean tearing down every old building for the sake of tearing it down. But it does mean allowing modern developments to go forward when they are proposed and not de-railing them simply because there is an old wood-frame 2-storey Victorian slum nearby.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

Let me tell you about ILove.
I am anti anybody, Phil Pacey or Drybrain, who thinks that they have all the answers and know how everybody else should live. I was raised by a control freak and I see too many in these conversations. Nobody is right all the time and on every issue.
I am anti those who are so sure that we should have saved all the rat infested slums in Halifax. I am anti those who insist that Scotia Square is a failure. It may not be perfect but it is better than what was there. I am anti the Jennifer Watts who visit Scandanavia and come back to tell us we have to build all new buildings with wood. I am anti those who read a book and think that they now are the authority on cities. I am anti those who live on the 14th floor and yet think that nobody else can live on the 19th floor because it is too high. I am anti those who live on a 40 by 100 foot lot telling everyone else their lot is too big. I am anti those who want to restrict traffic on their street to just those who live on the peninsula. I would love to see those in the suburbs block off the freeways that run thru their areas, so nobody could get in or out of the city. I am anti anybody who has not run a restaurant telling restaurant owners how to run their business, or those who have not been in retail telling store owners where they should set up shop. I am anti those who want everyone who lives on the peninsula to have to live in substandard accommodations because we do not want to build anything new. I am anti those who walk or ride bikes or use transit telling everybody they should not drive their cars.
I see a lot of our current thoughts on cities being an experiment and someday 50 years down the road we will look back and realize we too have made mistakes

Now THAT is truly "well said".

[Duff]

This building seems to be getting a renovation. Its across from Allen St. on Windsor St.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Duff

This building seems to be getting a renovation. Its across from Allen St. on Windsor St.

Well, that is interesting. I have gone past that building for what seems like forever and it has always been stuck in the '40s or '50s and has never seemed to change, not once except for a recent disturbing disfiguring of graffiti vandalism on its flanks, and the usual deterioration over time. I have often wondered why the owner never did anything to it. It is good to see some modifications and slight modernization.