General Updates and News

[bluenoser]

Halifax brew pub Rogues Roost to close doors by Oct. 1

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/13...ub-rogues-roost-to-close-doors-by-oct.-1


Honestly, this development had better be pretty amazing. Maybe they're in shambles, I don't know, but I still struggle with the idea of tearing down that beautiful, unique sandstone building - let alone a whole block of interesting buildings housing established shops / restaurants.

However, I do recognize that this block is a pivotal location that arguably has lower density than it should.

[Keith P.]

It is an awful building from the standpoint of the tenants. Now one can argue that is because the owner has failed to maintain it, but a building is not much different from a car - at some point the cost of repairs no longer makes sense and you are better off getting a new one.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by bluenoser

Honestly, this development had better be pretty amazing. Maybe they're in shambles, I don't know, but I still struggle with the idea of tearing down that beautiful, unique sandstone building - let alone a whole block of interesting buildings housing established shops / restaurants.

However, I do recognize that this block is a pivotal location that arguably has lower density than it should.

I don't even think the density is too low. You can travel throughout central Montreal/Toronto and see plenty of blocks of similar density.

If the buildings were of lesser quality, I'd say we should build it up, but this is one of the last blocks in the entire city that should get the tear-down treatment. I can't express how disappointing this is. I'm sure the buildings are in semi-decrepit shape, but that's because Chedrawe has spent than a decade barely maintaining them.

Look at the Green Lantern--surely it's in rough shape as well, but it's about to be restored. Look at NFB or the Dillon. There's nothing wrong with these buildings that isn't within the normal range of historical restorations and renovations. The owner in this case just prefers to do otherwise. Defensible from a business perspective, but from an aesthetic and cultural perspective, I think it's a tremendous mistake. And rather a weird choice in 2015, when heritage is thinner on the ground and ever-more valued by prospective tenants.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is an awful building from the standpoint of the tenants. Now one can argue that is because the owner has failed to maintain it, but a building is not much different from a car - at some point the cost of repairs no longer makes sense and you are better off getting a new one.

That's probably true, but due to the historical, cultural, architectural, etc. factors at play (and the fact that buildings like these were built to last indefinitely, if well maintained) that point is takes a lot longer to reach with a building than with a car.

[hokus83]

Going from 3 stories to 5 stories I wouldn't call that a note worthy density boost for a city block

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by hokus83

Going from 3 stories to 5 stories I wouldn't call that a note worthy density boost for a city block

Also true. It's really a lose-lose-lose project, IMO. We lose signifiant architectural heritage, we lose a great retail and see the dispersal of several beloved businesses, and we get only a modest density increase.

This is the only development in the whole city centre right now that I think is clearly wrongheaded, with no major pros to outweight the cons.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Also true. It's really a lose-lose-lose project, IMO. We lose signifiant architectural heritage, we lose a great retail and see the dispersal of several beloved businesses

What great retail? I must be missing something.

I guess you are referring to Tom's when you say "beloved" since there is nothing else in that block I can even name aside from Rogues, which is one of the worst pubs around. The stories I could tell you... the fact I have not let anything made there pass my lips in over 15 years tells you all you are going to get on that subject from me.

[kph06]

I noticed HRM planning have updated their site and have an interactive map.

Link

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.
It is an awful building from the standpoint of the tenants. Now one can argue that is because the owner has failed to maintain it, but a building is not much different from a car - at some point the cost of repairs no longer makes sense and you are better off getting a new one.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That's probably true, but due to the historical, cultural, architectural, etc. factors at play (and the fact that buildings like these were built to last indefinitely, if well maintained) that point is takes a lot longer to reach with a building than with a car.

Comparison to a car is actually a good analogy. Once they are past their useful life and relatively young, both cars and buildings often get junked or torn down, replaced by something new and shiny. Often the decision to do so is mainly financial, though often also based on emotional (i.e. a style of the recent past that is now considered unfashionable) and health/safety reasons as well.

However, there are always examples that for some reason have lasted past their useful life in salvageable condition, and past the point of being "unfashionable" in the public's eye (i.e. past the "best before" date of the marketing people who seem to have to power to make us spend money on new stuff whether we need it or not). At this point, once they become less common, even the general public recognize the intrinsic value of these items from the past. Then this intrinsic value can trump purely financial interests.

Antique cars are restored all the time and highly valued, so are heritage buildings. Often they are upgraded to modern healthy/safety standards as well.

In this case, I can see no reason why at least the facade of this interesting and historic structure can't be used in a new project. While Keith's basic business plan takes into account the cost of renovation as a negative, it excludes the value of the heritage structure to the finished product. Not to mention the value that isn't easily defined by a dollar sign.

This building was built of quality materials back in the day, with custom features illustrating local history, such as the sailing ships visible in the photo in this thread. This architectural and construction style is of high quality and is just not done anymore, so therefore I think that many would consider this building worthy of preservation and repurposing.

I agree that, as the future of this building is looking at the moment, this is a project that has a lot of negatives and few positives. Hopefully the developer reconsiders and decides to spend a little more to make this a quality project with a higher payout on the other side.

[Jonovision]

The new building at the Oval is coming along. Not sure how I feel about it though. It doesn't look like it will have enough space for everything that it was supposed to house.

[Keith P.]

What an utter waste that entire scar on the landscape has proven to be.

[hokus83]

I really think this would have been better off on the hill on over side of the oval over looking it

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What an utter waste that entire scar on the landscape has proven to be.

Indeed. And how dare a record number of people who used it this year not agree with you? Shameful that there are actually things on the common that people flock to use. Damn those thousands of taxpayers (communists, all of them!) who use it every day during the winter to get physical activity when that land should have been left to its previous good use of sitting as a pile of snow.

[Keith P.]

That's the problem - it is only used for a handful of days. In the winter it is often too sunny/rainy/snowy/mild for the icemaking machinery to work. And the rest of the year it is largely abandoned. All this for only $25 million taxpayer dollars. Yes, a fine investment indeed for the Agricola St hipsters to enjoy a dozen days of recreation annually.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What an utter waste that entire scar on the landscape has proven to be.

Keith, come on -- you're sounding like Friends of the Commons, who are the same people as Save The View who are the same people as the HTNS.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

The new building at the Oval is coming along. Not sure how I feel about it though. It doesn't look like it will have enough space for everything that it was supposed to house.

Remind me what it's supposed to house? I remember the Zamboni and some admin space... but can't remember much else.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Remind me what it's supposed to house? I remember the Zamboni and some admin space... but can't remember much else.

I went to one of the design charettes a few years ago to where the object was to plan the building and its design/feel/space. I then went to a follow up meeting where the concept for the building was presented back. It was all about an Apres Ski or chalet type feel. Where people could come and sit around a fire, grab a hot chocolate and enjoy the warm cozy atmosphere. This was on top of housing the zambonie, skate rentals and food vendors.

I don't see the space that has been created as being big enough to do this which I think is a real missed opportunity.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yes, a fine investment indeed for the Agricola St hipsters to enjoy a dozen days of recreation annually.

I think you need to actually go sometime on a winter day and see who and how many actually do use this facility. It is clear for your comment that it is only used by Agricola hipsters for a dozen days a year, that you have no factual idea. If you had actually gone, you would see hundreds to thousands of people a day from all walks of life, areas of the city, and age demographics. In fact, one of the biggest users are school kids, who far far outnumber the "hipsters". Perhaps you have also noticed that winter lasts longer than a dozen days?

How many, who uses it, and for how many days a year is an empirical question. Perhaps you should go and see.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Actually, you don't even need to go there, just take a look at the webcam, which I have done often in the winter and to me, it seems to be used quite a bit.

http://www.novascotiawebcams.com/en/webcams/halifax-commons-and-emera-oval/

I don't know what the actual number of days per year are for its use, but I will say that regardless of the data, it leaves a great impression of the city to those who use it. It promotes healthy activity, which is sorely disappearing from our lazy, phone-oriented society. Plus, it promotes public use of public lands much in the spirit of the original purpose of the commons. I can't see this as a bad thing.

Sure, it costs money, but so do most things that are worthwhile. Honestly, while I understand that budgets need to be watched, I don't get the penny-pinching attitude that still persists here. It seems as though anytime money is spent on something that benefits the public, I hear that "we can't afford to do it". Actually, I believe that we can't afford to not do it.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sure, it costs money, but so do most things that are worthwhile. Honestly, while I understand that budgets need to be watched, I don't get the penny-pinching attitude that still persists here. It seems as though anytime money is spent on something that benefits the public, I hear that "we can't afford to do it". Actually, I believe that we can't afford to not do it.

There are lots of things we could and should so. This is not one of those things. For years people said that a public skating rink should be built somewhere, perhaps Grand Parade or elsewhere, like the rink at Rockefeller Center in NYC. No, said the authorities, we can't do that.

But the feds throw some tax money at us to build an otherwise useless speed skating oval for the Canada Games and we do it, cheaply because, after all, it is only temporary. But then Dawn Sloane throws a tantrum after it is over and we end up spending $15 MILLION to rebuild it and now another $10 MILLION for a chalet and garage. All we wanted was an outdoor skating rink, a couple of million tops. We could have built 20 of them all over HRM for what this thing cost. THAT is my issue.