General Updates and News

[Empire]

Originally Posted by spaustin

It might be worthwhile in the future asking again. One of the other things that is underway around heritage is a review of the scoring system. The scoring system is a bit wonky. It unduly favours Victorian stuff and older and doesn't fairly value newer buildings in the evaluation. Category for architect/building is also problematic where it, again, favours a specific type of structure. The old scoring system remains in place for now.

Heritage designation aside, there should be a very strict scoring system to have a demolition permit issued. Entire blocks are being demolished and that has to change. The historic fabric of this city is being eroded and time after time the majority of observers ask why.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Empire

Heritage designation aside, there should be a very strict scoring system to have a demolition permit issued. Entire blocks are being demolished and that has to change. The historic fabric of this city is being eroded and time after time the majority of observers ask why.

All the demolition that has occurred has been unregistered structures. It's been a long, long time since anyone tore down a registered building by waiting out the three year clock (a homeowner is about to do it in Dartmouth, but it's quite rare). The problem is not everything that should be a registered heritage building actually is. At Council's request, HRM staff reviewed all the potential heritage buildings that were identified in HRM by Design and a large portion of them had been demolished since they were identified in 2008. One was actually torn down in a pretty direct response to Councils interest! Council asked to undertake a process to consider all the remaining potential buildings and that process brought the first batch to Council in early 2020 (Queen/Birmingham and Pizza Corner area). Council proved gutless about registering over owner objections though, forgetting that that's how many of our existing heritage buildings came to be in the 1970s/1980s. There are still several more batches of potential buildings for Council to consider stemming from that HRM by Design motion, many of which are really worth saving, but I think staff have been reluctant to bring them forward given how things turned out with the first attempt. The election though has replaced several councillors who would have been definite nos to registering against a property owner's wishes so it's really hard to say where this will go from here.

On demolition permits, there is no scoring system. If a building isn't registered we have no ability to refuse. If a building is registered, HRM can reject it, but the owner can then wait the three years set out in the Heritage Property Act and then proceed anyway. It's a big flaw in the Act, but it thankfully hasn't really been exploited. 64 Wentworth Street in Downtown Dartmouth will be the first registered building to be demolished in a long time when the owner finishes running out the clock later this year.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by spaustin

All the demolition that has occurred has been unregistered structures. It's been a long, long time since anyone tore down a registered building by waiting out the three year clock (a homeowner is about to do it in Dartmouth, but it's quite rare). The problem is not everything that should be a registered heritage building actually is. At Council's request, HRM staff reviewed all the potential heritage buildings that were identified in HRM by Design and a large portion of them had been demolished since they were identified in 2008. One was actually torn down in a pretty direct response to Councils interest! Council asked to undertake a process to consider all the remaining potential buildings and that process brought the first batch to Council in early 2020 (Queen/Birmingham and Pizza Corner area). Council proved gutless about registering over owner objections though, forgetting that that's how many of our existing heritage buildings came to be in the 1970s/1980s. There are still several more batches of potential buildings for Council to consider stemming from that HRM by Design motion, many of which are really worth saving, but I think staff have been reluctant to bring them forward given how things turned out with the first attempt. The election though has replaced several councillors who would have been definite nos to registering against a property owner's wishes so it's really hard to say where this will go from here.

On demolition permits, there is no scoring system. If a building isn't registered we have no ability to refuse. If a building is registered, HRM can reject it, but the owner can then wait the three years set out in the Heritage Property Act and then proceed anyway. It's a big flaw in the Act, but it thankfully hasn't really been exploited. 64 Wentworth Street in Downtown Dartmouth will be the first registered building to be demolished in a long time when the owner finishes running out the clock later this year.

"On demolition permits, there is no scoring system. If a building isn't registered we have no ability to refuse."

This is the flaw in a struggling system. A structure that has survived in this town for 100+ years deserves to be protected from demolition unless there is a compelling case to destroy it. The general outcome is to replace buildings of historical and architectural merit with very bland structures, or worse, parking lots. Time is running out to protect this important and unique aspect of the character of Halifax.

[Keith P.]

If HRM is hell-bent on registering and protecting "heritage" buildings over the property owner's objections, then they should buy it and restore it themselves rather than trample all over the owner's property rights. It's not like they do not have the cash. 64 Wentworth is a prime example. It is simply an old house that has been altered and changed so much over the years that it does not in any way appear noteworthy to the passerby.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If HRM is hell-bent on registering and protecting "heritage" buildings over the property owner's objections, then they should buy it and restore it themselves rather than trample all over the owner's property rights.

There’s absolutely a property-rights argument here, and there are silly examples of situations where property owners have been prevented from using their properties in reasonable ways due to heritage laws.

But I truly believe that if you own a century-old building in a visible location in the core of a city whose civic identity, social fabric and economic wellbeing is partly based on that history, there is a collective social interest that trumps absolute property rights. There’s a public good to be considered as well. In a situation like Queen/Birmingham, we have one person—or a small number, anyway—making a decision that will have a significant, permanent, negative impact on our city’s built form, which I’d bet most Haligonians would find lamentable.

A city government, as an expression of the broader popular sentiment, saying “you can do lots with this building, but that falls short of destroying it,” doesn’t scan to me like a violation of property rights, at all. It’s merely an acknowledgement that property rights are not absolute, and never have been.

The fact that so many on council, including the mayor, think heritage registration is a terrible incursion into property rights really highlights the way those rights for many have become sacrosanct, with public good playing a distant second fiddle.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If HRM is hell-bent on registering and protecting "heritage" buildings over the property owner's objections, then they should buy it and restore it themselves rather than trample all over the owner's property rights. It's not like they do not have the cash. 64 Wentworth is a prime example. It is simply an old house that has been altered and changed so much over the years that it does not in any way appear noteworthy to the passerby.

You have no idea what you're talking about on 64 Wentworth. The house is probably in the top 10 in terms of age in Dartmouth. There are only three others that I can think of that are older. HRM wide, staff indicate top 10% for age easily. It dates back to the early 1800s (exact date unknown, conservative guess approximately 1840). It's a classic Cape Cod. Staff have been into it with the owner's permission and it's in good condition and could be restored with an owner that cared to. The only big modification that really takes away from how it should look from a heritage perspective is the symmetrical dormers that should be poking out of the roof on front were joined into one at some point along the way. That could be easily restored again if there was a will and with a giant backyard, the owner could also significantly intensify the lot while still keeping this building.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by spaustin

You have no idea what you're talking about on 64 Wentworth. The house is probably in the top 10 in terms of age in Dartmouth. There are only three others that I can think of that are older. HRM wide, staff indicate top 10% for age easily. It dates back to the early 1800s (exact date unknown, conservative guess approximately 1840). It's a classic Cape Cod. Staff have been into it with the owner's permission and it's in good condition and could be restored with an owner that cared to. The only big modification that really takes away from how it should look from a heritage perspective is the symmetrical dormers that should be poking out of the roof on front were joined into one at some point along the way. That could be easily restored again if there was a will and with a giant backyard, the owner could also significantly intensify the lot while still keeping this building.

I'm pretty sure that large addition off the back isn't original either. And then you put a pile of money into restoring it and you are left with original spaces that have very low ceilings, cost a fortune to bring up to code, and that still have major functional deficiencies that impacts the economic return.

[OldDartmouthMark]

It's the classic struggle of 'economic return' vs preservation of history.

As it stands, economics wins out 99.9999999999999% of the time. Fair enough, as the business community (or the private owner) has no real responsibility to respect or preserve history, and every legal advantage to preserve their financial investment. Again, justified, as not everybody (business or private) has a barrel of money to throw into restoring or even preserving a particular building to a reasonable historic standard. They want to use their property as intended, if they've spent the money on it. Put this further, if the economics add up to be able to profit from buying a particular building, tear it down, and build a new building, then that's business.

Economics wins pretty much every time, unless there is a will to balance the scales so that it's more in favour of preserving/restoring buildings that 'deserve' it (see: "scoring system") and allowing less significant examples fall to the will of economics.

The question is how to make that happen...
- You have to have a council that understands and appreciates the historical/cultural value of our older structures, as it has been stated that Halifax lauds itself to be an historic city - which it is... this doesn't need explanation.
- You have to have rules/regulations/incentives/etc that actually dissuades the improper treatment of historic structures, and ideally creates a good business case for preservation/restoration, or at least respect for the structures if incorporating them into a new structure (see Waverley Inn - so it's possible to do this).
- You have to have a business community that can get its head out of its own ass (pardon my English) long enough to see the daylight and to understand that development methods have changed in the past 50 years. There are better, more nuanced ways of development that don't fall under the classic formula of 'tear down old, build new'.

IMHO, the second point is the most important. There needs to be leadership by a government that actually understands the significance of historic structures in Halifax, and one that has enough confidence in itself to be able to go out there and make things happen, not one that continually knuckles under to the business community if somebody cries 'foul'. From Sam's intimations, it appears that we may have elements of both in our current iteration, but unfortunately it seems like the 'knuckle under' crew has the upper hand.

[someone123]

I think part of the problem is that heritage preservation and character preservation are really 2 different things and the heritage registration scoring does a mediocre job of capturing the character-defining public elements of the city that people care about. To illustrate the example think of the old pioneer log cabins preserved as the "oldest house" in some cities, or modest houses of famous people that are preserved. Then contrast that with the Maritime Life building torn down on Spring Garden Road.

I think Halifax should invest more in preserving and building its unique local character, and the potential payoff is huge.

To me the property rights angle is overplayed and I don't hear it much except in a Halifax context. I don't see developers who bought heritage properties 5-10 years ago that are now worth 2x what they were as victims, and I think there is a lot of room to make development work well while also preserving character (transferrable density bonuses, heritage grants, etc.).

Another thing I noticed is HRM uses fixed dates for property scoring. I'm not sure if these get updated. A 1922 structure is now 100 years old. For some reason, "old = Victorian or older" seems to have stuck around for many decades.

[Keith P.]

If I buy an old run-down house that is unregistered as a heritage property because it is just an old run-down house then I should be able to do what I want to it. But the Councillor is suggesting that busybody outsiders can impose that designation on my property without my consent and make it economically impossible to do anything to it while also significantly devaluing my asset.

If you can tell me how that is in any way fair or just I would be interested to see it.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If I buy an old run-down house that is unregistered as a heritage property because it is just an old run-down house then I should be able to do what I want to it. But the Councillor is suggesting that busybody outsiders can impose that designation on my property without my consent and make it economically impossible to do anything to it while also significantly devaluing my asset.

Only if private-property rights are presumed to override all else, including broader public interest. Which they don't. As for devaluing assets: it's not the city's job to protect property owners' speculative wealth.

If the city in some way knowingly devastates existing property value, that's bad.

If the city imposes a heritage or zoning designation that merely limits future revenue potential a property owner was anticipating (say, due to hypothetical future development) that's a tough break for the property owner, but it's certainly not an injustice.

[Dmajackson]

6421-25 North Street were demolished today. These were two houses right where North merges onto Chebucto.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Only if private-property rights are presumed to override all else, including broader public interest. Which they don't. As for devaluing assets: it's not the city's job to protect property owners' speculative wealth.

If the city in some way knowingly devastates existing property value, that's bad.

If the city imposes a heritage or zoning designation that merely limits future revenue potential a property owner was anticipating (say, due to hypothetical future development) that's a tough break for the property owner, but it's certainly not an injustice.

Easy for you to say.

All this does is force the property owner to find another way to liquidate the asset for something approaching its actual value. So you end up with a mysterious fire overnight, leaving the water on inside a locked-up property long enough that it is irreparably damaged, or some such thing.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Only if private-property rights are presumed to override all else, including broader public interest. Which they don't. As for devaluing assets: it's not the city's job to protect property owners' speculative wealth.

If the city in some way knowingly devastates existing property value, that's bad.

If the city imposes a heritage or zoning designation that merely limits future revenue potential a property owner was anticipating (say, due to hypothetical future development) that's a tough break for the property owner, but it's certainly not an injustice.

I wonder there dry if you own any property? As a homeowner I have to say that private property rights most definitely override all else especially in the second coldest Country on Earth.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I wonder there dry if you own any property? As a homeowner I have to say that private property rights most definitely override all else especially in the second coldest Country on Earth.

I own my home. I'm not sure what the weather has to do with this though.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I wonder there dry if you own any property? As a homeowner I have to say that private property rights most definitely override all else

Well...that's a pretty bold statement, which, if you want to be technical about it, actually is not true. There is no constitutional right to property in Canada. Setting aside aboriginal claims for the moment for the purposes of this discussion, in our system of law all land in Canada originally belonged to the Crown, and even today, in the final analysis, the Crown can take it back at any time. The various federal and provincial expropriation statutes provide some protection, so that the government currently can't take it without a valid public purpose and fair compensation. But because those laws are statutory - i.e., created by Parliament and the legislatures - and have no constitutional protection, they can be amended or repealed at any time at the whim of government.

Of course, that's unlikely, and would come with a political price, but as I said, I'm speaking technically. As title searchers I used to know were fond of saying, ultimately Liz owns everything.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Well...that's a pretty bold statement, which, if you want to be technical about it, actually is not true. There is no constitutional right to property in Canada. Setting aside aboriginal claims for the moment for the purposes of this discussion, in our system of law all land in Canada originally belonged to the Crown, and even today, in the final analysis, the Crown can take it back at any time. The various federal and provincial expropriation statutes provide some protection, so that the government currently can't take it without a valid public purpose and fair compensation. But because those laws are statutory - i.e., created by Parliament and the legislatures - and have no constitutional protection, they can be amended or repealed at any time at the whim of government.

Of course, that's unlikely, and would come with a political price, but as I said, I'm speaking technically. As title searchers I used to know were fond of saying, ultimately Liz owns everything.

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Fidel did to property owners in Cuba after La Revolution, or Comrade Lenin in the '20s, or Chairman Mao in 1949.* Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

*Edited to change totalitarian despot references to more appropriate leftist examples

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Adolf did to Jewish property owners in Germany in the 1930s. Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

That escalated fast!

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Well...that's a pretty bold statement, which, if you want to be technical about it, actually is not true. There is no constitutional right to property in Canada. Setting aside aboriginal claims for the moment for the purposes of this discussion, in our system of law all land in Canada originally belonged to the Crown, and even today, in the final analysis, the Crown can take it back at any time. The various federal and provincial expropriation statutes provide some protection, so that the government currently can't take it without a valid public purpose and fair compensation. But because those laws are statutory - i.e., created by Parliament and the legislatures - and have no constitutional protection, they can be amended or repealed at any time at the whim of government.

Of course, that's unlikely, and would come with a political price, but as I said, I'm speaking technically. As title searchers I used to know were fond of saying, ultimately Liz owns everything.

Well Liz will be our 'in the right of " until Nature takes its course and who knows perhaps Canadians might decide to skip Chuck. I am far more concerned with the social license being established by many public pronouncements of unseeded land of this or that Indigenous group. Say it often enough it becomes a legal trial when the positive example of Membertou obliterates any unseeded virtue signal.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What you describe sounds like what Uncle Adolf did to Jewish property owners in Germany in the 1930s. Let's see Liz try to exercise those powers you describe. It would make the current situation in Ottawa look like a kid's birthday party.

...which is precisely why I was careful to say that I was only speaking in technical terms and that amending or repealing expropriation statutes was highly unlikely. Perhaps you missed those highly salient points. (Note to self: next time, use boldface, italics and underlining.)