Tearing down old buildings after deferred maintenance.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I hadn't really heard of this much before I started to read this forum, but since then I have become dismayed to see this happening quite a bit in various places.

Some examples of buildings in Halifax that come to mind are:
- The Dennis Building, a classic case of the provincial government failing to maintain a historical landmark (IMHO) in Halifax, and then threatening to tear it down because it will be "too expensive to repair it" (this is a common theme).
- The Green Lantern building, which apparently had little to no maintenance and no repairs after Hurricane Juan did some damage to it. The owner was talking about tearing it down until it changed hands and now will have a new lease on life: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218265
- The Roy Building, now gone with the hope of perhaps a façade recreation on the new building.
- Historic Saint Patrick's Church, which the Catholic church (one of the wealthiest institutions in the world) has apparently not wanted to spend the money on maintenance and repair. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...wick-1.3487848
- The Khyber building, which the city had deferred maintenance on for years, now needing a number of repairs (basically a complete renovation). For a while it looked like it would probably be sold and possibly demolished, but for now its fate appears to have turned a corner. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ncil-1.3505723

It's not just Halifax, either, as St. Stephen NB has voted to tear down its historic Town Hall.

The building was designed by Thomas Fuller, the architect behind Parliament in Ottawa and the Halifax Armoury, and has stood since 1885. It served as the town's post office and town hall.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...lish-1.3419848

I don't want to sound like some heretic; I do realize that it is expensive to maintain and repair these historic buildings, but I am dismayed that so many of them are being allowed to fall into disrepair and then be torn down. I realize that sometimes it is a matter that the money just isn't there, but I also realize that sometimes it is a strategy that owners and developers use circumvent weak heritage rules to allow the building to be torn down for various reasons.

Regardless of the reasons, a lot of our built heritage has disappeared and will continue to do so because of this practice.

The purpose of this post is just to have a discussion on the practice and perhaps how to prevent it from happening.

There are some good projects out there that allow development while retaining the character of the original building. The Green Lantern project mentioned above and The Dillon http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=207604 are two that come to mind. They leave me to wonder why this isn't done more often.

Any thoughts?

[halifaxboyns]

Personally I think the Dennis building is a good example of a building not given the care it deserves but that has the great potential to come back to life. I think if someone really wanted to turn it into an interesting building; they turn it into a hotel. It seems to me to be the ideal site to do it. Right in the heart of downtown - has the old character and could be the most impressive renovation if done right. The parking could be provided in the parking lot provided and perhaps with an adjacent parking lot. Just have a drop off area done on the outside. Maybe even call it The Dennis Hotel?

[Drybrain]

I can't imagine the Dennis is in any worse than Toronto's Gladstone Hotel was in 2001, or Jilly's is now. In that last link, note how the story says heritage buffs may not love the changes to the hotel's facade. This is where the discussion of heritage sits in most other cities in this country: not "should we just knock it down," but "how can we best preserve and accommodate new development." Preservation of SOME kind for these sort of buildings is a given, even with most developers.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Personally I think the Dennis building is a good example of a building not given the care it deserves but that has the great potential to come back to life. I think if someone really wanted to turn it into an interesting building; they turn it into a hotel. It seems to me to be the ideal site to do it. Right in the heart of downtown - has the old character and could be the most impressive renovation if done right. The parking could be provided in the parking lot provided and perhaps with an adjacent parking lot. Just have a drop off area done on the outside. Maybe even call it The Dennis Hotel?

Several years ago during the brouhaha over MLA expenses I suggested the province convert it to apartments for out of town MLAs to use while the House is in session so that there would be no need to rent houses/apartments, charge expenses, etc. I still think that is an idea worth considering.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Several years ago during the brouhaha over MLA expenses I suggested the province convert it to apartments for out of town MLAs to use while the House is in session so that there would be no need to rent houses/apartments, charge expenses, etc. I still think that is an idea worth considering.

That is indeed a pretty good idea. It might convince the MLAs to spend the money to do the restoration right; they'd be living in it!

[JET]

About 20 years ago there used to be a wooden apartment building (Greenvale Apartments) just east of the current Greenvale lofts, it was owned by Sobeys and they put in for demolition due to dangerous conditions, one of the most glaring items in the safety report was a missing 9volt battery in a smoke detector. It had to come down, it could have put the entire downtown at risk. It was a nice old building and looked quite solid.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I can't imagine the Dennis is in any worse than Toronto's Gladstone Hotel was in 2001, or Jilly's is now. In that last link, note how the story says heritage buffs may not love the changes to the hotel's facade. This is where the discussion of heritage sits in most other cities in this country: not "should we just knock it down," but "how can we best preserve and accommodate new development." Preservation of SOME kind for these sort of buildings is a given, even with most developers.

Yes, it's interesting that the question isn't whether it should be done or not, but how should it be done. The developers who take on these projects definitely seem to be able to turn a decent profit from it, so maybe that just says that many of our developers in the Halifax area are looking for the quick easy buck rather than taking on a more difficult project that will yield a nicer end result? Or maybe it's just that they are all of the same mindset and haven't broadened their horizons to see what's going on in some of the larger areas of the country? They obviously have no concern whatsoever for Halifax's built heritage.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Several years ago during the brouhaha over MLA expenses I suggested the province convert it to apartments for out of town MLAs to use while the House is in session so that there would be no need to rent houses/apartments, charge expenses, etc. I still think that is an idea worth considering.

I think that's a great idea. Perhaps turn the Dennis into a boutique hotel as suggested by halifaxboyns, including a number of suites that have booking priorities for MLAs when they are in town. As mentioned, it's in a prime location right across from Province House and in the middle of the business district (and the pub/restaurant district...) which would make it ideal for MLAs and a highly desirable location for visitors who like to stay in interesting places.

Build up on all that wasted surface parking space surrounding it, adding some underground parking for tenants/hotel customers and it could be a real gem. Wasn't there a proposal posted here with a similar scope?

Sounds like it could be an amazing project, but all we really need is for the provincial government to do something before the building becomes too far gone - I can't think that pissing away money sitting on it (presumably heating an empty building all winter) is the best way to be spending our tax dollars. Partner with a developer and let's get it done.

I have to say if I had a business/construction background I'd be tempted to get into the development business just to do some of these projects and re-purpose some of the built heritage that our forebears built/worked/lived in, before it's all gone...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

About 20 years ago there used to be a wooden apartment building (Greenvale Apartments) just east of the current Greenvale lofts, it was owned by Sobeys and they put in for demolition due to dangerous conditions, one of the most glaring items in the safety report was a missing 9volt battery in a smoke detector. It had to come down, it could have put the entire downtown at risk. It was a nice old building and looked quite solid.

I remember that building well, from attending Greenvale School when I was a kid and even delivering newspapers there at the time. A classic case of a good building being torn down for 'business reasons', with no regard to its history or its contribution to the neighborhood. As if an empty lot overgrown with weeds is better than having the building there. Didn't it have some function related to the school as a boarding house for teachers or something along those lines?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66977...7i13312!8i6656

Don't get me started on the Starr Manufacturing buildings and what was allowed to be built in their place...

[Drybrain]

That story about the St. Stephen town hall would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

To justify the demolition of a national historic site, the mayor says: "If it did happen to deteriorate to the point where it wasn't stable anymore, it could possibly fall on the Royal Bank," (i.e., if we let it get a lot worse, it would be dangerous) and "there's even a little bit of asbestos" (like in virtually every building in the country built or renovated prior to the mid-70s, most of which are perfectly safe).

What a twit.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Several years ago during the brouhaha over MLA expenses I suggested the province convert it to apartments for out of town MLAs to use while the House is in session so that there would be no need to rent houses/apartments, charge expenses, etc. I still think that is an idea worth considering.

Yes, that's a great idea. Although if they don't do that for the MLAs - then I'd suggest selling it on condition of becoming an apartment/condo building or hotel. In my mind that's probably the best re-use of the building. Office space in Halifax is pretty plentiful; I doubt that enough money could be invested to make it class A space. Character office space maybe - but that may not be enough to rent it.

This also shows the lack of understanding about heritage restoration and preservation in Canadian planning. In the US, Cities can provide a property owner all sorts of tax credits and differed property tax incentives to restore; improve and designate buildings of heritage value. HRM is probably ahead of the curve with it's grant program in the heritage districts, but I doubt that's enough. We need to be really inventive here and think outside the box. If that means heritage density transfers (of the un-used 'density' on the site), tax incentives, etc. then what are we waiting for? Have the conversations with the Province, get the charter changed and lets get going.

Let Council decide on a list of buildings which aren't designated heritage but would be the 'nice to have designated' list and get these incentives set-up so we can at least try to achieve retention of some built heritage.

I'd note that here in Calgary if the heritage planning staff see that there is no heritage value to preservation of the building; they require commemoration of the building be incorporated into whatever new building is built. The Lido is a building I did and part of it was the former Anthill Building which had no heritage value left. It will be commemorated with a plaque in a prominent location along 10 Street NW (I think right where the dead centre of the former Anthill building was).

ODM's suggestion of underground parking for the Dennis might be challenging, but I was thinking keep the surface parking lot there - but maybe spruce it up? Use patterns or paintings on it to make it colourful and mural - I've seen this done where the parking spots are still clear, but there is a mural painted on the surface too. I'm trying to think where I saw it...but it's not coming to me. Maybe when the coffee kicks in? But this is an example of collaborative thinking about an outcome (restoring/preserving the building) that seems to be lacking. If underground parking was possible - then maybe that's part of reason to support grants/tax relief - if doing these grants helps ensure the building is restored, and designated as a heritage building.

[Keith P.]

I hate that parking lot. It is cramped, awkward to move around in, and keeps a fairly prominent corner on Barrington barren. If you were redeveloping the Dennis there is no reason why that area could not be included with new construction and underground parking developed, perhaps even under the Dennis as I doubt it goes very far down.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Yes, that's a great idea. Although if they don't do that for the MLAs - then I'd suggest selling it on condition of becoming an apartment/condo building or hotel. In my mind that's probably the best re-use of the building. Office space in Halifax is pretty plentiful; I doubt that enough money could be invested to make it class A space. Character office space maybe - but that may not be enough to rent it.

This also shows the lack of understanding about heritage restoration and preservation in Canadian planning. In the US, Cities can provide a property owner all sorts of tax credits and differed property tax incentives to restore; improve and designate buildings of heritage value. HRM is probably ahead of the curve with it's grant program in the heritage districts, but I doubt that's enough. We need to be really inventive here and think outside the box. If that means heritage density transfers (of the un-used 'density' on the site), tax incentives, etc. then what are we waiting for? Have the conversations with the Province, get the charter changed and lets get going.

Let Council decide on a list of buildings which aren't designated heritage but would be the 'nice to have designated' list and get these incentives set-up so we can at least try to achieve retention of some built heritage.

I'd note that here in Calgary if the heritage planning staff see that there is no heritage value to preservation of the building; they require commemoration of the building be incorporated into whatever new building is built. The Lido is a building I did and part of it was the former Anthill Building which had no heritage value left. It will be commemorated with a plaque in a prominent location along 10 Street NW (I think right where the dead centre of the former Anthill building was).

ODM's suggestion of underground parking for the Dennis might be challenging, but I was thinking keep the surface parking lot there - but maybe spruce it up? Use patterns or paintings on it to make it colourful and mural - I've seen this done where the parking spots are still clear, but there is a mural painted on the surface too. I'm trying to think where I saw it...but it's not coming to me. Maybe when the coffee kicks in? But this is an example of collaborative thinking about an outcome (restoring/preserving the building) that seems to be lacking. If underground parking was possible - then maybe that's part of reason to support grants/tax relief - if doing these grants helps ensure the building is restored, and designated as a heritage building.

Excellent ideas, and doable, from the sounds of it. We need that kind of thinking around here.

From the parking perspective, I was thinking 'underground' more as a disguised parkade with 2 or 3 levels of stacked parking, and hotel or other usable space built above it, complimentary to the existing Dennis. The parking would not necessarily have to be below grade on Granville (though it mostly would be on the Barrington side).

Keep the Granville parking entrance the same as the current lot but otherwise disguise the parking area by keeping the facade constant. I'm thinking that some kind of decorative garage opening would be in keeping with the upscale quirkiness of a boutique hotel and hide a typical ugly folding garage door - like how about a dark garage door hidden behind some kind of funky wrought iron gate?

Your idea would be good as well, if the current surface parking was maintained.

[Ziobrop]

Look up the Daily building in Ottawa

Turn of the century department store,turned federal offices on a Historically Well preserved corner. Deferred maintenance caused the need for massive renovations. roof gets removed, Feds fire contractor. Building sits uncovered for 2 winters, now has mold and moisture issues - has to be demolished.

Site sits empty for years, until a proposal for a mixed use building with an aquarium. gets go ahead, developer takes to long, contract pulled, and re-tendered. gets awarded to same developer, for same building minus the Aquarium.

[JET]

Has anyone walked along Carlton Street lately. I had an apartment there 20 years ago and the buildings were well maintained. Now it seems to be mostly student rental, and the exterior decline is very discouraging. Give it a few more years, and most people on this forum will say 'might as well tear them down, they're falling apart.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I hate that parking lot. It is cramped, awkward to move around in, and keeps a fairly prominent corner on Barrington barren. If you were redeveloping the Dennis there is no reason why that area could not be included with new construction and underground parking developed, perhaps even under the Dennis as I doubt it goes very far down.

I'm fairly open to anything at this point with regards to the Dennis - I just want to see the building preserved and retained. If it can go underground and there is a way to support that (help) then, I'm all for it. Because if there could be something at grade on that corner that would make it even better but retain the building; why not go for it!? It's a fairly prominent corner!

Now that I think about it - that might be a good way to actually turn it into a hotel. I was pondering the challenge of getting a gym space and banquet room in there without having to change ceiling heights. If the parking went underground, a sizeable building addition could happen on the ground and second (potentially third) floors over the parking area entrance and parking stalls. That might be the way to solve a number of issues - getting an event room space, gym and dealing with that corner from an urban design perspective. My only concern would be a ramp into parking - might be tight for turning radius and ramp distance needed.

Found this on a google search would gives you the idea of the rise/run needed for a typical parkade ramp. Each Municipality has it's own standards - I don't know what HRM's are. When I use HRM's GIS to measure the site from Granville Street to Barrington Street (PL to PL) - it's roughly 37 metres. But from George to the edge of the PL where the mural is - 42 and change. So it might be that the access would have to be changed to George street depending on the angle of attack of the ramp - I think it's doable. Not sure how much the turning radius from the ramp would require in distance - I think either access would be doable depending on the standards.

[Keith P.]

I believe there are 30 out of town MLAs that expense an apartment. I also would guess the average amount for each is about $1500/month. They retain those apartments even though the House only sits a few months of the year. If instead you let them check in to a suite in a newly-developed Dennis Suites Hotel, you would eliminate about $500-$600K in expense claims annually, less the cost of running the place. But you would also have the opportunity to rent out those suites when the MLAs do not need them. The financial argument needs more work and I would not want the province to run a hotel, but the case seems strong on the surface.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Look up the Daily building in Ottawa

Turn of the century department store,turned federal offices on a Historically Well preserved corner. Deferred maintenance caused the need for massive renovations. roof gets removed, Feds fire contractor. Building sits uncovered for 2 winters, now has mold and moisture issues - has to be demolished.

Site sits empty for years, until a proposal for a mixed use building with an aquarium. gets go ahead, developer takes to long, contract pulled, and re-tendered. gets awarded to same developer, for same building minus the Aquarium.

Aside from the historical/heritage bits, sounds a lot like the Imagine Bloomfield debacle.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I believe there are 30 out of town MLAs that expense an apartment. I also would guess the average amount for each is about $1500/month. They retain those apartments even though the House only sits a few months of the year. If instead you let them check in to a suite in a newly-developed Dennis Suites Hotel, you would eliminate about $500-$600K in expense claims annually, less the cost of running the place. But you would also have the opportunity to rent out those suites when the MLAs do not need them. The financial argument needs more work and I would not want the province to run a hotel, but the case seems strong on the surface.

Good lord, someone email this to Labi Kousoulis and tell him that he can have the idea: the province can partner with a private developer on a for-profit business that will help revitalize downtown, respect the province's architectural heritage, AND save taxpayers (because "taxpayer" is the only way this government understands "citizen") $600,000 a year.

How could he refuse...

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I believe there are 30 out of town MLAs that expense an apartment. I also would guess the average amount for each is about $1500/month. They retain those apartments even though the House only sits a few months of the year. If instead you let them check in to a suite in a newly-developed Dennis Suites Hotel, you would eliminate about $500-$600K in expense claims annually, less the cost of running the place. But you would also have the opportunity to rent out those suites when the MLAs do not need them. The financial argument needs more work and I would not want the province to run a hotel, but the case seems strong on the surface.

I agree with the NS shouldn't be running a hotel. But this might be good financials to help support selling the building (the Province would make some $) to a private developer who could then come up with a plan to save the building and make some $ too. Adding a ball room on the back to spruce up the corner, with a gym (maybe even a pool) and some additional rooms on a few levels would be great. Could even persuade the hotel to provide a small pocket plaza on the Barrington/George corner to retain the public art and street piano already there. To me; that's not a hill to die on for a pocket plaza; but a nice to have.