Heritage preservation and reconstruction

[OldDartmouthMark]

That decision document is a lot of reading, for which I was not able to devote the time to complete.

What does stand out to me is that there was plenty of time for the owners to apply for heritage designation before Dalhousie bought it, but it probably wasn’t done as that would affect the saleability of the property. Thus, Dalhousie was justified in feeling that it was being treated unfairly in the process in that it only purchased the property to demolish and leave empty until an undisclosed time that it decided to do something with it.

It does seem suspect that HRM’s heritage scoring was so different from the firm that was hired by Dalhousie. No surprise that the finding of each side benefited the cause of that side as there is some subjectivity in the process.

I can’t say that I’m impressed with Dalhousie’s intent of demolishing the 120-plus year old building with no plan in place for the property, even though the law is on their side. The claims of work required to keep it occupied seem exaggerated and unsubstantiated, but maybe the details were included later in the decision document (it was becoming painful to read through on my phone…).

Regardless, it seems a shame to tear this one down to leave an empty lot, but unless there is some mechanism in place to fund its renovation and protect by heritage value (I mean some actual legislation that can functionally protect it), we have to accept that you can’t save them all.

I am sometimes struck by how fine the line is between NIMBYism and protecting old architecture for the benefit of future generations, but IMHO the mechanisms for defining the difference are obviously inadequate. So we will continue to see heritage structures torn down with empty lots left for “future considerations” or replaced with stubby multi units that only add marginal density benefits over what was removed.

Regarding this particular building, it’s time to say goodbye, unless it can be moved as suggested above - which would clearly be a win-win as I see it…

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The claims of work required to keep it occupied seem exaggerated and unsubstantiated, but maybe the details were included later in the decision document (it was becoming painful to read through on my phone…).

I'm not sure how you could reach the conclusion that Dal's claims were "exaggerated and unsubstantiated" without having seen the expert evidence. But anyway, the details were not relevant to the decision the court was being asked to make, so were not much discussed. Everyone else involved in the matter was fully aware of the contents of Dalhousie's expert's report, though. The problem is that the HAC and HRM Council paid no attention to it, which they had a legal obligation to do:

"Once Dalhousie presented the Engineer’s Report to the HAC, that information and Dalhousie’s position was then known to HRM - long before the October 18, 2022, HRM Council hearing. But that information was ignored by HRM staff and the majority Councillors on October 18, 2022, when making their decision...Although at Council on October 18, 2022, some of the dissenting Councillors did reference Mr. White’s Report, none of the majority Councillors appear to have seriously considered the building’s lack of vitality/utility to Dalhousie as a basis for not designating 1245 Edward Street a Heritage Property...Having viewed the video, I confidently conclude that the majority Councillors, either unknowingly, or knowingly, did not consider that they could have, and should have, considered the lack of utility of the existing residential building to Dalhousie."

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I'm not sure how you could reach the conclusion that Dal's claims were "exaggerated and unsubstantiated" without having seen the expert evidence. Aside from that, the details were not relevant to the decision the court was being asked to make, so were not much discussed. Everyone else involved in the matter was fully aware of the contents of Dalhousie's expert's report, though. The problem is that the HAC and HRM Council paid no attention to it, which they had a legal obligation to do:

"Once Dalhousie presented the Engineer’s Report to the HAC, that information and Dalhousie’s position was then known to HRM - long before the October 18, 2022, HRM Council hearing. But that information was ignored by HRM staff and the majority Councillors on October 18, 2022, when making their decision...Although at Council on October 18, 2022, some of the dissenting Councillors did reference Mr. White’s Report, none of the majority Councillors appear to have seriously considered the building’s lack of vitality/utility to Dalhousie as a basis for not designating 1245 Edward Street a Heritage Property...Having viewed the video, I confidently conclude that the majority Councillors, either unknowingly, or knowingly, did not consider that they could have, and should have, considered the lack of utility of the existing residential building to Dalhousie."

Seem, in my estimation, does not equate to ‘reaching a conclusion’. Regardless, I read somewhere that the items making it unliveable amounted to lead-based paint, asbestos remediation, a roof, and siding. None of those items “seem” to me as resulting in no other course of action but demolition. Again, I don’t have the details, so it only “seems” this way to me.

I’m obviously not arguing legalities, just stating that IMHO it’s a shame to tear it down and leave an empty lot, unless it’s literally falling down. But to my knowledge, none of this has been substantiated publicly, so to me it “seems” like an exaggeration.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I'm not sure how you could reach the conclusion that Dal's claims were "exaggerated and unsubstantiated" without having seen the expert evidence. But anyway, the details were not relevant to the decision the court was being asked to make, so were not much discussed.

Aside from the amount of work required there's also the question of what's "economical" and this is often interpreted as "cheapest, assigning heritage a value of $0" or "whatever makes us the most money, and if we can make $10.1M instead of $9.7M by tearing down the house we will". By that second standard virtually all existing building in Halifax could be deemed uneconomical as they could all be replaced by larger towers yielding higher revenues. I think this is kind of misleading and most people likely think of economical as being "what they can afford" ("what Dalhousie can afford" in this instance; it can maintain some old houses but doesn't want to).

I find the media are often very uncritical of claims that heritage buildings are beyond repair, and on the flip side you sometimes see developers fixing registered buildings that look far worse and sit around without maintenance for years. It is more about planning rules and incentives than accounting and renovation costs most of the time IMO. Those motivated to save heritage work miracles and those who aren't motivated have never met a building that didn't have major structural issues.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Seem, in my estimation, does not equate to ‘reaching a conclusion’.

Point taken. I should have picked up on that nuance before responding.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Point taken. I should have picked up on that nuance before responding.

All good.

I probably embellish my posts with a little too much opinion from time to time...

[JET]

Anyone who thinks that neglected old buildings require demolition, I refer you to the UK series Restoration Man.
I often think back to the wood framed Greenvale Apartments that was just east of Greenvale School, Sobeys made the case for demolition by listing a number of serious safety issues, which included a missing 9 volt battery in a smoke detector. No wonder the building had to go. The lot has been an overgrown mess for about 20 years. It was a nice old building.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Anyone who thinks that neglected old buildings require demolition, I refer you to the UK series Restoration Man.
I often think back to the wood framed Greenvale Apartments that was just east of Greenvale School, Sobeys made the case for demolition by listing a number of serious safety issues, which included a missing 9 volt battery in a smoke detector. No wonder the building had to go. The lot has been an overgrown mess for about 20 years. It was a nice old building.

I have to agree. It appears to me that Dalhousie had one intention in mind when it purchased it, and that was not to save the building. I find it unfortunate that these older buildings do not receive more respect than they do in Halifax.

I recall the Greenvale Apartments from my youth. I actually delivered newspapers there when I was a kid (imagine that, a kid delivering newspapers... seems almost unimaginable today), and I recall that there was a lot of nice woodwork inside the building. It's a shame that it wasn't kept as it was a nice example of an older multi-unit building, that doesn't really exist much around here anymore.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

Sobeys made the case for demolition by listing a number of serious safety issues, which included a missing 9 volt battery in a smoke detector. No wonder the building had to go. The lot has been an overgrown mess for about 20 years. It was a nice old building.

Less ridiculous, but also a dubious justification for demolition, is the presence of asbestos, which is constantly used as a sort of old-building boogieman, a hazard that argues for a building to be condemned. There are probably millions of buildings in North America alone with asbestos-containing materials, none of which pose any risk to the inhabitants unless the materials start to decay or are broken apart intentionally (and even then, the likelihood of a truly dangerous quantity being released is low, barring very invasive renovation work).

It’s especially silly since in order for an asbestos-containing building to be demolished, the building owner will have to deal with the cost of abatement anyway, so materials aren’t smashed and pulverized, and don’t become airborne during demolition.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It appears to me that Dalhousie had one intention in mind when it purchased it, and that was not to save the building.

There's actually no doubt at all about that. Dal always intended to demo the building - they purchased it with that intention and never pretended otherwise. Makes me wonder where HUNA was for all the years before that as the building decayed before their eyes.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

There's actually no doubt at all about that. Dal always intended to demo the building - they purchased it with that intention and never pretended otherwise. Makes me wonder where HUNA was for all the years before that as the building decayed before their eyes.

I worded it that way purposely, as I am not in the position to factually state their intentions. Nor am I implying that they pretended otherwise. Actually I have no horse in this race so I don’t see the need to discuss it further.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I worded it that way purposely, as I am not in the position to factually state their intentions. Nor am I implying that they pretended otherwise. Actually I have no horse in this race so I don’t see the need to discuss it further.

I'm similarly horseless and disinterested.

Was just clarifying the record in case anyone is interested.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I'm similarly horseless and disinterested.

Was just clarifying the record in case anyone is interested.

Well I appreciate you keeping me honest!

[whatnext]

Wrong thread

[OldDartmouthMark]

N.S. Heritage Trust asks Halifax council not to demolish old memorial library

The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia(opens in a new tab) is expressing concern over a Halifax Regional Municipal Council agenda item that could demolish the old memorial library on Spring Garden Road.

A motion for council(opens in a new tab) recommends they direct the chief administrative officer prepare a plan for the Halifax Memorial Library site, which includes “substantial and/or full removal of the building.” The motion also recommends budgeting $300,000 for consulting work on the plan.

“No clear, practical options related to the structure could be identified due to the constraints (of the 2020 Archaeological Resource Impact Assessment),” the motion report reads. “It is therefore recommended that, as an outcome of the consultant’s report, a process be initiated to substantially alter or remove the building under the Heritage Property Act and to then restore the property to its pre-1949 condition as a full park as consistent with the Crown Grant of 1882, with historical interpretation.”

In a news release, the Heritage Trust asked council to consider other options for the library.

“Rather than demolish the old library, the Trust is asking that Council should explore alternative public uses for the building,” the release reads. “Rather than allocating $300,000 solely to exploring how the site can be turned into (a) park, the scope of work, the Trust suggests, should also include exploration of such alternative public uses of the building.

“The Trust strongly encouraged Council to exhaust all possibilities for the Memorial Library before making the drastic and irreversible decision to demolish this important civic building.”

The release notes the library was built in 1951 and was the first post-war public building constructed in Halifax. An addition was built in 1974.

In February 2020 the building received municipal heritage status. Last November(opens in a new tab), the Heritage Trust proposed the library could be repurposed for public housing.

Council will discuss the motion at a regular meeting on Tuesday.

IMHO, keeping a somewhat historic building for Halifax, and of the type that will likely never be built again, would be a better alternative than just tearing it down and creating another urban park that is just a stone's throw from a few more similar park/public spaces in the area. Not to mention that there is already a generous lawn that people use as park/public space.

Since we can't build on a past grave site (from the old Poor House a century and a half ago), may as well grandfather in the old library building and put it to use - it's already there, so we just need to use some imagination and allocate budget for it.

I think it's better to keep a nice old building like that, and give the land a useful purpose, than to expand the green space that's already there. Surely Halifax can be better than this.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

N.S. Heritage Trust asks Halifax council not to demolish old memorial library



IMHO, keeping a somewhat historic building for Halifax, and of the type that will likely never be built again, would be a better alternative than just tearing it down and creating another urban park that is just a stone's throw from a few more similar park/public spaces in the area. Not to mention that there is already a generous lawn that people use as park/public space.

Since we can't build on a past grave site (from the old Poor House a century and a half ago), may as well grandfather in the old library building and put it to use - it's already there, so we just need to use some imagination and allocate budget for it.

I think it's better to keep a nice old building like that, and give the land a useful purpose, than to expand the green space that's already there. Surely Halifax can be better than this.

Agreed 100%. It's a solid example of modern classical architecture, a style and period seldom given the attention it deserves, and which is now becoming quite rare.

Surely the $300k earmarked for investigating demolition into a park (seems like a bureaucratic B.S. makework project) would be better spent on upkeep for the building. It would make a handsome museum (local history/archaeology perhaps?) or expansion space for the dalhousie architecture school, or even a fancy coworking space/cafe (see: Crew Collective in Montreal, situated in the old branch hall of the old Royal Bank in Old Montreal).

Halifax is desperate for some cohesive architectural, economical, and urbanist vision.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Agreed 100%. It's a solid example of modern classical architecture, a style and period seldom given the attention it deserves, and which is now becoming quite rare.

Surely the $300k earmarked for investigating demolition into a park (seems like a bureaucratic B.S. makework project) would be better spent on upkeep for the building. It would make a handsome museum (local history/archaeology perhaps?) or expansion space for the dalhousie architecture school, or even a fancy coworking space/cafe (see: Crew Collective in Montreal, situated in the old branch hall of the old Royal Bank in Old Montreal).

Halifax is desperate for some cohesive architectural, economical, and urbanist vision.

After some debate, during which most councillors said "I don't want to demolish this building," they voted for the motion anyway. So unless something extraordinary happens, it's probably toast. I understand why the building has been hard to repurpose--to Mason's points, the surrounding park is a burial site and it's pretty difficult to expand or renovate the building in any meaningful way as a result--but it really strikes me as a failure of imagination nonetheless. What's more galling is that, also according to Mason, it could cost almost as much to demolish as to restore, because of the difficulty of operating demolition equipment in the site, because it's a huge unmarked grave. To spend all that money and end up with literally nothing is far from a great outcome.


I'll be curious what happens if St. Pat's comes up for discussion at council. Given that it's a heritage building and any demolition will need to be approved, it feels like that's inevitable. I hope there will be more willingness to save that building--on the other hand, I'm also sure it will be much more expensive to remediate, given its much larger size, and clearly worse physical shape.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

After some debate, during which most councillors said "I don't want to demolish this building," they voted for the motion anyway. So unless something extraordinary happens, it's probably toast. I understand why the building has been hard to repurpose--to Mason's points, the surrounding park is a burial site and it's pretty difficult to expand or renovate the building in any meaningful way as a result--but it really strikes me as a failure of imagination nonetheless. What's more galling is that, also according to Mason, it could cost almost as much to demolish as to restore, because of the difficulty of operating demolition equipment in the site, because it's a huge unmarked grave. To spend all that money and end up with literally nothing is far from a great outcome.


I'll be curious what happens if St. Pat's comes up for discussion at council. Given that it's a heritage building and any demolition will need to be approved, it feels like that's inevitable. I hope there will be more willingness to save that building--on the other hand, I'm also sure it will be much more expensive to remediate, given its much larger size, and clearly worse physical shape.

Thanks for the info. This is even more pathetic than I imagined.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

After some debate, during which most councillors said "I don't want to demolish this building," they voted for the motion anyway. So unless something extraordinary happens, it's probably toast. I understand why the building has been hard to repurpose--to Mason's points, the surrounding park is a burial site and it's pretty difficult to expand or renovate the building in any meaningful way as a result--but it really strikes me as a failure of imagination nonetheless. What's more galling is that, also according to Mason, it could cost almost as much to demolish as to restore, because of the difficulty of operating demolition equipment in the site, because it's a huge unmarked grave. To spend all that money and end up with literally nothing is far from a great outcome.

I would expect nothing less from that lot which is our shameful Council, rubber-stamping the wish list of the staff that actually makes all the bad decisions we are afflicted with.

I’m certain that the building would be expensive and difficult to renovate, though why it would need to be expanded escapes me. Regardless, HRM’s gold-plated designer library across the street shows that money is seldom a problem for HRM when they get a bee in their bonnet to do something. What any new purpose might be - a municipal museum using material from the vast HRM Archives might be nice - something more appropriate for that site could surely be found. It is already a park of sorts as has been noted here so not much needs to be done on that front, and it most certainly should not be allowed to become a tent city again. But the motion’s passage makes me think the nabobs within the ivory towers of HRM already have decided it’s fate.

[Empire]

It is so shocking that council has such disregard for built heritage. The old library is a fixture in the community and forms a defined block with the School of Architecture and Saint Mary’s Boys school (1904) The combination of allowing it to deteriorate for years and then electing to allow its potential demolition is beyond comprehension.

When will this city recognize the invaluable assets we have?

Saint Mary’s Boys school (1904)
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.64470...5409&entry=ttu