Barrington Street Fades

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Its funny, when I had that argument with the Heritage Trust folk the other night I told them they weren't doing a very good job protecting heritage buildings and they said that wasn't their job. They said their job was to promote heritage not protect buildings. I just laughed.

Interesting... that would explain why they want Halifax downtown to look like a faux-Victorian theme park.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Its funny, when I had that argument with the Heritage Trust folk the other night I told them they weren't doing a very good job protecting heritage buildings and they said that wasn't their job. They said their job was to promote heritage not protect buildings. I just laughed.

I don't understand how remaining silent while historic buildings are demolished and speaking up when someone wants to develop an empty gravel parking lot promotes heritage. But I guess I'm preaching to the choir.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Takeo

I don't understand how remaining silent while historic buildings are demolished and speaking up when someone wants to develop an empty gravel parking lot promotes heritage. But I guess I'm preaching to the choir.

Yeah I know it makes no sense at all.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

There is...the Urban Development group with Fusion.

http://www.fusionhalifax.ca/en/home/default.aspx

Well why do we never hear anything about them? Why does the Heritage Trust get all of the free press, but not these folks?
Because they're not loud enough. Like I said, we need some group to step up and be more visible and in-your-face regarding development in the downtown cores. Somebody to give the Heritage Trust folks a real run for their money.

[Canopus]

Barrinton Street is basically a lost cause and has been for decades. Put up all the flippin planters and so on you want but that won't change a thing.

Time to toss out the old thinking completely and begin again or expect more of the same for the next 20 years.

[someone123]

I don't think Barrington is a lost cause at all. We're seeing plenty of development around the core parts of the city that's happening largely despite the HRM and opposition groups. Some of this is bound to have an effect on Barrington, and Barrington itself will do well if the renovation money is ever made available.

I listed all kinds of problems with the street but just getting good tenants in the Roy/Green Lantern Buildings (maybe also knock down the Paramount) and dealing with the NFB buildings would go a long way.

As for putting in planters, it's true those are cosmetic but the bottom line is that the street needs some work done. It hasn't seen a significant amount of maintenance since at least sometime in the 80s.

[Canopus]

OK maybe lost cause is too strong. Either way though, if that street is ever going to be successful it needs to be totally rethought and any new options considered.

Right now the beggers are everywhere, the street caters to some of the daytime office crowd but can't even compete for bars like other streets, shopping is sporadic, no one who doesn't live nearby touches it much and all in all it just doesn't cut it. Maybe it's time to stop trying to force the street into some sort of mold and just let the market take it wherever.

I hate to say it but I'm not in favor of renovation money being tossed at the street. Better it goes to somewhere else that hasn't already taken loads.

Besides, look at the Hollis of 20 years ago and today. It can happen without large street centred projects like Barrington always seems to have.

[someone123]

I think it's a bit of a misconception that Barrington has been at the centre of a lot of public sector planning and investment. There has been a lot of talk but very little action (the current plan is along the same lines as something talked about in the mid-90s but never implemented). Meanwhile, the HRM has spent millions of dollars promoting and investing in areas like Burnside and Bayers Lake.

The other thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot of businesses on a fairly short stretch of that street. They pay orders of magnitude more in taxes than a similar stretch of a suburban or residential street, and yet proportionately smaller investments in Barrington relative to the tax base are seen as an extravagance.

To add insult to injury, even the tax rate is higher in downtown Halifax than in other parts of the HRM and Halifax has some of the highest commercial tax rates in Canada. A downtown commercial building owner pays several times more in taxes relative to the assessed rate than a homeowner in an exurban area like Fall River. A building on Barrington assessed for $40M (i.e. office tower, of which Barrington has 5) probably pays as much in taxes as 5,00-1,000 houses in Fall River.

For some reason the downtown and areas like Barrington tend to be presented as charity cases when in reality they are cash cows for the HRM.

It's hugely unfair to consider Barrington's current performance a function of some kind of fundamental deficiency when it's horribly ignored and overtaxed.

[Keith P.]

I don't know if anyone else caught it, but last night PBS showed a documentary on the problems the city of Cleveland has been facing since the 1960s and what they are trying to do to resolve it.

http://www.makingsenseofplace.org/cleveland/

Their problems are different than Barringron's, and Halifax's, but it was very interesting nonetheless. They are incenting the abandoned land in the city core with long-term tax abatements and making investments of public finds in private businesses -- they put $9 million into a facility that is home to a House of Blues, which they hope will be an anchor for attracting other businesses. They have also seen redevelopment of old industrial sites into city-core condos that are attracting people back. One of the most interesting things is something we could do here if there was a will to do it -- development of a "University Circle" that connected several post-secondary institutions with support businesses, bars & restaurants, bookstores, etc. Imagine taking a stretch of the Gorsebrook lands and connecting Dal and SMU with something like that.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I don't know if anyone else caught it, but last night PBS showed a documentary on the problems the city of Cleveland has been facing since the 1960s and what they are trying to do to resolve it.

http://www.makingsenseofplace.org/cleveland/

Did you see the lecture given by Peter Park? He was a planner for Cleveland and Denver. It was absolutely amazing!!! Best lecture I'd seen in years. And he presented a very balanced view. It was so great. I wish there was a transcript somewhere. One point he made a few times... when people at the open mic were complaining about height and development was... you know what... developers have to make money. You can't have it both ways. There has to be compromise. Woah. What a concept! LOL.

[Canopus]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's hugely unfair to consider Barrington's current performance a function of some kind of fundamental deficiency when it's horribly ignored and overtaxed.

Wll if the matter is simply one of cost then why is this such an ongoing discussion? HRM would gain an immeasurably higher tax base in various ways over time if the street were to become a vibrant successful area so is this just a case of short term gain for the city?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Canopus

Wll if the matter is simply one of cost then why is this such an ongoing discussion? HRM would gain an immeasurably higher tax base in various ways over time if the street were to become a vibrant successful area so is this just a case of short term gain for the city?

Pretty much. A lot of the money for Barrington would actually just be tax abatements based on the current plan.

I don't know that this is a "discussion", it's just a case where council has delayed and delayed, like the library. For each individual councillor the high priorities are in their own district, which I guess is why regional council often devolves into lowest common denominator debates about cat bylaws. Many of the suburban councillors couldn't care less about the downtown - remember that these are the same people who had no problem granting themselves free parking on the Grand Parade for years. Personally I would like to see some power shifted to regional authorities so important projects can still happen while council is stuck on parochial issues.

[Canopus]

Originally Posted by someone123

Personally I would like to see some power shifted to regional authorities so important projects can still happen while council is stuck on parochial issues.

#1 = Metro Regional Transportation Authority

and I'm all for the idea.

The councillors are generally petty little wankers unfortunately.

[someone123]

Yeah, transportation projects shouldn't be decided by council either.

Regional council is just not set up to handle these kinds of issues. Each councillor is going to be interested in making residents in their district happy because that's where the votes come from. This system largely ignores commercial taxpayers, who pay way more than residents. It also creates weird dynamics where nothing happens because so few projects affect even a majority of the municipality.

We also have way too many councillors. Toronto has 44 councillors for 2.5+ million people for example. Realistically we should have maybe 5-10. Two for the peninsula, two for mainland Halifax, one for Bedford-Sackville, one for HP-Fall River-Tantallon, two for Dartmouth, plus a mayor. The pay of the new councillors should be bumped up as well to make the positions more attractive, and the positions should officially be full time.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Canopus

#1 = Metro Regional Transportation Authority

and I'm all for the idea.

The councillors are generally petty little wankers unfortunately.

We used to have this in the old Metropolitan Authority. It went away with amalgamation.

Unfortunately council would still have funding control over what they could do.

[Canopus]

Nothing is absolute. Ways can be found and procedures changed easily enough given will and purpose.

[SEPTATank]

Too many cities don't realize what they have until it is gone. I remember going to the Paramount with my grandfather when I was a kid in the early 1980s. We would always poke around the stores on Barrington before and after the show and I could usually con him into buying me something. You need to get people on the street if you want healthy retail. Restoring the Paramount would be great, but that brings me to my point.

Old retail strips are often eclipsed be new ones. For example, when Park Lane was built any chance of resurrecting the Paramount died. At least Park Lane is downtown. It sucks people off of the street, but when it spews them back out they are still on Spring Garden. Bayers Lake is a whole new kettle of fish. The amount of (terrible IMO) development there is astonishing. I only get to Halifax once a year and every time it blows me away. Did the planning people at HRM find a 1970s Long Island planning guide and decide to run with it? Every big-box or movie theater out there is another nail in Barrington's coffin.

That said, downtown Halifax still has a lot to offer. Thousands of students live within walking distance, for instance. Despite Juan's best efforts the Public Gardens are still beautiful. Spring Garden, Bloor, Argyle, etc. are still lively places. Is there any thought about turning the office space above Barrington into residential? No one wants an office in a moldy old building like the Green Lantern (Juan did a number on that building too if I'm not mistaken). A modern tower in one of downtown's many parking lots could provide class-A office space for businesses and free up space for appartments/condos in cool (if rehabed) buildings. People living there would be a much bigger catalyst than scrubbing the sidewalks and planting a few flowers (or whatever the $6 million plan would do).

[Canopus]

Planners are also not the development gods that people seem to think they are and do not have the power to simply say exactly what happens where, when and how. Well, maybe in Singapore.

Beyond that though, a city has to operate within market forces and with developers who are actually taking the risk to construct, renovate, etc things. Doing otherwise achieves little.

I'm in favor of encouraging market moves on Barrington free from many constraints at this stage. Let it go the way of Chinatown in Toronto. Maybe it will become something interesting and exciting instead of a planners dream of yesteryear suitable for attracting street beggars.

[someone123]

The Paramount can't be restored. The interior was destroyed for Mountain Equipment Co-op. I guess the facade could be worked on but the original sign seen in pictures is probably long gone and all that's left is cinderblock and a rough looking canopy. That building really needs to just be replaced, along with a few neighbours.

As for things being built on parking lots, that's been happening steadily for many years. Virtually all of the remaining lots have some kind of development plan in the works.

The only two stretches of the downtown area that are really bad for surface lots are around Lower Water/Sackville/Salter and Clyde Street. The Lower Water St area has seen Bishop's Landing, Salter's Gate, and (unfortunately) the MetroPark and Four Points Sheraton. United Gulf, the Alexander, and the Centennial waterfront development are all planned for this area as well. I don't know what the story is with the Clyde Street lots and infirmary lands.

I would also claim that because of new development the area that can reasonably be considered "downtown" is creeping South and West, and maybe will move North as well with developments like the 18 storey tower on the Trinity church site. When looking at the big picture outside of just Barrington the downtown is definitely not in decline.

Barrington itself has only one surface lot and it exists because it's owned by the government. In fact, that's true of most of the surface lots in Halifax. At the end of the day I think it really has very little to do with the market and quite a lot to do with just how slow the HRM and province are.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by SEPTATank

Old retail strips are often eclipsed be new ones. For example, when Park Lane was built any chance of resurrecting the Paramount died. At least Park Lane is downtown. It sucks people off of the street, but when it spews them back out they are still on Spring Garden. Bayers Lake is a whole new kettle of fish. The amount of (terrible IMO) development there is astonishing. I only get to Halifax once a year and every time it blows me away.

So true. Phase one of Dartmouth Crossing covers 220 acres and boosts 1.6 million square feet of retail space. As of Christmas last year they already had 900,000 sq. feet according to The Burnside News. I remember reading about this when Dartmouth Crossing was about to open..the developers were touting that Dartmouth crossing will ADD as much retail space to Dartmouth as there already IS in Dartmouth. That's MicMacMall, Penhorn Mall, and a host of smaller plots and plazas. Unfortunately we see the consequence of this is not NEW retail, but rather relocating retail. (Wal-mart, Home Depot, Cdn Tire, Futureshop, etc.)