Heritage preservation and reconstruction

[JET]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...erty-1.6724603

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by JET

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...erty-1.6724603

I was concerned when I heard this, but apparently the property owner (a developer) has no plans here and mounted no opposition to the heritage status. So I guess this is fine. I mean it looks like a dog's breakfast compared to the archival pictures when it's "twin" was still intact.

As for the future of the building Councilor Smith thought a medical clinic would be fitting....
Right. A tiny, inaccessible, 150 year old wood-framed house/now flats would make a great clinic

[JET]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

I was concerned when I heard this, but apparently the property owner (a developer) has no plans here and mounted no opposition to the heritage status. So I guess this is fine. I mean it looks like a dog's breakfast compared to the archival pictures when it's "twin" was still intact.

As for the future of the building Councilor Smith thought a medical clinic would be fitting....
Right. A tiny, inaccessible, 150 year old wood-framed house/now flats would make a great clinic

These old houses make great clinics, not difficult to make it accessible.

[someone123]

Stephen Archibald (see https://twitter.com/Cove17 for a lot of great stuff) recently posted this picture of a duplex:



Lots of interesting aspects here:

- This was covered in siding before. It looked okay but looks better now.
- I would have assumed it was wood construction before, not brick.
- A lot of old brick construction in Halifax was or is now stuccoed.
- There's a continued trend toward more neutral colours on houses.

[Keith P.]

^^^ I wonder why the cornice does not extend the full width at the top of the wall? Wonder if it is an original or a later add-on.

[djbrickhouse]

Whoa, looks much better than the old siding.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6522...6656?entry=ttu

[djbrickhouse]

Looks much better now!

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6522...6656?entry=ttu

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

^^^ I wonder why the cornice does not extend the full width at the top of the wall? Wonder if it is an original or a later add-on.

The cornice looks to be a later add-on. It's not apparent in the Google Maps Streetview link shared in this thread. I wonder why they abbreviated it?

The regularization of the windows on the upper floor has done great things for the facade.

[Keith P.]

I thought there was a discussion here on this but I cannot find it. Yesterday Justice Rosinski slapped down HRM's Heritage Advisory Committee and their allies the Heritage Trust and Peggy Walt et al very hard:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...erty-1.7041646

Normally I do not root for Dal but I'm glad they didn't roll over to the incompetence of Council and people like Walt in this case.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I thought there was a discussion here on this but I cannot find it. Yesterday Justice Rosinski slapped down HRM's Heritage Advisory Committee and their allies the Heritage Trust and Peggy Walt et al very hard:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...erty-1.7041646

Normally I do not root for Dal but I'm glad they didn't roll over to the incompetence of Council and people like Walt in this case.

Dal can stop asking me to donate $. They're on their own now.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

Dal can stop asking me to donate $. They're on their own now.

It's hard to know exactly what to make of this without knowing what Dal wants to do with the property. The fact that they just want to rip it down without being transparent about what replaces it does smack of institutional egotism/bad neighbourliness.

The precedent here is bad too; the logical extrapolation of the judge's ruling is that third-party applications, when the owner lodges a complaint, are simply invalid. Which means that the city suddenly has no ability to apply heritage protections to any property that isn't already protected, or has a particularly heritage-friendly owner. Not that the city DID do that a whole lot, but it's a tool removed from the toolkit.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It's hard to know exactly what to make of this without knowing what Dal wants to do with the property. The fact that they just want to rip it down without being transparent about what replaces it does smack of institutional egotism/bad neighbourliness.

The precedent here is bad too; the logical extrapolation of the judge's ruling is that third-party applications, when the owner lodges a complaint, are simply invalid. Which means that the city suddenly has no ability to apply heritage protections to any property that isn't already protected, or has a particularly heritage-friendly owner. Not that the city DID do that a whole lot, but it's a tool removed from the toolkit.

Dal has been quite clear that after 4 months they plan to tear it down and build student housing, at some point. Dal must be short of land.

[someone123]

I think this ad hoc third-party registration scheme is a somewhat politically "toxic" and ineffective tool anyway and there should be neighbourhood-level rules and incentives. There should be more demolition controls and higher standards for unsightly unmaintained properties in the urban core.

Not surprising to me that after so much waffling and poor preservation of its own buildings the municipality stepped in to save a somewhat average house around Dal. It confirms what their priorities and biases are.

The effective ban on highrises really hamstrings the universities when it comes to student housing and encourages them to gobble up more land. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement of the trade-offs. The area around Dal would be so much nicer with some larger-scale buildings mixed in with heritage buildings rather than a bunch of block-size lowrise stumps.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

Dal has been quite clear that after 4 months they plan to tear it down and build student housing, at some point. Dal must be short of land.

The current zoning allows them to build four housing units. Not exactly a great trade-off, and they didn't say they would build housing, but something vague like "cognizant of the need for housing," or something like that.

[Dartguard]

Dalhousie should exercise some smarts and sell this building to the Boobs that crushed the other one trying to crane it for the Spring Garden development. Let that developer hire some pros and move it two blocks down the street. Heck even have Peggy Cameron and her group pay for the move. Money where thy mouth is and all that.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Dalhousie should exercise some smarts and sell this building to the Boobs that crushed the other one trying to crane it for the Spring Garden development. Let that developer hire some pros and move it two blocks down the street. Heck even have Peggy Cameron and her group pay for the move. Money where thy mouth is and all that.

Like the one that was broken in the move, this one is full of rot and falling apart. It's a shame as it was once a nice old house. Now it's just an old house beyond saving financially.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Dalhousie should exercise some smarts and sell this building to the Boobs that crushed the other one trying to crane it for the Spring Garden development. Let that developer hire some pros and move it two blocks down the street. Heck even have Peggy Cameron and her group pay for the move. Money where thy mouth is and all that.

Leaving aside Keith's assertion that this building (which was apparently occupied and in serviceable shape before Dal purchased it) this actually may not be a wild idea. My understanding of the Robie/College development is that it's delayed as they figure out how to address the heritage component that the development agreement was partially based on. If the developer paid to move this building over to Carlton Street, it would A: solve that problem. B: Presumably mollify the Peggys by saving the house, and C: reduce Dal's expenses (no demolition costs).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

The effective ban on highrises really hamstrings the universities when it comes to student housing and encourages them to gobble up more land. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement of the trade-offs. The area around Dal would be so much nicer with some larger-scale buildings mixed in with heritage buildings rather than a bunch of block-size lowrise stumps.

As mentioned in another post in another thread, the height limitation is having tangible negative effects, and here is a practical case whereby a somewhat-attractive heritage building might not have had to be torn down if more density were allowed, through height increases, in the neighbourhood.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As mentioned in another post in another thread, the height limitation is having tangible negative effects, and here is a practical case whereby a somewhat-attractive heritage building might not have had to be torn down if more density were allowed, through height increases, in the neighbourhood.

Pretty sure this area would be covered under one of the Centre Plan's proposed heritage districts. The best thing to do would be to get them all established in law, and then upzone everything else--heritage resources identified as contributing to the districts would be protected; everything else would be up for grabs.

Unfortunately, according to Sam Austin's comments online, the city's planning resources are stretched so thin that the study/consultation/implementation of the districts could take 15 years or so to happen. (Frankly I'm sure the process is unncessarily complicated and time-consuming, but anyway.)

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The precedent here is bad too; the logical extrapolation of the judge's ruling is that third-party applications, when the owner lodges a complaint, are simply invalid.

That is actually not a "logical extrapolation of the judge's ruling". The case is largely about a manifestly unfair process and an objectively reasonable apprehension of bias, which in this case inexorably led to what the court could only conclude was a "substantively unreasonable outcome per se”. Dal was essentially ambushed by the heritage application and largely excluded from the process, and was given no reasonable opportunity to make its case.

Though there is no statutory right (and consequently no prescribed procedure) for such third-party applications, the court recognized that there is likewise no statutory prohibition on the municipality receiving and addressing third-party concerns. It can be done, so long as it's done appropriately:

"...municipal Heritage Project designation processes and decisions are of a nature that they correspondingly require HRM to ensure that property owners such as Dalhousie are involved, and provided with an effectual and timely level of procedural fairness throughout the process that HRM undertakes...Since a property owner’s substantive rights in relation to the property will be engaged from the point at which the registration process is triggered, including when a “third-party application” (and any “request” to similar effect or a unilateral decision by HRM itself have a heritage staff report created regarding the property) is received by HRM, the property owner should then also receive immediate notification including the Application and supporting documentation from HRM."

"Which means that the city suddenly has no ability to apply heritage protections to any property that isn't already protected, or has a particularly heritage-friendly owner.

Again, not so. HRM just has to deal with such so-called "applications" in a fair and legal manner.

Reading the decision may be helpful. Here's a link: https://decisia.lexum.com/nsc/nssc/e...22065/index.do