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!