[Halifax] SoHo Square (1212 Hollis) | 24 m | 7 fl | Completed

[Jonovision]

Thankfully this one is looking better and better.

20170605_143217 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

Thankfully this one is looking better and better.

20170605_143217 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

There is nothing that can be done to this building to restore the character that existed on this street. It's a real shame that such character buildings can be demolished with little opposition. We have / had something very unique in this city with such an array of quality architecture. To dismiss this asset in favour of the blandest of architecture is so misguided.

Hopefully we learned a lesson from this great loss and someone can step up to the plate and save the rest of this block from impending boring architecture.

The ex-Elmwood Hotel at this link is the next on the chopping block...hard to imagine.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.64001...7i13312!8i6656

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

There is nothing that can be done to this building to restore the character that existed on this street. It's a real shame that such character buildings can be demolished with little opposition.

You realize, don't you, that the original structures were lost in a massive fire?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You realize, don't you, that the original structures were lost in a massive fire?

I do. They weren't lost, they were damaged.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by Empire

I do. They weren't lost, they were damaged.

Don't get my wrong. I wish the old brick townhouses were still there. They are by far better than this.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Empire

I do. They weren't lost, they were damaged.

I was just about to post the same thing.

Basically they were abandoned, and allowed to do so.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I was wondering about how much damage was actually sustained in the fire. I recall the news articles about it generally stated that the buildings were destroyed by fire, but then the exterior appearance doesn't look all that bad in this youtube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egZMZcawEpU

Of course, the exterior view doesn't show the potential structural damage the could have occurred, so I don't know what to say about it really. Anybody ever see an actual assessment of the damage?

[someone123]

[/img]

Source

[fenwick16]

From what I remember reading, there were no firewalls between the units as there are now, so the units shared floor joists, which allowed the fire to spread from one unit to the next.

To meet current fire codes the units would probably have had to be rebuilt from scratch, however, I think that a more vintage look with real brick with nice bow windows would have fit the neighbourhood better.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

From what I remember reading, there were no firewalls between the units as there are now, so the units shared floor joists, which allowed the fire to spread from one unit to the next.

To meet current fire codes the units would probably have had to be rebuilt from scratch, however, I think that a more vintage look with real brick with nice bow windows would have fit the neighbourhood better.

Sounds like the structural damage had the propensity to be severe. I suspect, though, that if the fire hadn't occurred these buildings would still be standing today.

But, yes, I agree a more vintage look, if done properly, would have been preferable given the context of the neighborhood. Problem is, though, that most builders seem to not want to spend the money to do it properly. Lots of faux-heritage attempts have been made that look 'faux' rather than 'heritage'... but I agree that at least using 'real' brick would have been preferable to the prefab concrete "bricks" that have been installed.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

But, yes, I agree a more vintage look, if done properly, would have been preferable given the context of the neighborhood. Problem is, though, that most builders seem to not want to spend the money to do it properly. Lots of faux-heritage attempts have been made that look 'faux' rather than 'heritage'... but I agree that at least using 'real' brick would have been preferable to the prefab concrete "bricks" that have been installed.

That's all on HRM for not requiring anything other than what the developer chose to construct.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That's all on HRM for not requiring anything other than what the developer chose to construct.

Agreed completely.

[Keith P.]

I remember when this first surfaced, it was to be called "The Wallis".

I take it that name is no longer to be applied to this?

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That's all on HRM for not requiring anything other than what the developer chose to construct.

Yeah, but HRM can't win. If they get strict and specific people yell at them for "not being flexible and pretending they know better than developers who do this day in and day out". If they don't get strict they get blamed for allowing crappy buildings.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Yeah, but HRM can't win. If they get strict and specific people yell at them for "not being flexible and pretending they know better than developers who do this day in and day out". If they don't get strict they get blamed for allowing crappy buildings.

That's all well and good, but at the end of the day HRM is responsible to its citizens as a whole and not to individuals, such as the development community. Therefore they need to take leadership and define how the city will grow, and building quality should be part of that.

It seems like HRM is afraid to take a stand and take control of the process, in the apparent fear that the developers will "take their ball and go home". What they don't seem to get is that the developers still want to make money, and if that involves making less money in order to abide by a strong set of rules and regulations, they will still do it as it's better than not doing business at all.

If they decide that they don't want to abide by the rules, then other developers will step in and take their place - it's a free market after all. I'm hearing that it is done that way in other places, so there's no reason to believe it won't work here.

As far as I'm concerned, if HRM stepped up and demanded higher quality developments then it would be considered a 'win', even if the developers whined about it.

[Empire]

-

[JET]

I was in Lunenburg on the weekend for the Heritage House tour, it is incredible the amount of historic houses in the downtown, of course Old Town Lunenburg, is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, something that Halifax could never be.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

I was in Lunenburg on the weekend for the Heritage House tour, it is incredible the amount of historic houses in the downtown, of course Old Town Lunenburg, is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, something that Halifax could never be.

I would have liked to attend that event, but unfortunately had other things going on. Lunenburg is quite unique in its preservation, which likely wouldn't have happened if it had become a growing city.

We are very fortunate to have Lunenburg as a UNESCO site.

[Dmajackson]

Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[beyeas]

The south side is looking better, but I cannot get myself past the glaring mismatch in panel size on the west side. It looks horrible, and I can't think of any good rationale for that needing to be other than laziness of design.