Losing the look of Halifax

[Wishblade]

Losing the look of Halifax

Halifax is close to the "tipping point" in losing its unique architectural ambience and the economic benefits that flow from it, says an architectural historian.

"If you continue to build without thinking about making positive relationships between new development and old buildings, you’re going to lose it," Anthony Tung said Thursday in a Halifax interview.

Mr. Tung, a former commissioner with the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission and author of Preserving the World’s Great Cities: The Destruction and Renewal of the Historic Metropolis, was in Halifax to speak on urban management at Saint Mary’s University .

Mr. Tung first visited Nova Scotia several years ago and was amazed to find that Halifax, with its wealth of historic architecture, didn’t have a designated historic district at that time. The districts are increasingly common in American cities like Charleston, S.C.

"Halifax has historic resources that very few other cities have," he said.

He cited the Citadel, the Grand Parade, St. Paul’s Anglican Church, city hall, Government House and Province House as examples.

"Not a lot of towns on the eastern seaboard of North America purposely have these cultural seeds planted in the cityscape."

Halifax has been a battleground in recent years between heritage groups and developers who argue that a preoccupation with heritage preservation has curtailed downtown construction.

But Mr. Tung said preserving and promoting heritage can draw businesses, tourists and consumers to cities.

"Historic assets are becoming recognized throughout the world as among the most important investments a city can make in its future," he said.

"Tourism has become one of the major urban economies for every city that has historic properties."

Mr. Tung said policies that retain historic downtown properties create value for property owners. And he said heritage proponents he has spoken to in Halifax aren’t categorically opposed to development.

"What people are saying is it needs to be managed, relative in design and proportion, to your historic assets."

Halifax Regional Municipality and the province recently passed a development plan, HRM by Design, that includes height restrictions on construction in some downtown areas.

But Mr. Tung noted that it didn’t affect plans for a new downtown convention centre, which includes a 14-storey hotel and an 18-storey office tower he said are out of sync with the downtown’s historic character.

Paul MacKinnon, executive director of the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, agreed with much of what Mr. Tung had to say about downtown heritage preservation.

He said it was somewhat embarrassing that Halifax designated its first historic district only three weeks ago.

The designation encompasses Barrington Street between Duke and Bishop streets and allows the municipality to provide tax incentives to property owners in the corridor, said Mr. MacKinnon. Two other areas, the southern part of Barrington Street, including parts of Hollis Street and the Historic Properties-NSCAD University area, are in line for historic district designation.

Mr. MacKinnon said Halifax’s approach to heritage preservation is closer to that of Boston, which balances heritage and development downtown, than to Charleston, which restricts development in the city core.

I dont understand what people don't get about these new developments being built on parking/empty lots. Who's tearing down heritage properties to build highrises? It isnt happening.
What Im gathering from this article is that Mr. Tung thinks Halifax should have a bunch of 4 story faux historic boxes. Pathetic.

Though I do have to agree that we should have had a designated heritage district long before.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Wishblade

I dont understand what people don't get about these new developments being built on parking/empty lots. Who's tearing down heritage properties to build highrises? It isnt happening.
What Im gathering from this article is that Mr. Tung thinks Halifax should have a bunch of 4 story faux historic boxes. Pathetic.

Though I do have to agree that we should have had a designated heritage district long before.

I agree, too much time has been spent arguing over parking lots, but it's not completely black and white either. We have lost a number older buildings. Some are unremarkable some aren't, but even the unremarkable ones contribute something to the street that generally doesn't seem to be given back in new construction (some high-quality projects like Bishops Landing, Waterford etc excepted). Just off the top of my head, the old house at Wellington and South, that old mansion on Young Avenue, the old houses at the Trillium site, Sweet Basil, Trinity Church and St. Josephs have all come down over the last year or so. The Roy Building and its two neighbours behind it on Sackville are hovering over the grave, the three at Hollis and Morris are goners in a month or two and it seems the homes next to All Saint's on Martello Road won't survive either. Not everything that's old should be saved, but let's not pretend that we aren't also demolishing our built stock. Frankly, I think we put too much emphasis on the Downtown. Many of the city's residential areas, such as Young Avenue and the area between North and Cogswell are just as historically important in my opinion, but have been forgotten in all the parking lot fights. It's too bad that we couldn't have a more constructive approach. I like the idea of moving heritage properties and would like to see that considered more often and not just as a last minute "if you can move it in a month I'll contribute the cost of demolition to the move" kind of way.

[Keith P.]

Anyone who uses the cliche "tipping point" probably doesn't deserve much attention anyway, but this article gets my goat. How the hell is the convention center in any way damaging to Halifax? Because it is replacing the concrete Herald bunker? Where does Province House enter into this? That is at no risk of being knocked down. The fact is that Halifax has a lot of unremarkable old wood frame buildings that have little architectural merit and whose only claim to fame is that they are old. No loss if they are to go away for something better.

[worldlyhaligonian]

How about an article called "Gaining the look of Halifax" and write about the potential of the developments waiting in the wings.

[worldlyhaligonian]

That dude isn't even from Halifax... therefore his opinion is irrelevant.

[someone123]

Well, I think it's totally true that the convention centre development is out of proportion with some older buildings, but it's not out of proportion with the city or downtown as a whole.

This debate needs perspective that never seems to exist in these "development vs. heritage" articles. There's a wide range in the value of heritage buildings in Halifax and a big difference between tearing something down and building a development next to it. This difference needs to be factored in when making economic decisions.

I think Halifax needs both more development and more heritage preservation, and there's no reason why it can't have those. I'd like to see a general compromise where development on empty blocks is fairly open, tear-downs are allowed for low-end buildings, some modifications are allowed for mid-range buildings (like an office tower above the Roy Building, NFB building, former Zellers) and then more money is invested in maintaining the streetscape and restoring top-quality buildings.

I also dislike the "heritage drives the economy" argument, which seems to state that we don't need new buildings as long as the old ones are maintained. That is clearly just wrong. People value having attractive old buildings, but most of them like living and working in modern ones. This is why Halifax needs a balance rather than the snowglobe approach. It's a regional centre of 400,000 people basically off by itself.. the economy is not going to run solely off of selling plastic lobsters to tourists.

[reddog794]

This is just another person who has no clue of the history of Halifax development. He my be a big shot in NYC, but this isn't NYC.

I found the article ringing of my old psych. papers from uni.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

That dude isn't even from Halifax... therefore his opinion is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by reddog794

This is just another person who has no clue of the history of Halifax development. He my be a big shot in NYC, but this isn't NYC.

This is a completely ridiculous statement. Part of the reason Halifax is the mess it is, is because we don't look elsewhere to see what has worked and what hasn't. Instead, council/HRMbyDesign representatives discuss development issues - including heritage/new development conflicts in Halifax as if they have never been experienced before anywhere on the planet. I saw this guy give a lecture about 4 years ago at the Carmichael Lecture Series in Halifax. He certainly knows what he is talking about. Whether you are convinced by is arguments is another thing.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is a completely ridiculous statement. Part of the reason Halifax is the mess it is, is because we don't look elsewhere to see what has worked and what hasn't. Instead, council/HRMbyDesign representatives discuss development issues - including heritage/new development conflicts in Halifax as if they have never been experienced before anywhere on the planet. I saw this guy give a lecture about 4 years ago at the Carmichael Lecture Series in Halifax. He certainly knows what he is talking about. Whether you are convinced by is arguments is another thing.

??? I always advocate looking to other places to see what has worked. My username is wordly fricking haligonian.

However, I don't think you are interpreting this correctly. I believe heritage to be important... however the arguments being made here are totally bogus. This kind of article is BULLSHIT and so negative. The writing makes the situation to be "the end of the world" like a bad movie.

a) Heritage doesn't drive the economy here. In fact, if you examine the tourism and make (an incorrect assumption) that heritage drives the tourism industry, then it creates seasonal unemployment. Its not a business model that keeps our economy afloat, especially during the 10 months when the weather sucks. Government and military actually drives the economy here, with healthcare and universities being other significant drivers. The private sector is actually very small in Halifax and could be much larger.

b) The only look Halifax is losing is the grimey industrial look. Halifax lost its "look" about 20-30 years ago when the more modern office towers were built. We we have lost some heritage, but blame the Heritage Trust or "promotors" of heritage such as Mr. Tung for not ACTUALLY doing anything about it.

c) Europe has much richer heritage and contemporary development exists in and around said heritage. How about that for looking outside of Halifax! New York is a terrible comparison to Halifax, and Boston is still a stretch if you want to make some sort of analogy.

Duh.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

My username is wordly fricking haligonian.

Right on.

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

c) Europe has much richer heritage and contemporary development exists in and around said heritage. How about that for looking outside of Halifax! New York is a terrible comparison to Halifax, and Boston is still a stretch if you want to make some sort of analogy.

Duh.

Seriously though, I completely agree that NY and Boston are not good comparisons - I definitely think we have much more to gain from European cases.

Also, just to clarify, Mr. Tung does not discuss heritage in terms of his experiences in New York. He was given funding 10 years ago or so, to travel the world and do a survey of 30 cities or so. His book, Preserving the World's Great Cities, is an account of his experiences/impressions around the globe. The article is misleading, making him seem as if he is here to lecture Halifax on what they need to do - instead he discusses scenarios from around the globe - successes and failures.

I agree that this 'tipping point' crap only weakens any argument made.

[fenwick16]

=worldlyhaligonian;

....

b) The only look Halifax is losing is the grimey industrial look. Halifax lost its "look" about 20-30 years ago when the more modern office towers were built. We we have lost some heritage, but blame the Heritage Trust or "promotors" of heritage such as Mr. Tung for not ACTUALLY doing anything about it.

...

This is true, except I think that the dark and grimy image gradually started being replaced 40 - 50 years ago. At this time urban renewal was dominate in North America so having old buildings was considered by many to mean run-down. I think that many of the new development projects have helped to clean up Halifax's image and provides more of a contrast between the old and new. So in someways, new development projects in Halifax have helped draw people to the city and has thus complemented the heritage buildings.

[reddog794]

My post may have seemed flippant, but I aim for the point. I would be more understanding if this man sat down for a year, and looked through the growth of Halifax, and properly studied the history of our development.

While he may have toured and experianced worldy cities, he ignores the fact we haven't had a vision in the city in a long time. I agree, development should be in sync with the rest of the area, as well as blending preservation with development.

This article is nothing more than ammunition for heritage nuts that have no clue about what makes a city tick. Idiots trumpeting the fine points of a broad thinking man.

[halifaxboyns]

How can someone say that the look of Halifax is being lost when the look of a city is constantly changing?

You can have heritage and still have new development - I just think that in terms of heritage buildings; some of the designs could be more sympathetic to the nature of heritage development - like using similar materials or colours?

[Keith P.]

The vast majority of new developments in Halifax over the last couple of decades have been ugly faux-historic designs with fake stone cornices, lots of red brick with beige brick ornamentation, and generally uninspired design, all in the name of compatibility with existing heritage buildings. It has been an abject failure and the philosophy needs to be abandoned.

[fenwick16]

The city should be evolving with modern architecture just like it would have 100 - 200 years ago. I wonder if future generations of Haligonians (in a 100 years from now) will be puzzled by the architectural trend in Halifax over the past 30 - 40 years. Some quite modern and some a throw back to a few generations ago.

I am glad that Halifax was able to keep as many historic buildings as it did. I just think that modern and historic buildings can exist side by side.

[fenwick16]

I am interested in knowing what most people would like to see Halifax become. For me, I would like to see Halifax become a major city similar to Vancouver (as opposed to a very large city like Toronto). I would like to see Halifax retain some of its heritage but also have very modern buildings.

Maybe most people in Halifax would prefer that Halifax remain a medium size city. I am interested in hearing what others would like Halifax to become.

One thing that bothers me with the Heritage Trust way of thinking, is that they don't seem to understand that they are part of history and that the modern buildings, that they are fighting against, will be the heritage buildings of a hundred years from now. I am sure if we go back 100 - 200 years ago, that developers never dreamed that there would be groups like the Heritage Trust fighting so vigorously to protect the buildings that the past developers were constructing (many heritage buildings are mediocre buildings that are kept simply because they are old).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I am interested in knowing what most people would like to see Halifax become. For me, I would like to see Halifax become a major city similar to Vancouver (as opposed to a very large city like Toronto). I would like to see Halifax retain some of its heritage but also have very modern buildings.

Maybe most people in Halifax would prefer that Halifax remain a medium size city. I am interested in hearing what others would like Halifax to become.

One thing that bothers me with the Heritage Trust way of thinking, is that they don't seem to understand that they are part of history and that the modern buildings, that they are fighting against, will be the heritage buildings of a hundred years from now. I am sure if we go back 100 - 200 years ago, that developers never dreamed that there would be groups like the Heritage Trust fighting so vigorously to protect the buildings that the past developers were constructing (many heritage buildings are mediocre buildings that are kept simply because they are old).

I doubt there would be any broad consensus. Some people want Halifax to grow and prosper, while others seem more comfortable with minimal growth and stagnation. A big part of the problem is that the latter group seems not to grasp the economic realities we face.

[Jstaleness]

I know my vote. I would love to see Halifax become the size of Vancouver or Ottawa. I would like to see more supertalls built in the east. Halifax would be an excellent place to start.

[fenwick16]

Although I stated previously that I would like to see Halifax become like Vancouver, I think a far better model would be San Francisco. I wish that some of the people against tall buildings would take a trip to San Francisco to see how heritage and tall buildings can co-exist. Halifax has more in common with San Francisco than Vancouver. The similarities to San Francisco: San Francisco has saved some of its heritage and has used it to market the city, it has bridges crossing its harbour, it has a great waterfront, it has Alcatraz (Halifax has the Citadel), etc . However, San Francisco also seems to be very progressive, which for now is different than Halifax (although I see signs of this attitude changing). Could someone suggest to the Heritage Trust people and Save our View people, that they take a trip to San Francisco (they will probably say that Halifax isn't San Francisco, just like when they say Halifax isn't Toronto) ?

[halifaxboyns]

Different cities offer different perspectives. SFO is a good example of living with heritage while evolving (don't use Calgary; we do such a bad job). Vancouver offers a way to think of things in a more sustainable way - higher density, less fringe growth.

Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver offer some really great ideas on what kind of supertall buildings could be (good and bad). The Bow has been a very interesting project for Calgary because the east end of downtown has been void of any real improvement during the boom (with the exception of the Municipal Building complex).

The Bow project is what has been pushing the east end of town to start seeing some major consideration of redevelopment; but I'm talking about Calgary and the focus here is Halifax.

Heritage is always changing, as time passes and I think you are right fenwick, Trillium will some day be a heritage building!

Halifax will progress; whether it wants too or not - because (as the largest city) it has a pull from the region - people go from small towns, to Halifax and then either stay, or go onto bigger cities. Where the progress will come is once the majority of the 'heritage or bust' generation have retired or passed on (I hate to say it). It will be the younger generations who will be the greatest force for change; we see it now at public hearings. I'm always impressed when students show up and they are showing up more often. They certainly did here in Calgary for Plan It (in droves).