[Halifax] NFB Building | 15 m | 7 fl | U/C

[halifaxboyns]

KeithP can finally breath a sign of relief that something is happening with this building

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

KeithP can finally breath a sign of relief that something is happening with this building

Judging from his comments, I'm not sure he'll be happy unless it ends up being accidentally destroyed during construction.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Judging from his comments, I'm not sure he'll be happy unless it ends up being accidentally destroyed during construction.

Yes, that would be a shame.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I like their ideas. Finally it gets the attention it deserves.

[someone123]

Apparently the plan is to start construction in a matter of weeks, assuming the DRC meeting next month goes well.

[someone123]

Development agreement sign is up in the doorway. Not sure if this is was there for the old proposal or if it is new:


Source

[W.Sobchak]

They should leave the building as a homage to the stangent era, the HT had a strong hand in of Halifax downtown development. I kid, but what a joke it would be.

[Aya_Akai]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

They should leave the building as a homage to the stangent era, the HT had a strong hand in of Halifax downtown development. I kid, but what a joke it would be.

I've always thought of the same thing, leave a plaque with something along the lines of "this facade exists as it does today, as a useless empty shell, representing the former downtown city of Halifax, stagnated for many years, thanks to our neighbours next door at the "heritage trust""

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

They should leave the building as a homage to the stangent era, the HT had a strong hand in of Halifax downtown development. I kid, but what a joke it would be.

What? And make the Save The Whatever crowd feel like they've won something? Never!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Good Lord, I know you're just joking, but let's just let them build it and see how it turns out. I for one am happy that they saved the facade and that something finally is being done with it. To me, it's kind of like a sigh of relief where I can feel the winds of change to a better, more vibrant Halifax.

For all the browbeating of the Heritage Trust that goes on here, I can't help but think if somebody stepped up and made a better version of the HT that actually functionally interacted with development and promoted good use of Heritage Properties we would just be so much further ahead. IMHO, every older city needs some type of Heritage building advocacy to help preserve what is left of the significant historical buildings, rather than just ripping 'em down like they used to do in the sixties.

Regardless... I'm looking forward to seeing how this one will turn out.

Now, if we can just get some kind of action on all those empty lots downtown so it looks less bombed-out...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by olddartmouthmark

for all the browbeating of the heritage trust that goes on here, i can't help but think if somebody stepped up and made a better version of the ht that actually functionally interacted with development and promoted good use of heritage properties we would just be so much further ahead.

exactly.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

They should leave the building as a homage to the stangent era, the HT had a strong hand in of Halifax downtown development. I kid, but what a joke it would be.

Leaving the eyesore as-is would leave open the possibility of my dream of a rogue Cat D-8 taking it all out one night. If the development goes ahead we are going to be stuck with this mess for generations more.

[W.Sobchak]

My biggest bone of contention with the HT is within their name. They are a trust to preserve building of significance. I would like to see a print out of all monies spent by the HT on legal fees verses buildings saved and preserved because I can think of 3 Victorian mansions the the developer said he would help save and move, that the HT did nothing to save them short of lip service of how action would be taken if locations became available.

If the numbers show they have spent more on lawyers, than on buildings, or for that matter compared to the amount of possible tax revenue lost out on by their obstructionis efforts, there could be a case for misappropriation of public funds.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

...I would like to see a print out of all monies spent by the HT on legal fees verses buildings saved and preserved...

I think the Heritage Trust gets its legal council pro-bono...

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

If the numbers show they have spent more on lawyers, than on buildings, or for that matter compared to the amount of possible tax revenue lost out on by their obstructionis efforts, there could be a case for misappropriation of public funds.

I don't believe the Heritage Trust receives public funds.

I took a look at their website - they have a strategic plan that's supposed to guide their activities... http://www.htns.ca/pdf/Strategic.pdf

[Drybrain]

I've said it before, but: One big problem with the Heritage Trust is that they're actually terrible at what they do.

For example: Someone from Heritage Canada got in touch with me over a post I made about about the Dennis Building, and said they were interested in putting the building on their top-ten endangered list. When Heritage Canada contacted the Heritage Trust for more background, the HT apparently told them not to kick up a fuss with the government, since the building wasn't in super-imminent danger (!?). (Heritage Canada's position is that it's better to include buildings on the list before the wrecking ball is looming, as it increases the chance to saving them).

Anyway, I doubt the HT has ever cost any developers or anyone else any significant amount of money. Any stagnancy in Halifax in years past was due to economic conditions. You can't lay the lack of development at Phil Pacey's feet--he's too ineffectual.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Any stagnancy in Halifax in years past was due to economic conditions. You can't lay the lack of development at Phil Pacey's feet--he's too ineffectual.

I disagree. There's more construction now than in past years but the economic fundamentals in the city aren't necessarily much better than in the last decade or the late 90's. The planning regime and public tastes have changed more than the strength of the economy.

Pre-HbD it used to be very common for development approval to drag on for (3, 4, 5) years. St. James Place for example started out as a 19 storey proposal circa 1997 I believe and was finally built as a 10 storey building in 2006 or so after years of tweaking and opposition. The city's terrible development rules created this situation but the Heritage Trust and a few other related groups played a major role in terms of moving appeals forward. It is hard to say what the real cost of all this was but I could see it being in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over the last few years once you take into account the cost of the approvals themselves, the loss of tax revenue, and the diversion of development out to more permissive suburban areas.

I also blame some members of the Heritage Trust for contributing to the adversarial "heritage vs. developer" atmosphere that has held the city back so much. Instead of working with developers they decided to dig in their heels and oppose as much construction as possible, and instead of sticking to preservation the HT's primary goal was subverted by NIMBYism.

Halifax has already improved somewhat but it still hasn't struck the right balance of heritage preservation, public realm investment, and friendliness to quality urban development. And this is just downtown. The suburbs are a total disaster and transit is a disaster too.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

I disagree. There's more construction now than in past years but the economic fundamentals in the city aren't necessarily much better than in the last decade or the late 90's. The planning regime and public tastes have changed more than the strength of the economy.

Pre-HbD it used to be very common for development approval to drag on for (3, 4, 5) years. St. James Place for example started out as a 19 storey proposal circa 1997 I believe and was finally built as a 10 storey building in 2006 or so after years of tweaking and opposition. The city's terrible development rules created this situation but the Heritage Trust and a few other related groups played a major role in terms of moving appeals forward. It is hard to say what the real cost of all this was but I could see it being in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over the last few years once you take into account the cost of the approvals themselves, the loss of tax revenue, and the diversion of development out to more permissive suburban areas.

Mmm, I probably overstated the case, now that I think on it. I guess what I meant was that Pacey et. al. may have contributed to a mutually hostile discussion between developers and heritage advocates, but all by themselves, can't be held responsible for major developments not going through---the city's poor planning regime bears much more blame. But yes, the HT crew have not helped the public discussion at all, framing things entirely in adversarial terms.

Originally Posted by someone123

Instead of working with developers they decided to dig in their heels and oppose as much construction as possible, and instead of sticking to preservation the HT's primary goal was subverted by NIMBYism.

THAT's what I meant.

[W.Sobchak]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

snip

My apologies for my bellicose bluster then. I was under the impression the we're funded by the province.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

My apologies for my bellicose bluster then. I was under the impression the we're funded by the province.

Doesn't make their activities any more effective/useful

[someone123]

The Heritage Advisory Committee has voted unanimously to support this project.

It would be great if construction for this could get started this year.