[Halifax] The Trillium l 65 m l 19 fl l Completed

[Empire]

Originally Posted by spaustin

I actually think they have a point regarding Waterside Centre and possibly the Roy Building. Not every project is a good one. Supporting every development is just the flip side of opposing everything.

Very good point. Both Waterside Centre and the Roy Building are very bad proposals. We need to max. out opportunity sites like Tex Park and all of the area north of Young St. for intense development. There are still many sites downtown that can handle highrise developmnet without destroying buildings that in the end will be better than the new structures.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

Very good point. Both Waterside Centre and the Roy Building are very bad proposals. We need to max. out opportunity sites like Tex Park and all of the area north of Young St. for intense development. There are still many sites downtown that can handle highrise developmnet without destroying buildings that in the end will be better than the new structures.

Mr. Empire, i would like to ask why you consider The Roy Building and Waterside Centre as bad proposals?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by sdm

Mr. Empire, i would like to ask why you consider The Roy Building and Waterside Centre as bad proposals?

There are a few sites where restoration should be attempted and these are two of them. I think the Waterside site should be restored as is but the Roy building site could be done like founders square. Those building facades are original and really add to the streetscape. It would be a challange but all or part of the facade of the Roy building on Barrington should be saved.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

There are a few sites where restoration should be attempted and these are two of them. I think the Waterside site should be restored as is but the Roy building site could be done like founders square. Those building facades are original and really add to the streetscape. It would be a challange but all or part of the facade of the Roy building on Barrington should be saved.

But what if its uneconomical to restore? Its very evident that at least for the Waterside proposal that one if not two buildings have significant structural issues.

[Empire]

They are uneconomical to restore into Class 'A' office space. Other uses have to be found and if funding is necessary then that should be the next step for the city, province HRM by design etc.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

They are unenocimical to restore into Class 'A' office space. Other uses have to be found and if funding is necessary then that should be the next step for the city, province HRM by design etc.

Even to modern day levels they are still uneconomical.

[Spitfire75]

What do you mean by 'uneconomical'?
It would cost more to restore it than to tear it down and build something new?
It would cost more to restore than it's value?

Of course it's going to be expensive to restore buildings this old, that's a given. But it's an investment towards tourism and all that.

[Wishblade]

Originally Posted by Spitfire75

What do you mean by 'uneconomical'?
It would cost more to restore it than to tear it down and build something new?
It would cost more to restore than it's value?

Of course it's going to be expensive to restore buildings this old, that's a given. But it's an investment towards tourism and all that.

I think he means that something taller could be built in its place, thus making it more economically viable.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Wishblade

I think he means that something taller could be built in its place, thus making it more economically viable.

I think that when it comes to certain projects, we have to decide that the easy money (aka "economically viable") is less important that other less tangible and long term benefits like heritage preservation and tourism, etc. It would be criminal to gut the Imperial Oil building or even worse, demo the whole thing and rebuild a replica.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Spitfire75

What do you mean by 'uneconomical'?
It would cost more to restore it than to tear it down and build something new?
It would cost more to restore than it's value?

Of course it's going to be expensive to restore buildings this old, that's a given. But it's an investment towards tourism and all that.

So how does this make it economical for the developer or do you suggest the city buys and fixes them up?

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

So how does this make it economical for the developer or do you suggest the city buys and fixes them up?

None of these buildings are so far gone that something can't be done. Developers naturally look for the greatest return and that seems to be, unfortunately, "knock them down and start again." However, the role of the city is to regulate and here's a case where it's perfectly acceptable to say the greater public good doesn't conform to your plans, you'll have to settle for a smaller return. I don't think any of these buildings are too far gone to do something with considering what has previously been restored and made successful. That said, I think the city should play a greater role in these cases. Not actually buying the buildings or anything but through tax incentives and restoration programs to give the developers greater incentive to preserve rather than destroy and to help tip the economic scale a little bit more in heritage's favour.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by spaustin

None of these buildings are so far gone that something can't be done. Developers naturally look for the greatest return and that seems to be, unfortunately, "knock them down and start again." However, the role of the city is to regulate and here's a case where it's perfectly acceptable to say the greater public good doesn't conform to your plans, you'll have to settle for a smaller return. I don't think any of these buildings are too far gone to do something with considering what has previously been restored and made successful. That said, I think the city should play a greater role in these cases. Not actually buying the buildings or anything but through tax incentives and restoration programs to give the developers greater incentive to preserve rather than destroy and to help tip the economic scale a little bit more in heritage's favour.

I would be more then willing to debate this subject further, but think we should move that discussion to another tread as it has no relavance to this project.

[terrynorthend]

True. This is the Trillium thread after all. Any word on appeals yet?

[Dmajackson]

I haven't heard anything about an apppeal and someone posted earlier that they only had until yesterday so hopefully we are actually in the clear this time.

Good news is "the notic of approval" wasn't in todays Herald

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Bedford_DJ

I haven't heard anything about an apppeal and someone posted earlier that they only had until yesterday so hopefully we are actually in the clear this time.

Good news is "the notic of approval" wasn't in todays Herald

Yay! those recurring "notice of approval(s)" were starting to feel like a sick version of the old joke, "Tomorrow? But when Tomorrow gets here it will be Today AGAIN!!"

[sdm]

It appears no notice of appeal was filed. However there is a article in allnovascotia.com stating there will be a new organization formed, friends of schmidtville which will hold its first meeting Tuesday. It appears they are going to push for a heritage district and try and influence what gets built on NSLC site along with the parking lots owned by HRM. It states the area encompasses Cylde, morris, south park, breton, birmingham, sackville, dresden row and spring garden road........

There goes the idea of height for any of the parking lots or even the former Infirmary lands...

[terrynorthend]

Friggin' Schmidtville.. It even sounds made up. I'm gonna declare the North End TerryLand and secede!! BANANA!

[Takeo]

Forming a heritage district for so-called Schmitville... great. All for it. Including surface parking lots within the protected area... wrong. I'm all for protecting the houses... but don't mess with the future development of the opportunity sites. I have a feeling they will be more interested in the latter.

[Dmajackson]

Great the one of the few areas of downtown with a decent height limit by HRM by Design now having a proyective group...

I do see why Schmidtville should be a heritage district but only the three blocks should be protected and watched over by this group (Clyde-Morris-Queen-Brenton). The area to the north is very different from this district and while i do think they should be protected SGR should be allowed to grow into a modern area with high-rises.

The houses should be saved. They are historic and are one of the few areas not destroyed by the halifax explosion. This group needs to realize, though, that SGR lost its history a long-time ago and that their neighbourhood is in the middle of an urban area. Not allowing high-rises nearby would do two bad things to this area;

1) it would make the neighbourhood much more expensive to live in (mainly propoerty tax) since there is more people trying to move in, and

2) it would create more pressure to develop in and around this area and since high-rises would be deterred more ugly short buildings would appear.

[phrenic]

Originally Posted by sdm

It states the area encompasses Cylde, morris, south park, breton, birmingham, sackville, dresden row and spring garden road........

If they had said Clyde to South st, bounded by South Park and Queen, then sure - that area should have protection.

But leave the damn parking lots be.