Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
Oh yeah, I agree. The wholesale rejection went too far.
But I don't think heritage has won all that often over the past 20 years. Instead we've seen a cavalier approach to heritage AND a lack of development--partly due to the Heritage Trust's meddling, but also partly due to poor economic conditions. Blaming downtown's struggles on heritage preservation doesn't really wash--the way you're describing downtown Halifax describes, to a tee, what Yonge Street or Vancouver's Granville looked like until recently (and in Yonge's case, at least, still does in some places).
Plus, there have been plenty of decision that fall on the development side of the heritage-development divide. I mean, there was that whole half-block of Barrington behind the Dennis was permitted to be entirely torn down in the late 80s/early 90s. Waterside involved the tear-down of the bulk of a block, TD expansion involved a tear-down and one facadism, Roy is about to be knocked down entirely, the BMO block and the Mills block are potentially threatened on SGR, etc, etc...
Plus all the losses to fires, etc.
So I don't think heritage has been much of a winner. Halifax has lost so much of its older building stock that I think we have to tread VERY carefully about losing more. Downtown specifically, I can't think of a single 19th century or early 20th century commercial building that wouldn't feel like a loss, at this point. Again, other cities are managing these things better: I've posted this before, but this and this are just fantastic examples of developers going out of their way to really incoroporate heritage in imaginative ways. Large setbacks to minimize facadism, and in the latter case, basically moving a building to the other side of a block in order to make way for a condo tower.
I don't really but the argument that the finances don't work for Halifax developers. The Roy and Commerce Square projects are quite large, and the Roy is very consciously turning into a luxury building. There's a bit too much willingness to let developers slide on the extra expense it'll take to really create out-of-the-park developments. We shouldn't just be grateful developers are finally investing in downtown and let them do whatever they want as a result--demanding greatness is the only way we'll end up with a great city. I think Halifax is getting better, but there are still too many people who equate being pro-development with an "out with the old stuff that's holding us back" mentality, and that's really unfortunate. |
Side point: I think denouncing the NIMBY attitude of Halifax and, well, Nova Scotians more generally, these days not only "progressive" but, really, a civic duty. Changing our attitudes about new people, ideas, and ways of doing things, is now an existential issue for the province, in light of the Ivany Report.
Back to Heritage / Development: I actually love the St. Joseph development you've linked to-- the wide sidewalks/streetscapes; the attention to scale and yes, the setbacks are nice, to allow for these smaller shops.
But as fenwick points out above, I'm not sure it's so different from some of the things we have been doing in Halifax. And, to be honest, I would bet that developers would be happy to do something like that in Halifax, but they simply cannot. Why not?
Here's the problem: Something like the St. Joseph is simply not economically viable in Halifax, in the space for 22 Commerce Square. Why? It would require asking Thiel to sacrifice an entire tower because with our height limits, 22nd Commerce Square is expected to be two towers, approx 22-24 storeys. So, 44-48 floors of office, hotel, or condo. Take away one of those towers and you're down to 22 floors.
The St. Joseph developers have the luxury to do more with those heritage spaces, as the tower itself is proposed to be 48 storeys (!!!). In fact, go back to links you posted and you'll notice that with many of the great developments are coupled with HUGE skyscrapers. If you let them build up, they'd be happy to, and can afford, to be more accommodating of heritage. I mean, why wouldn't they? If you can get everyone onside, I'm sure they'd often do it, to promote the project and ensure quicker approval.
Height limits are a problem. Which, of course, takes us back to the people who have fought tooth and nail against anything over 5 storeys. Heritage Fronters and STVs. The same people who oppose these heritage efforts are the same people who hate height.
Sigh.
Lesson: Increase the height limits in the city, and we will see much more innovation and work on heritage preservation / incorporation.
Prev
They've wielded disproportionate noise. Despite the drama of the old system, council basically approved everything that came before it. It's pretty much still that way outside of the Downtown. Most projects end up approved. The project that gets a no tends to be an exception. About all I can think of where the heritage lobby wielded influence was the Midtown (council's approval was appealed and was overturned at the URB) and Waterside Centre (defeated at council, but brought back to life at the URB). The lack of development over the last two decades Downtown really has had nothing to do with political opposition and everything to do with market conditions. If it were the later, than we wouldn't have so many vacant lots with outstanding approvals waiting to go. After the office market crash in the early 90s, it took 2 decades for Downtown vacancy and rental rates to edge back up to a place where they could drive new construction. Might have happened sooner if HRM wasn't actively making suburban development so much more attractive with lower taxes, subsidized infrastructure and quick approval processes. At the end of the day, the development versus heritage narrative has really been a political and media show and its a show that has been really detrimental. It has created a polarized environment where heritage and development are treated as mutual-exclusive options.
Linear Mode
