Heritage preservation and reconstruction

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

I have heard numerous times how certain heritage buildings are unable to be saved or how it would be all but impossible to rebuild a lost building. Perhaps we could take example from Dresden, Germany?

European cities are a good example. Halifax is not the same as a European city but some reconstruction could happen. I think people have not realized how beautiful it used to be (in say 1860 or 1920), how it was ruined somewhat, and how it could be recovered. My impression is that downtown Halifax was for a while (1950-2000) thought of as a utilitarian business/commercial area (a kind of high density Bayers Lake) and that beauty in public spaces, including the buildings, wasn't thought of much as an amenity in the same way that say a park or a public pool might be an amenity. But it is.

Some places like Quebec City do have this attitude and there was deliberate public investment in making places look good as well as enhancing and preserving history.

The current situation downtown is not bad but it could be better. I believe that if this were just rebalanced a bit more so there were 1-2 good restorations at any given time plus a well thought out reconstruction every decade or two the results would build up a lot over time. Also the same attitude should be applied around the peninsula.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by someone123

European cities are a good example. Halifax is not the same as a European city but some reconstruction could happen. I think people have not realized how beautiful it used to be (in say 1860 or 1920), how it was ruined somewhat, and how it could be recovered. My impression is that downtown Halifax was for a while (1950-2000) thought of as a utilitarian business/commercial area (a kind of high density Bayers Lake) and that beauty in public spaces, including the buildings, wasn't thought of much as an amenity in the same way that say a park or a public pool might be an amenity. But it is.

Some places like Quebec City do have this attitude and there was deliberate public investment in making places look good as well as enhancing and preserving history.

The current situation downtown is not bad but it could be better. I believe that if this were just rebalanced a bit more so there were 1-2 good restorations at any given time plus a well thought out reconstruction every decade or two the results would build up a lot over time. Also the same attitude should be applied around the peninsula.

Quebec City has too many examples of heritage restoration / reconstruction to mention but one of note is reconstruction of the Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury at the Plains of Abraham after a devastating fire that left nothing but a shell of walls. The massive copper roof was reconstructed to match the original. We need some of this tenacity. It seems as though the Heritage Trust is rather quiet these days.

Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury:
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8064...7i16384!8i8192

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

Quebec City has too many examples of heritage restoration / reconstruction to mention but one of note is reconstruction of the Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury at the Plains of Abraham after a devastating fire that left nothing but a shell of walls. The massive copper roof was reconstructed to match the original. We need some of this tenacity. It seems as though the Heritage Trust is rather quiet these days.

Yep. I remember when this fire happened. Hopefully the Halifax armoury restoration will also turn out nicely. The Halifax armoury was simply crumbling for decades (I haven't seen many construction-site-style structures designed to shield pedestrian from masonry except in Halifax).

I saw some pictures from Williamsburg and there was a building from the 1780's that looked great. It burned down in the 1880's and was faithfully recreated in the modern era. I guess nobody told them they could have saved a few bucks by building a tilt-up precast structure.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

I saw some pictures from Williamsburg and there was a building from the 1780's that looked great. It burned down in the 1880's and was faithfully recreated in the modern era. I guess nobody told them they could have saved a few bucks by building a tilt-up precast structure.

I have been to Colonial Williamsburg several times and been in many of the buildings for events. What they are is a bit like our Historic Properties but not exactly the same. They reconstructed or built replicas using old materials and old techniques. The floors bounce and groan, the stairways are narrow, the wind whistles through them, and of course there is nothing at all like insulation or thermal glass. None of them would even come close to meeting building code. In fact when I was there last a few years ago for an event dinner I had the thought that this wasn't safe.

In that case you had a deep-pockets benefactor willing to foot the bill for the whole thing back in a time when you could do such things relatively cheaply. Today there is no way that could happen. Not just for the cost but also for regulatory reasons as noted above. You could, I suppose, build a re-creation that hid modern systems and materials behind an old veneer (which is what Historic Properties is closer to) but there you are getting into significant cost penalties. And I am not fooled whenever I visit HP that I am seeing exactly that - the "Disneyfied" experience. Tourists seem to like it but it makes little sense in other types of venues.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I have been to Colonial Williamsburg several times and been in many of the buildings for events. What they are is a bit like our Historic Properties but not exactly the same. They reconstructed or built replicas using old materials and old techniques. The floors bounce and groan, the stairways are narrow, the wind whistles through them, and of course there is nothing at all like insulation or thermal glass. None of them would even come close to meeting building code. In fact when I was there last a few years ago for an event dinner I had the thought that this wasn't safe.

Was it really unsafe, or were you just afraid because the floors were 'live'? I mean, you were in the land of litigation, would an unsafe attraction really be tolerated? How would they get it insured?

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In that case you had a deep-pockets benefactor willing to foot the bill for the whole thing back in a time when you could do such things relatively cheaply. Today there is no way that could happen. Not just for the cost but also for regulatory reasons as noted above. You could, I suppose, build a re-creation that hid modern systems and materials behind an old veneer (which is what Historic Properties is closer to) but there you are getting into significant cost penalties. And I am not fooled whenever I visit HP that I am seeing exactly that - the "Disneyfied" experience. Tourists seem to like it but it makes little sense in other types of venues.

If bringing old buildings up to modern standards for safety, efficiency, and comfort would be considered "Disneyfied", then all buildings today are "Disneyfied", except for the ones that you would deem to be unsafe. You create a bit of a quandary whereby it's not acceptable if it's the same way it was 250 years ago, but if it's improved to be up to today's standards, it's still unacceptable because it's not authentic...

Personally, I think old buildings updated with modern amenities and repurposed for a modern use is the best of both worlds. You can appreciate the architecture, craftsmanship, and history of the original building, but where it may have housed a sailmaker in the pre-steamship days, it could now be used as a restaurant or a business that creates digital animation... or whatever. The built heritage remains, and the vibrancy of the city thrives.

I do agree that reproductions of buildings have been sketchy at best in Halifax, but that doesn't mean they can't be done. They just haven't. However, as others have pointed out, they have elsewhere. Halifax just seems to retain a healthy segment of the population that contends that we can't accomplish anything out of the norm, like the creative part of their brains have gone dormant. It would be nice to see that change in the future.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Was it really unsafe, or were you just afraid because the floors were 'live'? I mean, you were in the land of litigation, would an unsafe attraction really be tolerated? How would they get it insured?

I have no idea about insurance, obviously. I just know that the one I was having dinner in seemed like a tinderbox should it ever catch fire, and getting out would not be easy for a large crowd.

Personally, I think old buildings updated with modern amenities and repurposed for a modern use is the best of both worlds. You can appreciate the architecture, craftsmanship, and history of the original building, but where it may have housed a sailmaker in the pre-steamship days, it could now be used as a restaurant or a business that creates digital animation... or whatever. The built heritage remains, and the vibrancy of the city thrives.

I do agree that reproductions of buildings have been sketchy at best in Halifax, but that doesn't mean they can't be done. They just haven't. However, as others have pointed out, they have elsewhere. Halifax just seems to retain a healthy segment of the population that contends that we can't accomplish anything out of the norm, like the creative part of their brains have gone dormant. It would be nice to see that change in the future.

I simply cannot understand why anyone would ever do what you suggest. It is like someone building a new McMansion with Victorian design. They aren't fooling anyone, and anyone can see that it is not what it purports to be. You can do that of course if you are willing to pay for it. It is one thing to do it for your own personal gratification if it is your own home. It is quite something else for a commercial developer to build something large in such a manner, unless it somehow moves the needle in terms of leasability or public appeal. I would suggest to you that unless it is something loosely related to the entertainment/tourism business, it would not succeed in that goal. Keep in mind that most new commercial builds are much larger than the old buildings they replace. So at best you get a lobby or ground-floor space that is usually awkwardly incorporated into something else and is completely out of context.

I'm reminded of a story Frank Stanton, President of CBS in the 1960s, told about his involvement in the design and construction of Black Rock, the CBS Building on 6th Avenue and 52nd St in NYC. The exterior was designed by Eero Saarinen and the interiors by Florence Knoll, thus giving a modernist style both inside and out. Late in the process, Chairman William Paley expressed a desire for the office designs to be changed to something more traditional in style as he did not like the modernist esthetic. Stanton, who was a very smart man, arranged for some empty office space in another building to be mocked up in decor using a designer that Paley selected as being more to his tastes. One evening the two of them took a tour of the mock-ups. Afterward, Paley was forced to concede that their traditional designs really didn't work very well in the context of the new building. Stanton ended up getting what he wanted, while Paley's suite of offices and conference/dining rooms was done in a more traditional style as he preferred, but were the only such spaces in the building.

The principle of being an honest design in the context of the esthetic of the times, the buildings around it, and the amount being invested in construction holds true regardless of what you are making. Back in the '80s we saw a lot of less-than-honest design features, from fake plastic woodgrain in cars and on microwave ovens, to faux-leather furniture. We still see it in the building trades today with styrofoam fake cornices and composite fake-stone veneer. I cannot understand why anyone would ever specify such fakery on a new build. Who do they think they are fooling? It is a rare project indeed that can afford real granite blocks, terra-cotta exterior cladding, and carved walnut trim inside. If a developer can make the economics work, then by all means use the best materials you can and incorporate them using good design. But if you cannot afford the genuine article, don't try to fake it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

Quebec City has too many examples of heritage restoration / reconstruction to mention but one of note is reconstruction of the Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury at the Plains of Abraham after a devastating fire that left nothing but a shell of walls. The massive copper roof was reconstructed to match the original. We need some of this tenacity. It seems as though the Heritage Trust is rather quiet these days.

Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury:
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8064...7i16384!8i8192

Quebec City did it right. While the rest of Canada was ripping down their old buildings in the 1950s, Quebec was finding out how to restore and preserve theirs. So anybody who says it can't be done should spend a week in Vieux Quebec and have a good look around.

Meanwhile, in Halifax, we think that the Citadel is a waste of space, and surely could be put to better use by clearing and developing the site...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Quebec City did it right. While the rest of Canada was ripping down their old buildings in the 1950s, Quebec was finding out how to restore and preserve theirs. So anybody who says it can't be done should spend a week in Vieux Quebec and have a good look around.

I don't disagree about Quebec City but I think there is a bit of a misconception that Halifax went down one road long ago while Quebec went down another. In reality they had their 60's and 70's mishaps and Halifax still has a lot of heritage value plus buildings that could be much better than they are. I think the big difference is incremental improvements and higher standards over the decades in Quebec City.

I will also say that I like the modern construction more in Halifax. But I wish that more heritage buildings were maintained to a higher standard. I don't see heritage and development as being in opposition much.

Cogswell is a huge opportunity to improve the use and appearance of a bunch of heritage buildings or maybe even rebuild some old ones but that doesn't seem to have registered much. In principle it's possible to rebuild the Pentagon building or that Morse's Teas like warehouse that was demolished. The Delta Barrington blank wall could also get a heritage-appropriate do-over. Another modest one I've suggested is rebuilding the Hauser Stores one the waterfront and putting the old clock there. I doubt it would cost that much (probably would not even register in the overall context of $$$ to be spent building condos around Cogswell or on the waterfront) but it would dramatically increase the appeal of the historically significant clock and add a bit more historic feel to part of the area.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't disagree about Quebec City but I think there is a bit of a misconception that Halifax went down one road long ago while Quebec went down another. In reality they had their 60's and 70's mishaps and Halifax still has a lot of heritage value plus buildings that could be much better than they are. I think the big difference is incremental improvements and higher standards over the decades in Quebec City.

I will also say that I like the modern construction more in Halifax. But I wish that more heritage buildings were maintained to a higher standard. I don't see heritage and development as being in opposition much.

Cogswell is a huge opportunity to improve the use and appearance of a bunch of heritage buildings or maybe even rebuild some old ones but that doesn't seem to have registered much. In principle it's possible to rebuild the Pentagon building or that Morse's Teas like warehouse that was demolished. The Delta Barrington blank wall could also get a heritage-appropriate do-over. Another modest one I've suggested is rebuilding the Hauser Stores one the waterfront and putting the old clock there. I doubt it would cost that much (probably would not even register in the overall context of $$$ to be spent building condos around Cogswell or on the waterfront) but it would dramatically increase the appeal of the historically significant clock and add a bit more historic feel to part of the area.

I agree, but I was trying to keep it simple (don't want to put forum members to sleep).

In actuality, Old Quebec was protected by the feds in the 1950s, much like the Halifax Citadel. However in the 1960s, the province of Quebec established the heritage district, and a group was formed to allow all three levels of government to work together to protect the district:

Protection and management requirements

The Historic District of Old Québec enjoys strong legal protection and the support of all levels of government concerned. An intergovernmental committee, called the Comité de concertation du patrimoine de Québec, was created to coordinate the activities of the different levels of government.

The area of the Historic District of Old Québec, designated by the provincial authority as the site patrimonial du Vieux-Québec (Old Québec heritage site), is legally protected under the Province of Quebec’s Cultural Property Act, which was adopted in 1963. Its boundaries were established by provincial decree in 1964.

Since its inclusion on the World Heritage List in 1985, a number of buildings in Old Québec have been added to the list of properties protected under the Cultural Property Act, including the Site historique et archéologique de l’Habitation-Samuel-De Champlain, the Ursuline Convent of Québec and the archaeological reference collection of Place Royale.

The City of Québec assumes all management responsibilities under its jurisdiction relating to land use and urban planning (zoning bylaws). Moreover, the Règlement sur la politique de consultation publique (bylaw on the public consultation policy) adopted in 2007 stipulates that the Conseil de quartier Vieux-Québec–Cap-Blanc–Colline-Parlementaire (district council) must be consulted before any amendments are made to urban planning and traffic bylaws. Furthermore, any construction, renovation, restoration and signage interventions in Old Québec must have the prior authorization of the Commission d’urbanisme et de conservation of the City of Québec.

The Quebec government and the City of Québec routinely enter into cultural development agreements making it possible to offer grant programs and major financial contributions to support the restoration of the heritage buildings in Old Québec.

Source

However, it's important to realize that Old Quebec is a very special site for a number of reasons, so the same level of preservation wouldn't be appropriate, or needed, in Halifax. However, somewhere in the middle between what Halifax has done/is doing and Quebec would have perhaps led to a city where more of its heritage properties would still remain today, and the ones that actually do remain would be treated more appropriately.

I know Halifax isn't Old Quebec, but on the other hand Halifax has put almost no effort towards retaining what we did have. Your previous example of Portland Me is a good one. Having spent a couple of weeks there a few years back, it became obvious of how much better they were able to do it than Halifax (mind you, the histories of both cities are vastly different, and it was easier to do in Portland). It just exemplifies that with a little more effort things could have been guided in a better direction.

Yet, with as little as Halifax has done to retain its heritage, there are still many who think that we waste too much time and money on it. Imagine the outcry if the city put money into building those projects in the Cogswell district that you suggest. While I would personally think it's great, many others would be saying that we can't afford it - look at the potholes in the roads, and Halifax is wasting money trying to create a Disneyfied past! (etc.)

Anyhow, back to Press Block. Yeah, it would be neat if they could try to replicate the details of the historic buildings of the area, but I can't see it happening.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, it's important to realize that Old Quebec is a very special site for a number of reasons, so the same level of preservation wouldn't be appropriate, or needed, in Halifax.

I think there is a cultural bias going very far back that history in the Maritimes was not as important as Quebec. I didn't originally think about this so much until I researched the history of some of the parts of Halifax that were unceremoniously destroyed, like the Great Pontack (apparently survived until 1920 or so) and Prince Edward's city house, or the old 1700's house where the library is today. Sadly, I don't think the truly old stuff was objectively less important or impressive in Halifax, I think it was just accorded less value because it was out of sight and out of mind nationally and the locals didn't appreciate their own history much. This has also been exaggerated over the decades as Quebec history has been better preserved. Ironically part of what happened is some of the historic stuff in Halifax, like some of the military stuff, remained relevant for longer and so was modernized.

Maritime historians complain about this fairly frequently, that the value ascribed to history often depends on the present day more than the contemporary value. So we hear a lot about early history in Ontario even back when it was basically an undeveloped pioneer area, while an event in the Maritimes that was 10x larger or impactful might get little attention. I would argue that most Canadians don't even really understand Canadian history in a very basic sense of why and how different areas ended up being English/French or American/British.

[someone123]

I don't think many people care about preserving obscure heritage buildings per se (non-landmarks) but I think a lot of people care about how beautiful the environment they live in is, yet they are not really sure what's wrong about it or how to improve and often the environment is poor because of tragedy of the commons dynamics (as a landlord I will let my building look ugly on the outside because this is cheaper to maintain, and my tenants will derive benefit mostly from the beautiful neighbourhood that my building detracts from).

I believe that the sentiment of a lot of preservationists including the HT is off here too. I even saw this a bit in the Southwest Properties comments about how great it is to revert Stairs House to its Georgian-era appearance, chopping off some of the newer additions. This popped up as well with the Champlain Building as the owner there said that the top 2 floors are newer so could be safely sawed off in a redevelopment without compromising the original structure. Some of those plans are good and some are bad but this isn't getting at the crux of the matter. People are not obsessed with removing attractive Victorian additions on Georgian buildings to attain historical purity.

Many people want to see character preserved, whether it's from 1750 or 1950, and they like rich ornamentation and classical beauty, even though the modern architectural profession and industrial building techniques have moved away from these since World War 2. They like the touristy Citadel type attractions with people in costumes sometimes but this is not the core of character preservation and enhancement in urban settings.

The "compatibility" requirements miss the point too. Give us quality and character, not aping of old styles with inferior materials.

[Keith P.]

France and the UK have bureaucracies that make PNS and even GoC look like pikers by comparison. You can do that when gas costs $8/gallon, almost all of it taxes. Good luck to you trying it though, especially for wealthy south-end property owners, or for the evil developers. It would make for good entertainment watching the online outrage.

[Keith P.]

It is all about politics and priorities, Mark. Just as people love to complain about politicians salaries and pensions when in reality they are nothing more than a rounding error in the overall scheme of things and totally unimportant to the provincial budget. Perception often is more real than facts. Although in this case I would argue it is not a million dollars, since that would do nothing to help your cause. It would end up being a very expensive, very large bureaucracy like Waterfront Development (now Develop NS) has become, sucking up significant resources with very little in the way of results to show for it. Easily $20, $30 or $40 million a year, full of Chiefs and Exec Directors and Policy types and Comms staff.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It is all about politics and priorities, Mark. Just as people love to complain about politicians salaries and pensions when in reality they are nothing more than a rounding error in the overall scheme of things and totally unimportant to the provincial budget. Perception often is more real than facts. Although in this case I would argue it is not a million dollars, since that would do nothing to help your cause. It would end up being a very expensive, very large bureaucracy like Waterfront Development (now Develop NS) has become, sucking up significant resources with very little in the way of results to show for it. Easily $20, $30 or $40 million a year, full of Chiefs and Exec Directors and Policy types and Comms staff.

Keith, I don't doubt your points. It's highly likely that you are 100% correct.

If this were some sort of functional meeting where the result actually mattered, my frustration would be with the apathy with which old buildings are discussed. As if we are saying that there is no way we can be successful so let's not even try. I used to reel against the idea that the Maritimes were a culture of defeat, but I'm not pushing back on that now because I think we are proving that this aspect is actually very real.

On the other hand, maybe I'm taking the glass half empty approach, when in general I actually am an optimist. I should be pointing out that despite how poorly 'we' are handling heritage properties in Halifax, quite a few prime examples still exist. Sure, we lose a few every now and then, but the really good ones are mostly still around, or at least their facades are - kind of like a living snapshot of what used to be.

Meanwhile, we still have a housing crisis and our medical system is in shambles while we are still trying to get the uneducated/self-involved to agree to vaccinate themselves so we can climb out of this pandemic once and for all... life goes on.

[someone123]

Report on registration of 5500 Inglis Street:
https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...11019rc122.pdf

These reports are full of historical details:

The subject property sits on lands that were once part of Bland’s Field. This largely undeveloped field contained a rural road that stretched from Barrington Street (then known as Pleasant Street) to Point Pleasant Park. Jonathan Tremain, a Loyalist refugee and rope maker, purchased a large 50-acre lot here in 1784. Tremain then constructed a ropework factory along the lot’s eastern boundary (what is today South Bland Street) and subdivided the lot into 11 narrow parcels. Tremain constructed the existing building, which was originally a 1.5-storey dwelling, on the factory lot in 1823. Subsequent property owners made wooden additions to the building prior to 1900

The property became a Provincial Heritage Property in 1984 and was considered for municipal registration by the former City of Halifax in both 1977 and 1983; however, it was unsuccessful. At that time the evaluation criteria were much more limited in scope. This is the first time that 5500 Inglis Street will be evaluated using the current heritage building evaluation criteria.

One for 5492 Inglis Street: https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...1005rc1541.pdf

[someone123]

Source

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Source

Looks great! This restoration should almost guarantee that it will be around for another 100 years.

[someone123]

Hopefully the restoration on that side will soon be wrapped up if it isn't already. Looks like some of that metal (and the horizontal strip) will be removed and the lower granite blocks have not been cleaned. I'm curious to see what the main entrance will look like. The door was nondescript before the restoration work, judging from Google.

The municipality should work to turn this into the highest quality heritage area possible:


Source

It's not far off yet when you look at the details, there are a lot of small holes, historic buildings with ugly do-overs, or instances where cheap vinyl siding and windows were used. Heritage preservation rules combined with a relatively modest budget (perhaps just a fraction of what this area delivers in relative additional tax burden compared to many suburbs) would turn it into a remarkable area.

There are so many almost-great streetscapes in Halifax where 80% of the buildings are historic and have amazing character and 20% are poorly maintained or had weird renovations/redevelopments.

[Keith P.]

That neighborhood seems to gentrifying on its own quite well. I can't see HRM making it any better by getting involved. Their most recent effort of putting a homeless encampment across the street has already caused some outrage among the residents who have restored their properties at considerable expense.

[someone123]

The involvement would be wider registration-style protections and tax breaks for restoration, with incentives to replace e.g. vinyl siding with wood. The rules should be set up such that it is most profitable for landlords to keep their historic properties in good shape and there's no development possible except for sympathetic adaptive reuse that completely fits the area. It should also be easy to fill in empty lots and property owners should be encouraged to maintain period style fences and the like. The city should consider burying utilities. Modernist style renovations in heritage areas should not be permitted.

There are so many parts of Halifax that are almost great but look dumpy because of in many cases probably a single landlord doing minimal maintenance. One example I can think of is the light blue vinyl rowhouses around North Park and Cogswell. There's another similar situation in Schmidtville with the vinyl along Morris Street.

If you look at a lot of even the nice streetscapes, many of the houses are not registered and could be torn down at any moment or given an ugly Home Depot bargain bin style renovation.

The initiatives I am proposing would be a tiny fraction of what's done in many other cities around the Northeast of the continent. Halifax and Nova Scotia are out there in terms of what is allowed relative to the heritage that exists.