Heritage preservation and reconstruction

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Same ol' same ol'. We are broke. We can't afford it.

This may have been true at one time but I think it's objectively untrue now, at least if you compare against other provinces: http://www.rbc.com/economics/economi...rov_fiscal.pdf

If you look at a mix of budget deficit and debt to GDP, NS is one of the best provinces. BC is better off. ON and QC are worse. AB was better off and has low debt but they're running huge deficits. I formulate my opinion of NS finances by looking at this data. HRM has low debt.

In any case I think this is a red herring because if you travel to Mexico, Cuba, or just about anywhere in Europe (including Spain, Eastern Bloc, etc.) you can find better preserved heritage buildings. I'm not sure what everybody's vision is but I doubt that better maintenance of buildings actually costs that much per year in the scheme of things. I'd guess that for the price of 1 hockey rink HRM could have run a program that would have substantially overhauled a significant portion of buildings in a poor state of repair over the past decade or two. This may also have led to higher assessments so it's unclear if it would have been a net loss. I don't think having dumpy buildings helps the municipality's bottom line.

I don't know what the situation is today but it seems to me like there isn't a lot more heritage restoration work today than there was in the early 2000's even though the city is larger and more successful, with higher property values today. This is how things played out in Vancouver too. There are neighbourhoods with sky-high slum properties where the owners make a killing as the buildings degrade. All they care about is the appreciation of the land price, and seemingly paradoxically the incentive to speculate and operate slum properties can go up as a city becomes more desirable. If the city and province don't step in to fix it the old buildings crumble.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

This may have been true at one time but I think it's objectively untrue now, at least if you compare against other provinces: http://www.rbc.com/economics/economi...rov_fiscal.pdf

It's very small-town and narrow-minded to use 'we're broke' as an excuse not to do anything when the financials say very much the opposite. It's just a lazy counterpoint trotted out when there's no other reasoning being attempted. I'm sure the province isn't broke when roads are to be widened or new highways to be built.

On heritage, Halifax isn't Quebec, but it's also better in that Quebec's heritage core is limited to a pretty small area of the city as a whole. Halifax has a good chance to preserve unique areas of the Peninsula if they so choose, but it's not a contained area like Quebec's is. Leave Quebec's core and it very quickly becomes wide stroads, big box developments, and mundane suburbs.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

On heritage, Halifax isn't Quebec, but it's also better in that Quebec's heritage core is limited to a pretty small area of the city as a whole. Halifax has a good chance to preserve unique areas of the Peninsula if they so choose, but it's not a contained area like Quebec's is. Leave Quebec's core and it very quickly becomes wide stroads, big box developments, and mundane suburbs.

My main point in bringing up Quebec City is how slanted things are in Halifax. Often the individual buildings that are put up on the chopping block would be considered important in Quebec City too.

For example a while back there was a debate about what might happen to Black-Binney House which is a 3-4 storey Georgian era stone structure and national historic site. That debate in the media was totally wacky (maybe we tear it down, maybe build some condos on top) and in Quebec City I think it would have, correctly, been beyond the pale. If anything the fact that more of these buildings have already been torn down in Halifax makes them more precious.

Parks Canada put an ugly fake looking roof on the Prince of Wales tower too. I have a hard time imagining that happening in Quebec City. Yet that tower would be a major historic building there too (1790's stone building, first of its kind in NA).

I agree about the difference in how the city is laid out and where development can happen. Quebec is somewhat constrained by the idea that development in a lot of the older part of the city is basically off limits, whereas Halifax has tons of opportunity sites. I just wish the development would stick to the many many good development sites that are available instead of everything (except sacrosanct leafy residential streets) being open season.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree about the difference in how the city is laid out and where development can happen. Quebec is somewhat constrained by the idea that development in a lot of the older part of the city is basically off limits, whereas Halifax has tons of opportunity sites. I just wish the development would stick to the many many good development sites that are available instead of everything (except sacrosanct leafy residential streets) being open season.

I'm sure some will roll their eyes but surely Saint John is a good comparison for this sort of thing. They have wide-ranging historic boundaries that cover a lot of the urban core but still have somewhat flexible rules on what can or can't be built within them. It heavily favours maintaining existing structures whilst still providing leeway for developing underutilized and empty lots. It's a bit too heavy-handed on things like property renovation (specific windows, paints, etc.), but that hasn't prevented a wide-ranging rejuvenation of the historic area whilst still on the whole preserving the nature of the Uptown.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I'm sure some will roll their eyes but surely Saint John is a good comparison for this sort of thing. They have wide-ranging historic boundaries that cover a lot of the urban core but still have somewhat flexible rules on what can or can't be built within them. It heavily favours maintaining existing structures whilst still providing leeway for developing underutilized and empty lots. It's a bit too heavy-handed on things like property renovation (specific windows, paints, etc.), but that hasn't prevented a wide-ranging rejuvenation of the historic area whilst still on the whole preserving the nature of the Uptown.

I think Saint John and St. John's both do better at preservation and restoration of the "filler" buildings than Halifax. In Halifax the landmarks (City Hall etc.) are usually well preserved but the mid-range stuff is up to the owner and all over the place. It is mostly ad hoc though there are some growing heritage districts.

It goes wrong when you get de facto homeowners' associations that wield historic district rules to try to ban development. It should be about the buildings, not preserving empty lots or dumpy 70's buildings that just happen to be next to a Victorian house. So in the old South End for example, FWIW, I'd prefer much stronger heritage protection of the actual heritage buildings along with lots of new development on the many dumpy sites.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I'm sure some will roll their eyes but surely Saint John is a good comparison for this sort of thing. They have wide-ranging historic boundaries that cover a lot of the urban core but still have somewhat flexible rules on what can or can't be built within them. It heavily favours maintaining existing structures whilst still providing leeway for developing underutilized and empty lots. It's a bit too heavy-handed on things like property renovation (specific windows, paints, etc.), but that hasn't prevented a wide-ranging rejuvenation of the historic area whilst still on the whole preserving the nature of the Uptown.

I think Saint John is an excellent example, actually. They have done a great job of balancing preservation with new development, while keeping it functional and a pleasant place to experience at the same time.

Without having the data in front of me, I'd hazard to say that Saint John would have more of a case to say "we can't afford it" than Halifax, yet they have pulled off something that Halifax seems to think can't be done.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Without having the data in front of me, I'd hazard to say that Saint John would have more of a case to say "we can't afford it" than Halifax, yet they have pulled off something that Halifax seems to think can't be done.

The economics are slanted more against Halifax retaining heritage buildings than Saint John. One aspect is development potential and another related aspect is property taxes. The Uptown SJ brick house a few blocks out of the core is taxed as a house and in Halifax it's taxed as a highrise condo. This is one aspect of why the Saint John experience is not directly applicable to Halifax, though the building maintenance and neighbourhood character aspects are IMO applicable.

But this can be corrected by taking some of the larger tax base and putting the money toward keeping historic buildings around, or adjusting zoning/assessments.

Usually this is framed as what somebody can "afford", and it's taken to mean building maintenance costs, but from what I can tell that is wrong in almost all cases.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

This may have been true at one time but I think it's objectively untrue now, at least if you compare against other provinces: http://www.rbc.com/economics/economi...rov_fiscal.pdf

If you look at a mix of budget deficit and debt to GDP, NS is one of the best provinces. BC is better off. ON and QC are worse. AB was better off and has low debt but they're running huge deficits. I formulate my opinion of NS finances by looking at this data. HRM has low debt.

It is true that the economic performance of NS has improved in recent years. But if you go back to the beginning of the 2000s we were running a ratio of close to 50%. Here is the problem: our debt continues to increase annually, now at over $16 billion. We are still running budget deficits since we are spending more each year than we take in. We also have the highest or 2nd-highest tax burden in Canada, so there is little room to expand that further. Yet our doctors are among the lowest paid, as are our nurses and paramedics. I would not want to be the politician saying that we are not giving those groups more money because we wanted to incentivize developers to restore old buildings in Halifax. Or, trying to argue that we should do that instead of building hockey rinks (though personally that would not bother me a bit, but I'm not mainstream that way).

In any case I think this is a red herring because if you travel to Mexico, Cuba, or just about anywhere in Europe (including Spain, Eastern Bloc, etc.) you can find better preserved heritage buildings.

You cannot compare Canadian jurisdictions with others, especially Communist countries. But even in democracies, places in Europe have much higher taxes than Canadians are willing to tolerate.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You cannot compare Canadian jurisdictions with others, especially Communist countries. But even in democracies, places in Europe have much higher taxes than Canadians are willing to tolerate.

My line of reasoning is that if maintaining more heritage buildings in Halifax would be a major cost for NS, the economies of France or the UK would have been utterly crushed under the maintenance costs of their historic building stock. There are small provincial cities in France that have probably 1/2 the economy of Halifax but maybe 50x the amount of historical building maintenance.

I think the reality is that this maintenance cost is down around the rounding error range. Halifax has a > $20B economy, HRM spends around $1B/year, and a few million a year would buy the Cadillac of heritage home restoration programs. The heritage renovation funding that comes through for the Barrington district is often in the six figure range for 1 major commercial building that requires maintenance every few decades.

[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.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I'm sure some will roll their eyes but surely Saint John is a good comparison for this sort of thing. They have wide-ranging historic boundaries that cover a lot of the urban core but still have somewhat flexible rules on what can or can't be built within them. It heavily favours maintaining existing structures whilst still providing leeway for developing underutilized and empty lots. It's a bit too heavy-handed on things like property renovation (specific windows, paints, etc.), but that hasn't prevented a wide-ranging rejuvenation of the historic area whilst still on the whole preserving the nature of the Uptown.

I would agree on this assessment of Saint John but the rejuvenation of Saint John has been quietly led by the Commercial arm of the Irving Empire. After the third brother passed a number of years ago his son took over the real estate arm of the Irving group of companies and as we all know the pockets are deep. They have spent considerable funds in the old 1860-1895 Commercial buildings that used to house pigeons. These developments were driven by the Cruise ship industry and a fledgling foodie culture in Saint John. Its not a bad place to visit . Anymore.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yet our doctors are among the lowest paid, as are our nurses and paramedics. I would not want to be the politician saying that we are not giving those groups more money because we wanted to incentivize developers to restore old buildings in Halifax.

Again... either-or. We can apparently only pay for one thing at a time.

"Sorry, medical staff, we can not allocate the billion dollars towards pay increases for you because Halifax is demanding one million dollars to help maintain heritage properties. It's all or nothing, you know."

Regardless, as I originally stated, there is no way this will happen with success in Halifax. We spend too much time with our heads up our own asses. End of story.

And as I said earlier, I have made my peace with it. Development will happen as it does, and we'll all watch from the sidelines. A thread on a messageboard does not change the world, nor does the opinion of any one of us really matter in the big picture.

[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

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What makes you think that the public would support using tax money for this when our health care system is in a shambles, we are in the midst of a housing crisis, and HRM is spilling over with new, mostly younger residents, many of whom have zero history with or appreciation of this stuff? My sense is that unlike the rest o NS, HRM is trending younger and younger in terms of population, and when it comes time to spend money on spaces, they want new and modern for the most part. Plus, the Province is not likely to provide any sort of funding to HRM for anything, given that HRM is rolling in dough already and has trouble finding ways to spend it all in ways that are not utterly wasteful. There is a very real hostility between those two levels of govt right now.

I get that you care about these things, but I believe you are in a very small minority. As I have said many times here, these buildings are not exactly Penn Station-quality. If they were, I might have a different view, but preserving an old run-down small wooden 2-storey structure that has been largely neglected for decades because the economics of it are poor is a very low priority in my mind.

I think the public would support bringing back the lost character of Halifax. The best way to fund a revitalization is through tax breaks. Restore or build character into your building and receive 10-20% tax reduction for 3 years for example. HRM will be the winner in the future when property values increase at an exhilarated rate due to quality restorations. In a lot of cases there is little or no tax revenue being generated due to a derelict building or a vacant lot waiting to be developed. The recognition of the value of Halifax architecture has been happening for years and yes by younger people. Bauer St. is a good example of how restoration adds not only to the immediate area but to the city as a whole. See #1 link.

# 2 link shows how choosing the most economical maintenance detracts from an otherwise interesting streetscape. There are dozens of 2 level buildings in the north end that have had trim and cornices removed likely due to the perceived sense of ease of maintenance. (no pain no gain)

#3 link shows how the north end is being transformed with utilitarian modern structures that is some cases are merely designed to keep out the elements.

#4 link is the elusive building recreated from scratch…Africville Church

Quality can be achieved and the importance of creating a quality will pay dividends for many generations. It would be great if HRM would put the same effort into quality development as it does bump-out-curbs.

1. - Bauer St:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6499...7i16384!8i8192


2. Cornwallis St. restorations:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6512...!7i16384!8i819

3. Harris St.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6534...7i16384!8i8192

4. Africville Church
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6737...!7i8704!8i4352

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

I think the public would support bringing back the lost character of Halifax. The best way to fund a revitalization is through tax breaks. Restore or build character into your building and receive 10-20% tax reduction for 3 years for example. HRM will be the winner in the future when property values increase at an exhilarated rate due to quality restorations.

Well, the public supports lots of things when they are unaware of the cost and alternate priorities that get ignored from govt doing certain things. In your example I seriously doubt those tax incentives would amount to a significant enough sum to motivate property owners to undertake an expensive restoration. However perhaps in conjunction with exploding property values going forward the combination might work, assuming property values do not suddenly implode and owners remain wanting to chase that pot of gold upon selling.

#4 link is the elusive building recreated from scratch…Africville Church

Quality can be achieved and the importance of creating a quality will pay dividends for many generations. It would be great if HRM would put the same effort into quality development as it does bump-out-curbs.

The church is a poor example as it is a structure built using the money-no-object principles that also guided the multi-million dollar restoration of the gardener's cottage in the Public Gardens. Only a govt with no need to justify the use of tax dollars would undertake to spend that kind of money on a virtue-signalling project that gets no use most of the time.

However, I applaud your closing comment about curb bump-outs. The construction this year in Dartmouth to narrow streets, impede traffic, install unnecessary and likely chronically underused bike lanes, and placing bump-outs at many intersections for a largely non-existent group of users is a massive dereliction of fiduciary duty on the part of Coun. Austin and in many places would result in a move for his recall from office. For the first time in my memory we are seeing severe criticism of these things and his role in creating them from the public, which is a positive sign at last. It seems as though he has had a significant hand in the actual design of many of these things, which is a very real danger when a politician starts to believe he is also a subject matter expert. Unfortunately we have no such recall mechanism here.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

For the first time in my memory we are seeing severe criticism of these things...which is a positive sign at last.

As a purely practical note on that topic, the Austinization of Joffre Street has now, without exaggeration, actually made it a street to avoid with the recent addition of five massive speed bumps to the existing five curb extensions.

Undoubtedly some will think that this is just entitled whining, but I definitely choose an alternative route now whenever I can and on the weekend I was at a gathering at which I heard from many in the area who do the same.

The goal of these "traffic calming" devices is, ostensibly, to make the street safer. I can only say, based on many decades of living in the area, that Joffre was not an inherently unsafe street to begin with. It's true that it is a natural connector route, and well-used, but it was never the hazardous freeway that council apparently was persuaded it was. Just ask the residents. So now, instead of solving that illusory problem, they instead are discouraging locals from even using the street to get to and from their homes.

It's just loony. And expensively so.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

As a purely practical note on that topic, the Austinization of Joffre Street has now, without exaggeration, actually made it a street to avoid with the recent addition of five massive speed bumps to the existing five curb extensions.

Yesterday I found myself on Hawthorne St for the first time in a long while. I knew of the curb extensions at the Prince Albert Rd end as I had seen pics of damage done to the newly installed traffic light poles back in the spring when a box truck could not complete a successful right turn at the newly-narrowed bumped-out intersection. Now it has been graced with Austin-Approved (TM Regd.) speed bumps as well.

Your tax dollars pissed away at work!

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Now it has been graced with Austin-Approved (TM Regd.) speed bumps as well.

I think I've settled on "Samerrhoids".

"Austerrhoids" was a close second, but could be confused with "asteroids" too easily.