Barrington Street Fades

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Unfortunately we see the consequence of this is not NEW retail, but rather relocating retail.

No kidding. I'm from Halifax so I'm not always up to date on what's happening in Dartmouth. A year or so ago, on the way home from Lawrencetown Beach, I decided to stop in at Home Depot off Portland Street. I was shocked to see that not only was Home Depot no longer there (relocated to the crossing)... but the almost BRAND NEW building that housed it was demolished!!! I imagine they salvaged a lot, but still... what a horrible waste.

Same thing with the new Canadian Tire on Tacoma. They poured a ton of money in that renovation and it was like new! A few years later, on to the next bigger and better location. It's sickening really. I think if I lived in the Woodlawn area I would not be impressed with losing my local Canadian Tire store. Everyone in Dartmouth is now forced to drive to Dartmouth Crossing for a lot of their shopping. And is that new Canadian Tire in Darmouth Crossing really any better? It's all the same stuff. Sure, it's the biggest in the country, but half of it is Automotive and the Marks store. If you take that away... it's the same as any other Crappy Tire.

Talk about the "throw away society" eh? Bad enough that consumers feel the need to buy a new cell phone or digital camera or whatever every year... retailers build huge mega stores and throw them away after just a few years.

[Wishblade]

^And its kind of ironic too,

Home Depot moved from the Portland St area to Dartmouth Crossing, then the building was demolished, and now they've built a brand new (and larger building) on that plot of land to house several car dealerships under the same roof so you can buy a car to actually get to the crossing

[someone123]

Dartmouth only has one Canadian Tire?

It is a bit of a waste to move these stores around but they're pretty much built with that in mind. They're just tilt-up concrete walls with metal roofs.

[Wishblade]

Originally Posted by someone123

Dartmouth only has one Canadian Tire?

It is a bit of a waste to move these stores around but they're pretty much built with that in mind. They're just tilt-up concrete walls with metal roofs.

Dartmouth has 2.

One at DC, and the other in Forest Hills.

[hfx_chris]

Actually the steel structure from the Home Depot building was reused for the new car dealership, which by the way is an impressive facility - owned by Oregans, it houses a Toyota, Hyundai and Nissan, plus a massive indoor used car lot.
At least the area won't be without a hardware/home improvement type store for long, the new Kent off of the circ between Portland and Pleasant is coming along quite well!

[SEPTATank]

Originally Posted by Canopus

Planners are also not the development gods that people seem to think they are and do not have the power to simply say exactly what happens where, when and how. Well, maybe in Singapore.

Very true, but zoning, tax incentives and other strategies can go a long way in shaping how developers behave. I'm not advocating forcing individuals to use their land in specific ways, but pressure can (and must) be applied.

The last time I was in Halifax I went to Atlantic News (jonesing for newsprint after a week on the South Shore) and it dawned on me how hideous the TUNS parking lot at Queen and Spring Garden is. That lot has so much potential. Judging from Google Earth, it looks like the have torn down the old Infirmary. What's being built there?

Someone 123: Is the Government owned lot that you refer to at Barrington and George? That lot is large enough to support a small tower (50' x 130'). Do the height restrictions apply that far north? Bishops Landing did a good job at eliminating some of the waterfront parking. My wife put up with two trips down there to check it out thanks to Bish(?) and the teppanyaki place.

[Canopus]

Originally Posted by Takeo

Talk about the "throw away society" eh? Bad enough that consumers feel the need to buy a new cell phone or digital camera or whatever every year... retailers build huge mega stores and throw them away after just a few years.

The difference is that people buy cell phones pretty much for the sake of vanity while retailers make choices based on consumer markets, investments and profit. You can bet they are not simply throwing away buildings for nothing.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by SEPTATank

That lot is large enough to support a small tower (50' x 130'). Do the height restrictions apply that far north?

That side of George street lies under a view plane. The other side of George Street does not (obviously... since the TD Tower is there). Max height there is probably 7-10 stories... I'm guessing. Don't have the documents in front of me.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Canopus

The difference is that people buy cell phones pretty much for the sake of vanity while retailers make choices based on consumer markets, investments and profit. You can bet they are not simply throwing away buildings for nothing.

Regardless of the reason, it seems pretty wasteful. Glad to hear that the dealership at least reused the bones. The day I went out thinking I was going to Home Depot... it had be stripped to the bare bones... and I was assuming the whole thing would come down.

[someone123]

Currently there is a tangled web of government plans for the downtown that, along with budget issues, are holding things up. The city wants to build a new library at SGR and Queen Street, but the province owns the land. The provincial government would like to build offices at Barrington and George but I believe the city owns that site so they plan on swapping. However, not much money has been allocated for a new library in this municipal budget.

HRM by Design plans show only a short building on the Barrington and George site, about the same height as the Dennis Building fronting onto Granville. I would really like to see this lot filled in but with the province being the developer it's very possible they'd ignore retail on Barrington and hurt the street even more.

The province bought the Eaton's building a few years ago and restored it, which is great, except they also put in office space in what are some of the nicest ground floor retail spaces in the city. I'm guessing this is something that only happens when the government's in charge and it's "free" to use space in suboptimal ways, with opportunity costs not entering into the equation.

As for the library, I also think the SGR and Queen site would be a huge waste if only a library were built on the corner. The corner is probably the best remaining retail site in the downtown area while the library could work just about anywhere.

These development issues should give you a good idea as to why the slow development of the downtown has so little to do with market forces. 2/3 of the land is controlled by slow governments after being bought up in the mid-90s and on the rest it takes years to build because of appeals.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Canopus

The difference is that people buy cell phones pretty much for the sake of vanity while retailers make choices based on consumer markets, investments and profit. You can bet they are not simply throwing away buildings for nothing.

Yes, but it is all the same problem, isn't it? The reasons consumers are pressured to buy new cellphones/products (vanity stroked by marketers, new features, poor durability, obsolesce) are fueled by the same reasons the producers/retailers release new products every few months to few weeks, and are continually driven to open new stores/channels (need of constant sales grow th, increasing profit, marketshare, investor attractiveness).

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by Takeo

... since the TD Tower is there...

Speaking of TD, does anybody know why the water-facing side of that tower has no windows?

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by hfx_chris

Speaking of TD, does anybody know why the water-facing side of that tower has no windows?

Ha ha. Good question. My guess is that it was the only way the building could be built. The tower is so skinny that you couldn't put elevators up the center or on the north / south walls. That only leaves the east / west walls. I can't imagine the building not having windows on the Barrington wall... so... no windows on the water side. The water side is a sheer wall / elevator shafts.

[spaustin]

It's my understanding that part of the reason that TD has such a blank wall is because they own the vacant lot behind them (place where that condemned heritage building was on Granville). Way back they contemplated a phase 2 for their tower that would have faced onto Granville, but of course it has never happened. This is coming from the distant recesses of my memory from the council session where they debated whether to approve the demolition of that old heritage building, so take it with a grain of salt.

[someone123]

That scenario makes perfect sense- they didn't put windows on the East side of the tower because it's mid-block and there is the issue of where to put elevators.

The TD building was somewhat compromised by the viewplanes I guess. We can mark it down as another great triumph of the heritage advocates. The heritage building in behind still came down, the blank streetwall does little for Barrington, and the tiny floors are hard to lease out, but 0.2% of the field of view from one spot on the Citadel was saved.

[Canopus]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Yes, but it is all the same problem, isn't it? The reasons consumers are pressured to buy new cellphones/products (vanity stroked by marketers, new features, poor durability, obsolesce) are fueled by the same reasons the producers/retailers release new products every few months to few weeks, and are continually driven to open new stores/channels (need of constant sales grow th, increasing profit, marketshare, investor attractiveness).

You know, in the case of cell phones we bring it on ourselves and I won't blame companies for catering to our little vanities. They want to make money, customers are happy and so on. If we want to change that then we are free to not buy things.

Personally, I have never owned a cell and don't see myself getting one anytime soon. Sure they look slick but I don't really want one for a number of reasons. We cannot blame sellers for "pressuring" people here. No one has a gun to their head and it's not an essential service so all that's to blame is their own desires.

And as for retailers opening new stores again, we are voting with our feet on this. Truth be told, people seem to want to go to massive warehouse stores to buy cheaper goods in what they perceive as "nice" environments. Not many want to shuffle through little stores where they cannot find everything they want while paying higher prices and so on.

The boutique idea is quaint but unrealistic for many items so let's not blame companies for giving us what we want.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Canopus

The boutique idea is quaint but unrealistic for many items so let's not blame companies for giving us what we want.

True. Some people will shop in boutiques and others won't, while in 1950 almost everybody did. This is why even having the same population near Barrington for example results in decline.

Here in Vancouver urban retail is very healthy but core populations have probably gone up by about 50% and the basic "big-box" style retailers have urban format stores. Unfortunately stores like these cannot be put in small heritage buildings.