Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia - Pros and Cons

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Again, I don't think there is really much of a "knock it all down cabal" here. The issue is that there is far less worth saving than the HT believes there is.

I think what I mean is the people who would cheer on the demolition of the Dennis (I've heard people say the rear is an eyesore; of course the rear is only visible because another building in front of it was demolished years ago), the Infants Home SMU demolished looks like "an Addams Family" house (on the CH comment board).

I had to look up the canteen building just now. It'd be nice if it could've been repurposed, since it has an interesting backstory, but I agree that it's really bot a big deal. The city is certainly no poorer for having lost it.

I agree as well that HT might be hurting the Dennis' chances. Like it or not (and I don't) the government seems committed to demolishing/dismantling it. Only a massive public outcry (which the Trust doesn't have nearly the, well, TRUST with the public to foster) could get them to look at other options.

I think the best hope now will be to work with/pressure the government to make good on promises of reconstruction, and ensure the work is well done.

[someone123]

I often wonder how much of the "preserve everything" attitude is related to the fact that, for most of the post-war period, most new buildings have been ugly and dysfunctional, and a lot of demolitions resulted in parking lots that were a net loss rather than an improvement to the city.

It's still not entirely clear but the Roy might turn out to be one of a relatively small number of net positive developments that involved demolishing heritage buildings. I could see the Bank of Canada being like this too; I liked the old building, but I'll probably like the new building a lot more. Barrington and George on the other hand was the opposite since nothing was built there. The Dennis Building could easily be a net loss too unless something decent with a similar amount of architectural interest and quality is built in that location.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I agree as well that HT might be hurting the Dennis' chances.

I don't know what sort of private lobbying the HT does, but the impression I get from their own statements and news coverage is that they tend to get into all-or-nothing turf wars rather than working with the developers and landowners to find the best solution for everybody. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that their senior members see themselves as veterans of glorious 70's-era battles over the waterfront highway that was never built.

Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine the HT changing anytime soon. It would probably be better for there to be a new heritage organization with more of a culture of public consultation and collaboration with the government and developers (who, like fenwick pointed out, are collectively responsible for an enormous amount of investment in heritage buildings). It may also be good to focus on Halifax explicitly rather than the whole province.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There is another thread for the Dennis Building elsewhere so I don't want to start a second one here. However I do think the HT position on the Dennis is actually hurting the chances of some part of it being saved. The HT wants the building saved as-is with whatever renovations are required to make it useful. No compromise otherwise.

That type of position is likely a non-starter given the significant code and commercial requirements for office space downtown. In this case the ceiling heights, elevator shafts, stairwells, air handlers, etc are all significantly deficient. The only real hope is retaining a shell of some sort and building essentially a new structure inside. But the HT would reject this as "facadism".

The thing is facadism is only possible with historic structures because the facade is either part of the structure of the building, or at the very least self supporting. You can't do this with a curtain wall, which is hung off structure.

Say what you will about facadism, but halifax and the armour group have done a pretty good job. There are many examples out there where a facade is orphaned and simply looks hung. Glad we don't do that here

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's still not entirely clear but the Roy might turn out to be one of a relatively small number of net positive developments that involved demolishing heritage buildings. I could see the Bank of Canada being like this too; I liked the old building, but I'll probably like the new building a lot more. Barrington and George on the other hand was the opposite since nothing was built there. The Dennis Building could easily be a net loss too unless something decent with a similar amount of architectural interest and quality is built in that location.

Agreed about the Roy, which is why even though in my ideal world it would've been renovated into lofts or startup office space or something, I'm not too upset about what's happening. The excellent renderings and Starfish's good work elsewhere on Barrington also give me a good feeling.

As for the Dennis, it was always superior to the Roy architecturally, and I'm pretty obstinate that whatever happens, the integrity of the building envelope has to be retained. Whether that involves restoration or dismantling and reconstructing is immaterial, but I think losing this buiing for good would be a really huge blow, architecturally, to the area. Even a great new construction wouldn't soften the blow much, for me at least: there are lots of sites for something great and new. This is the only Dennis, and the only building of its heft in town.

Anyway, me and some others met with Kousoulis this week, and he suggested he's pursuing an aggressive timeline, hoping to have a plan for the future of the site/reconstruction by fall.

we got no promises as far as what they were going to do, but the strong suggestion was IF the government decides they need the land for offices, they'll construct something, hopefully a reconstruction. (I would strongly hope it's not just sticking the facade around a large building; the architectural integrity would be ruined.)

Also, the bricks on the top three storeys won't be preserved--Kousoulis implied they were just bricks so could be replaced easily. Not sure about that (period appropriate masonry and all) but anyway, the granite and I believe the decorative bits will be preserved and stored in preparation for...something. Everyone at the meeting with me was pretty strong that it should be a rebuild of the structure as it previously appeared. Minister seemed very open to that, but again, no promises either way. It's all VERY up in the air for now. The minister seems to value the heritage/appearance of the building, but I think other factors, including cost, are at least at important. (There was also a real unwillingness to consider engaging he private sector, even in the event the government decides they don't need the site--didn't really understand why.)

One nice tho to hear was that they plan to restore Province House to its original appearance, with landscaped grounds, and are looking at removing the parking. There was a suggestion that if the Dennis is taken down, they'll replace that parking with an underground facility on the Dennis site before they rebuild.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

One nice tho to hear was that they plan to restore Province House to its original appearance, with landscaped grounds, and are looking at removing the parking. There was a suggestion that if the Dennis is taken down, they'll replace that parking with an underground facility on the Dennis site before they rebuild.

This idea has been around for a long time. Hopefully it'll happen soon.

These projects often suffer from tunnel vision. The Dennis Building preservation isn't really about finding 7 storeys of office space, and the costs shouldn't be viewed in terms of the budget of a hypothetical provincial office building. We are talking about one of the most culturally and historically significant parts of the province and an area that has a lot of potential value that is probably not being capitalized on right now since it's in comparatively rough shape. The Province House area should be a major, well-known national historic site tied in with the Grand Parade and Citadel Hill.

Most provinces have much larger legislatures with larger grounds that presumably require a lot more upkeep that they somehow manage to pay for. This applies not just to big provinces like Ontario but also provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The NS legislature also has disproportionate national significance; it's the oldest legislature building that exists in Canada (100 years older than most others) and more significantly it's the seat of the oldest parliamentary democracy in Canada.

It's hard to imagine the current state of the NS legislature area being considered acceptable in most other wealthy countries. It's also kind of hard to imagine similar sites being treated as footnotes south of the border. I guess part of the reason for that is that Canada's "creation" narrative revolves around 1867.

[q12]

Todays Editorial Cartoon in the Herald is priceless. An empty room with a sign that reads: "NOVA SCOTIA HERITAGE TRUST'S MUSEUM OF THINGS THAT IT SUPPORTS"

http://thechronicleherald.ca/editori...torial-cartoon

[OldDartmouthMark]

Not sure which thread to post this in, but this one seems appropriate enough.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters...ecords-of-past

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not sure which thread to post this in, but this one seems appropriate enough.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters...ecords-of-past

I commented on that earlier in the thread HERE.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I commented on that earlier in the thread HERE.

Sorry I missed it Keith.

All the best to you.

[portapetey]

Dunno if y'all caught this one:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters...-varied-voices

The Trusties seem to be trying to sustain an ongoing "reader's corner" campaign to counter the full page pro-development add.

I know the votes and comments on these things don't really "count" towards anything, but I still try to throw my voice in every time they come up.

[JET]

a well articulated letter.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by JET

a well articulated letter.

Perhaps, as long as you accept that "balance" in this context means "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers", i.e. no balance at all...

[JET]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Perhaps, as long as you accept that "balance" in this context means "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers", i.e. no balance at all...

Pete, not sure what you're on about there. The author did not refer to "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers", where is that quote from? definitely was not in the letter. He does not even use the terms Heritage Trust, or developers. Who are you quoting?

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by JET

Pete, not sure what you're on about there. The author did not refer to "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers", where is that quote from? definitely was not in the letter. He does not even use the terms Heritage Trust, or developers. Who are you quoting?

The article was ostensibly about "balance" but I think was clearly written in support of giving a greater voice to the heritage side of the argument (could be wrong I suppose; happened once), as if that voice will "balance" the presumably more powerful voice of the development side of the argument. The trust / save the view side is trying to portray the developers as powerful, wealthy bullies picking on the little guy (despite the fact that the developers clearly have very little power in reality) and is trying to say that there needs to be more balance against this Goliath.

My quip about "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers" was completely facetious, illustrating my opinion that the letter really isn't promoting balance at all, but just trying to support the Trust to the point of drawing out the developers.

Sorry if the sarcasm was not clear.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

The article was ostensibly about "balance" but I think was clearly written in support of giving a greater voice to the heritage side of the argument (could be wrong I suppose; happened once), as if that voice will "balance" the presumably more powerful voice of the development side of the argument. The trust / save the view side is trying to portray the developers as powerful, wealthy bullies picking on the little guy (despite the fact that the developers clearly have very little power in reality) and is trying to say that there needs to be more balance against this Goliath.

My quip about "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers" was completely facetious, illustrating my opinion that the letter really isn't promoting balance at all, but just trying to support the Trust to the point of drawing out the developers.

Sorry if the sarcasm was not clear.

I didn't take "balance" to mean "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers".

I took it to mean balance between the choices which are purely economically-based and those which are purely emotionally based, the classic battle between the head and the heart.

Obviously we make choices between the two every day in our personal lives, so it's not an unusual concept to most of us.

To bring it into the context of buildings/real estate, going to great expense to restore a heritage property vs knocking it down to build a glass 'scraper would definitely fall into this category, where simple economics will say that it makes more sense to build fresh while not taking into account that another piece of the city's soul will have been lost. Not David vs Goliath, but simple economic value vs social value - "numbers" vs "feelings".

A good example of this, in my opinion, is St. John's Anglican Church in Lunemburg. After being almost completely destroyed by a fire in 2001, $6.7 million was spent to completely rebuild the church, much of which came corporate and private donations IMHO. While it would have made more sense from a pure economical standpoint to rip it down and put up a cheaper modern building, the value of the rebuilt church to the community is immeasurable. An irreplaceable part of the town's heritage has been saved and allowed to live on for future generations to appreciate.

I find it sad that the poor performance of the HT of NS appears to have clouded the viewpoint of many to the point of being against all things heritage, where it really should be more about "balance".

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by portapetey

The article was ostensibly about "balance" but I think was clearly written in support of giving a greater voice to the heritage side of the argument (could be wrong I suppose; happened once), as if that voice will "balance" the presumably more powerful voice of the development side of the argument. The trust / save the view side is trying to portray the developers as powerful, wealthy bullies picking on the little guy (despite the fact that the developers clearly have very little power in reality) and is trying to say that there needs to be more balance against this Goliath.

My quip about "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers" was completely facetious, illustrating my opinion that the letter really isn't promoting balance at all, but just trying to support the Trust to the point of drawing out the developers.

Sorry if the sarcasm was not clear.

I agree with portapetey. This is obviously from someone associated with the Heritage Trust and is not unbiased. The Heritage Trust group keeps mentioning their success at stopping the Harbour Drive as the author did. I am sick and tired of hearing Heritage Trust members telling everyone how the convention centre will fail. Their aim was to stop tall buildings at the Nova Centre site and now they are all convention business experts.

[curnhalio]

Yes, they stopped Harbour Drive from being built... 45 YEARS AGO! Hey we were right about Harbour Drive being bad, ergo, we are right about everything we say is bad. Even the good things. Sure we need economic balance, gov't handouts can't be the only source of economic growth. However, the money has already been committed at this point, and what good will it do to leave a two block crater in the middle of downtown? I think the author expects us to see into the future. Investing in the fisheries was bad because we ran out of fish. Gov't money has never been the problem. Gov't managment on the other hand...

Harbour Drive was stopped around the same time the Jets won their only Super Bowl. How seriously would you take a Jets' fan basking in the glory of that victory today?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by portapetey

The trust / save the view side is trying to portray the developers as powerful, wealthy bullies picking on the little guy (despite the fact that the developers clearly have very little power in reality)

I'm not defending the Heritage Trust here, but I wouldn't say developers have "very little power." Most of the development-industry bigwigs who factor in these discussions (Ramia, Fares, etc) are, in fact, wealthy and locally powerful.

Developers clearly have a great deal of power and influence in this and most cities. That's not necessarily bad--but there is a weird idea floating around town that the development community are a bunch of hard-done-by Joe Schmoes just trying to invest in our city, but always being foiled by the Heritage Trust's schemes, which is just as simplistic as anything the HT trot out.

Lord, Halifax's civic discussion over development is weird as hell.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Perhaps, as long as you accept that "balance" in this context means "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers", i.e. no balance at all...

A very good column concerning planning by Maurice Lloyd in the Herald (posted 3 hours ago)
He tore HRM planners to shreds during the Monaco Investments appeal at the UARB.