Development Rumours

[Nouvellecosse]

Is it safe to assume the Heritage Trust will be actively opposing this? Or do they only care about heritage being destroyed by highrises being built on empty lots beside old buildings rather than the destruction of old buildings themselves.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Halifax politicians are philistines.

There's certainly an element of this with HRM council.

I think a big part of it is that there's been very little meaningful public debate around the visceral idea of preserving the character of the city, the public-facing stuff that is noticeable to people in their day-to-day lives.

Up until recently there was no public discussion whatsoever about what makes for good public spaces and good "interfaces" around new buildings. Council just kind of approved whatever and people complained about tall buildings. The Heritage Trust is very caught up with the historical narratives of buildings rather than their architecture and impact on the public realm, which is sort of interesting but probably does not connect with a lot of people.

There's also not much of a sense that over time these buildings really become a public resource that should be invested in and managed publicly. I don't think that unique 200 year old buildings should be viewed solely as real estate commodities.

I wish there were more discussion about what aspects of the city's character are really important and how those can be reinforced both by preserving the old buildings and through good design in the new buildings. The generic grey boxes are almost as bad as the heritage demolitions. We probably wouldn't mind the loss of comparatively minor character buildings if we knew that the replacements would be equally interesting. A big part of the problem is that the replacements are often blander and much cheaper than what was there before. They are only better from a short term investment perspective.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Is it safe to assume the Heritage Trust will be actively opposing this? Or do they only care about heritage being destroyed by highrises being built on empty lots beside old buildings rather than the destruction of old buildings themselves.

No, I bet they will oppose this and there's probably a good chance the demolition permit will be denied. People should share this news and raise a stink so that demolishing these buildings becomes obviously politically risky. My worry is more that there isn't really an effective way to make sure that these buildings are well-preserved in the long run or that any development that happens around them is complementary.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

No, I bet they will oppose this and there's probably a good chance the demolition permit will be denied. People should share this news and raise a stink so that demolishing these buildings becomes obviously politically risky. My worry is more that there isn't really an effective way to make sure that these buildings are well-preserved in the long run or that any development that happens around them is complementary.

It's pretty clear the owners are trying to slip this through before he Barrington South HCD is implemented, making it even harder to get rid of them. (The buildings are both in pretty mediocre states of repair, which is a good indicator of an owner who may not be committed to keeping them around.)

I agree it's petty likely council will see through this and deny the demolitions, but there's still the fact that there's no provincial legislation that truly prevents demolition or imposes prohibitive penalties for it: Council says no, wait out your three-year cooling off period, knock it down anyway.

So suppose council says no. Then maybe Dexel decides to sell the property-- good outcome, probably, if they end in more sympathetic hands.

Or, maybe they just wait it out, maybe even evicting everyone and letting the buildings fall apart until they become a public-safety issue, as Jeff Webber tried with the Green Lantern before he got few up and sold it.

What we need is a stronger heritage law, more like Ontario's (I'm not familiar with other province's laws) that simply allows the city or province to permanently deny demolition, with a penalty of expropriation and a steep fine in the event the owner illegally tears them down or refuses to maintain them.

And that should happen soon enough to save these.

[counterfactual]

I actually blame, in large part, the the woeful and pathetic Heritage Trust.

Heritage preservation has been basically hijacked by ideological NIMBYs in this city, who basically opposed every single damn development anywhere, and also never attempted to actually work with any developers for a compromise.

As a result, Heritage Trust discredited itself, such that no one takes them seriously, and no developer bothers to try to work with them, as they are never willing to compromise. They take a confrontational, pro-litigation approach, so people lawyer up and never talk and work out issues.

Someone needs to make heritage preservation respectable in this city again. These Heritage Trust clowns have caused incredible damage.

A Heritage organization that actually promotes public knowledge about the value of heritage would be a start. Rather than just hiring lawyers to stop the Nova Centre or some North End development that has nothing to do with heritage litigation.

[essaysmith]

Am I doing something wrong or has Halifax started hiding development agreements? The old website used to list all agreements and you could just scroll through them, the new one just has a map that actively states at the top that "Not all active applications are listed."
So is the city now only showing the information they want people to know about and hiding the rest, or am I being paranoid?

[kph06]

Originally Posted by essaysmith

Am I doing something wrong or has Halifax started hiding development agreements? The old website used to list all agreements and you could just scroll through them, the new one just has a map that actively states at the top that "Not all active applications are listed."
So is the city now only showing the information they want people to know about and hiding the rest, or am I being paranoid?

That disclaimer has been there for as long as I can remember, the scrollable list still shows up below the map and is still updated. I assume the applications that make the page are the ones that are nearing a public consultation phase? HRM planning works with developments from early stages, it would be premature to make public as many details will change.

[Jonovision]

I saw these signs on my way to work the other day. It would be a real shame to lose these.
That being said though, it is also possible that the demolition permits are being sought for substantial alterations to the buildings. I know this happened with the building over at St. Pats as well. Everyone got all upset because they saw the application for demolition but it turns out it was necessary to complete major renovations to the building.
Hopefully we can learn more next week at VivaCity.

[Drybrain]

AllNS has a story about the Barrington heritage demotions--the Lawens paid $1.4 million for the building at 1333 just last year. I'd wager they intentionally bought it with an eye to assembling a development parcel, not caring a bit that these are heritage properties, and knowing full-well that council can't, in the long run, stop from demolishing them.

It's totally predatory, and they know they can get with it. It's disgusting.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

AllNS has a story about the Barrington heritage demotions--the Lawens paid $1.4 million for the building at 1333 just last year. I'd wager they intentionally bought it with an eye to assembling a development parcel, not caring a bit that these are heritage properties, and knowing full-well that council can't, in the long run, stop from demolishing them.

It's totally predatory, and they know they can get with it. It's disgusting.

Very interesting. And sad.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think a big part of it is that there's been very little meaningful public debate around the visceral idea of preserving the character of the city, the public-facing stuff that is noticeable to people in their day-to-day lives.

Up until recently there was no public discussion whatsoever about what makes for good public spaces and good "interfaces" around new buildings. Council just kind of approved whatever and people complained about tall buildings. The Heritage Trust is very caught up with the historical narratives of buildings rather than their architecture and impact on the public realm, which is sort of interesting but probably does not connect with a lot of people.

There's also not much of a sense that over time these buildings really become a public resource that should be invested in and managed publicly. I don't think that unique 200 year old buildings should be viewed solely as real estate commodities.

I wish there were more discussion about what aspects of the city's character are really important and how those can be reinforced both by preserving the old buildings and through good design in the new buildings. The generic grey boxes are almost as bad as the heritage demolitions. We probably wouldn't mind the loss of comparatively minor character buildings if we knew that the replacements would be equally interesting. A big part of the problem is that the replacements are often blander and much cheaper than what was there before. They are only better from a short term investment perspective.

That sums it up pretty well for me.

I realize that you can't save every building ever built, but there are some that should be saved, no questions asked. Their value to the city is so much greater than their simple real estate price, yet the real estate value is the only one that is considered. Buildings like these add so much character to the city and so many of us appreciate just seeing them as we pass by, in much the same way that we appreciate public staples like the Public Gardens or Province House, albeit on a smaller scale. They all combine together to create a city experience that is unique and interesting - they are part of what makes Halifax what it is. It's hard to believe that we still haven't seen fit to make regulations strong enough to protect this part of our built heritage.

Well, Nova Scotia has always been several years behind the times when compared to other cities. Hopefully 'we' will eventually wake up and smell the coffee.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Well, Nova Scotia has always been several years behind the times when compared to other cities. Hopefully 'we' will eventually wake up and smell the coffee.

Compared to what other cities? Most?

[ILoveHalifax]

I have lived in a few cities across Canada and certainly visited many more. I do not think Halifax needs to take a back seat to most Canadian cities. Halifax at least has some interesting old buildings of quality construction unlike many cities that never built anything of value. Halifax compares will with Vancouver in many aspects, favorably with Toronto (I've had associates compare it to Toronto only smaller) In many aspects it compares to Montreal. In most aspects I would place it well ahead of KW, Guelph, Windsor, London, St Kitts, the Peg, Regina, most cities in BC, and definitely all cities in the Maritimes. and the list could continue.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

I have lived in a few cities across Canada and certainly visited many more. I do not think Halifax needs to take a back seat to most Canadian cities. Halifax at least has some interesting old buildings of quality construction unlike many cities that never built anything of value. Halifax compares will with Vancouver in many aspects, favorably with Toronto (I've had associates compare it to Toronto only smaller) In many aspects it compares to Montreal. In most aspects I would place it well ahead of KW, Guelph, Windsor, London, St Kitts, the Peg, Regina, most cities in BC, and definitely all cities in the Maritimes. and the list could continue.

Sadly, we'll always be "behind the times" or a "backwater" in some people's minds, either because we're not protecting heritage enough or because we're not destroying it fast enough to build high rises, whatever fits their particular narrative. It's frustrating to hear the defeatist attitude thriving in so much commentary.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

In most aspects I would place it well ahead of KW, Guelph, Windsor, London, St Kitts, the Peg, Regina, most cities in BC, and definitely all cities in the Maritimes. and the list could continue.

Definitely. You could maybe make a case for Winnipeg, since it's a regional capital, but that's it. And Halifax is much less stricken with social strife and entrenched poverty than Winnipeg (and the weather is better).

In some cities, people have an inflated sense of their city's importance and overall desirability. A lot of Haligonians seem to have the opposite.

But heritage is one thing we really ARE falling behind on. We've knocked down a lot in the past 50-60 years. Some of it for good reason, but a lot of it needlessly, and we're still doing it to a far greater degree than anywhere else, as far as I can see.

The fact that so many members of our development community see these buildings as obstacles, rather than opportunities, is upsetting: conserving buildings like these Barrington ones would be a total no-brainer in Toronto or Vancouver or even, nowadays, in Calgary. Developers would be lining up to have a crack at restoring them. Demolitions still happen in those cities, but I can't recall the last time a property owner in any of them applied to knock down registered historic buildings on their respective main downtown streets, without so much as a nod to facadism. People wouldn't stand for it. Here, we're grateful for any development. (Even though we have bucketloads of it happening.)

Anyway, the real villains here are the city and province, who can't seem to be bothered to enact proper legislation around these issues, and who talk about things like conservation districts for years and years and years, even as buildings get bulldozed one by one.

The Barrington South HCD needs to get done now, with no grandfathered demolitions like the Roy, and it should include a clause (retroactive to the existing Barrington HCD) that no demolitions are permissible without city permission. If the city refuses permission, tough shit. And if any funny business happens (i.e., illegal demolition or arson), the property is expropriated and the owner fined the full market value.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The fact that so many members of our development community see these buildings as obstacles, rather than opportunities, is upsetting: conserving buildings like these Barrington ones would be a total no-brainer in Toronto or Vancouver or even, nowadays, in Calgary.

I am not so sure about this. There are good examples of heritage preservation in Toronto and Vancouver but there's also been lots of demolition in recent years for condos. Many of those big condo podiums along King St W and whatnot used to be three-storey Victorian storefronts and brick warehouses. Vancouver is a train wreck where just about anything can be torn down at any time, even for McMansions in historic neighbourhoods in the core of the city. It's actually pretty distressing for those who care about the city's heritage, although those people are few and far between.

None of this excuses Halifax's weak heritage regulations of course. The mistakes that other Canadian cities are currently making aren't relevant.

I do believe that when people in Halifax compare their city to other places they often do it in a warped way, and that there's a weird sense that the city and region much always be worse than other places. This one's common everywhere, but often I hear a sort of sunny tourist impression of one city compared with more of a day-to-day impression of someplace else. When you're visiting a place for the first time everything is new and interesting, and you're often oblivious to the problems that locals have to put up with, particularly if you're not used to dealing with those problems yourself.

Having lived in both Vancouver and Halifax for years (I've lived in Toronto too), I don't find that Vancouver is really that far ahead in many areas. One important exception is transit. Vancouver transit is much, much better, and the difference can't be explained away just by pointing to the size difference. A few years ago I also would have said that the new buildings here are better designed but that gap has narrowed a lot.

The climate is a bit better here too but you can't really do anything about that. The gap is also much smaller than what people in Halifax (and here in BC) think it is. For most of the year conditions are similar. This year I think the August-October weather in Vancouver is actually a bit of a downgrade compared to Halifax.

[ILoveHalifax]

I talk with a lot of people all over the continent and will often say 'I think Halifax is the nicest small city in North America' and almost everybody if they have ever been here will agree with me.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

I am not so sure about this. There are good examples of heritage preservation in Toronto and Vancouver but there's also been lots of demolition in recent years for condos. Many of those big condo podiums along King St W and whatnot used to be three-storey Victorian storefronts and brick warehouses. Vancouver is a train wreck where just about anything can be torn down at any time, even for McMansions in historic neighbourhoods in the core of the city. It's actually pretty distressing for those who care about the city's heritage, although those people are few and far between.

Definitely the intense development in the south downtown area in Toronto is running a bit roughshod on the old warehouse district, but at the very least buildings are usually facad'ed. (Which is pretty bad, in some case, but better than nothing, generally.)

The Victorian streetscapes along Queen and College and Bloor are pretty well protected, though. I can't think of a single instance in the six years I lived there of anything much getting torn down, with the exception of one illegal demolition on Queen East. Even the unremarkable little two-storey buildings tend to get maintained. It seems like a lot of developers want to work with this Toronto vernacular and be PART of it, rather than replace it. I really can't imagine a developer buying a building like the one at 1349 Barrington and seriously proposing to knock it down. And something like Danny Chedrawe's SGR plan would be beyond the pale. Locals would riot against it.

I definitely posted this last year, but this is the only incident I can recall of a developer proposing to tear down Victorian vernacular in Toronto in recent years. A shabby block of buildings that the city probably has a hundred similar examples of--but the city slapped an emergency heritage designation on it and told the developer to work within that restriction. And they did.

If Toronto can do that, surely we can as well, especially better buildings in a more significant location, in a proposed HCD.

Vancouver I don't know as well, though I do know about the rampant demolition of heritage houses in residential areas for McMansions (which is even worse because there's not even a density boost to the neighbourhood).

Originally Posted by someone123

Having lived in both Vancouver and Halifax for years (I've lived in Toronto too), I don't find that Vancouver is really that far ahead in many areas. One important exception is transit. Vancouver transit is much, much better, and the difference can't be explained away just by pointing to the size difference. A few years ago I also would have said that the new buildings here are better designed but that gap has narrowed a lot.

Transit in Vancouver seems to be ahead of everyone in Canada. I'm jealous.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

I have lived in a few cities across Canada and certainly visited many more. I do not think Halifax needs to take a back seat to most Canadian cities. Halifax at least has some interesting old buildings of quality construction unlike many cities that never built anything of value. Halifax compares will with Vancouver in many aspects, favorably with Toronto (I've had associates compare it to Toronto only smaller) In many aspects it compares to Montreal. In most aspects I would place it well ahead of KW, Guelph, Windsor, London, St Kitts, the Peg, Regina, most cities in BC, and definitely all cities in the Maritimes. and the list could continue.

Good post. Bolded part: Bang on.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Sadly, we'll always be "behind the times" or a "backwater" in some people's minds, either because we're not protecting heritage enough or because we're not destroying it fast enough to build high rises, whatever fits their particular narrative. It's frustrating to hear the defeatist attitude thriving in so much commentary.

Easy there, Stephen Harper.

I actually think lately, there's been a big turnaround in attitude, at least around Halifax. No Culture of Defeat. Rather, I think the new library, all the new developments, the great new businesses testing things downtown, Barrington's renaissance-in-the-making, etc, has people a lot more hopeful about the future.

I also think the downsized Halifax Council has been much better, with higher quality councillors (despite many yahoos still remaining, there are few of them now). And Mayor Savage miles better than Peter Kelly. Good ridding to that hapless/useless do-nothing idiot.

Every step remains a struggle, of course, with the NIMBY parade re-appearing to oppose pretty much every single new development on the peninsula, but they're losing and have been losing not only battles, but the war too.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Sadly, we'll always be "behind the times" or a "backwater" in some people's minds, either because we're not protecting heritage enough or because we're not destroying it fast enough to build high rises, whatever fits their particular narrative. It's frustrating to hear the defeatist attitude thriving in so much commentary.

What you are reading, my friend, is frustration in its purest form. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's move on.