Development Rumours

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

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.

Oh, I agree. Which makes the lingering "we're the worst on every front" attitudes all the more frustrating. As I have said many times here, I think Halifax is doing very well for a city its size, and I hope more and more people can recognize that. But you're right, the discourse is shifting, slowly but surely.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Compared to what other cities? Most?

See my post above.

Errr... on the previous page...

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's all.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Oh, I agree. Which makes the lingering "we're the worst on every front" attitudes all the more frustrating. As I have said many times here, I think Halifax is doing very well for a city its size, and I hope more and more people can recognize that. But you're right, the discourse is shifting, slowly but surely.

Right on.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

Oh, I agree. Which makes the lingering "we're the worst on every front" attitudes all the more frustrating. As I have said many times here, I think Halifax is doing very well for a city its size, and I hope more and more people can recognize that. But you're right, the discourse is shifting, slowly but surely.

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Right on.

If you have read many of my previous posts, you will realize that I have long been a 'cheerleader' for Halifax and typically resent when people put it down.

However, I also feel that when I continue to read and hear year-after-year that Halifax has 'weak heritage laws' and that developers can continue to tear down century+ old buildings at will, to build yet another cheap-looking, generic structure, I become a little disgusted. Then when I read about how heritage buildings in many other cities have effective protection, and have actually seen and been inside several of them in my travels, it really makes me start to wonder if I've been wrong to think that we have changed so much compared to the ways that I've experienced in living here for decades.

Then when I read comments like:

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.

...I realize that when posting on a public board that people really don't always understand where you're coming from and thus make assumptions about you when they have no idea who you are or what your perspective is.

So just to set it straight:
I was disgusted to see the potential for yet another heritage building to be torn down in an area that will likely become an extended part of the existing heritage district. While I realize that a pro-skyscraper site (a.k.a. "tear down the old, put up the new") may not be the best forum to air these sentiments, I really get a feeling that the majority of level-headed thinkers on this forum understand the importance of blending old and new architecture to make a vibrant and interesting city (which I believe describes Halifax). Thus I felt I was in good company to let you all know how I really feel about the situation.

I look forward to seeing Halifax be the best Halifax it can be, by forging into the future while retaining its character and thus maintain its links to the past. As one of the oldest cities in Canada, its heritage deserves to be preserved, both for a sense of lineage for residents who's families have lived here for generations (which describes my situation), and for the education and appreciation of our newest residents and visitors. I can only hope that those who have the power to change things will have the insight to deem it worthwhile to do so. Until then, as long as I see demolition notices still being posted on decent, 200-year-old buildings, I reserve my right to maintain my current opinions.

A good day to all.

[JET]

Interesting to observe: nice shiny tall building proposed (with pictures!) for Brenton Street, and everyone says 'yeh, we don't need those few heritage buildings in the way'; versus: demolition permit for heritage buildings on Barrington, but no pictures of proposed nice shiny tall building, and a lot of people say 'NO!, maintain heritage'. Yeah, I'm a bit confused, as always.

[Phalanx]

To be fair, there are more variables than that. Context, for one. The block for the Brenton street proposal and many of the surrounding buildings are more modern and/or urban to begin with. Second, there are far more example of that type of building (woodframed Victorians) across the street and in 'Schmidtville' district whereas the ones on Barrington are a little more unique.

All that said, while I like the proposal and would like to see it go forward, I'd also like to see if the older houses could be saved somehow (moved?) and maybe used to fill some gaps elsewhere.

And yes, lack of details for the Barrington proposal undoubtedly leads to people fearing the worst.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JET

Interesting to observe: nice shiny tall building proposed (with pictures!) for Brenton Street, and everyone says 'yeh, we don't need those few heritage buildings in the way'; versus: demolition permit for heritage buildings on Barrington, but no pictures of proposed nice shiny tall building, and a lot of people say 'NO!, maintain heritage'. Yeah, I'm a bit confused, as always.

The Barrington buildings are more significant architecturally, more unique, and also municipally registered heritage buildings (therefore ostensibly protected). They're also in a higher-visibility location. I don't care how shiny or tall a building Dexel might propose for this location, I'm against it.

I don't love losing the Brenton ones either, but it's a less significant loss, all things considered.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Interesting to observe: nice shiny tall building proposed (with pictures!) for Brenton Street, and everyone says 'yeh, we don't need those few heritage buildings in the way'; versus: demolition permit for heritage buildings on Barrington, but no pictures of proposed nice shiny tall building, and a lot of people say 'NO!, maintain heritage'. Yeah, I'm a bit confused, as always.

FWIW, I think the Brenton Street project will be a mess, and would prefer a different proposal that either incorporated the Victorians or found some other way to save them (i.e. move them), but have succumbed to the idea that it is going to happen whether I like it or not. Just like the Roy building (which was in a friggin heritage district fer chrissakes), and countless others that were knocked down or disemboweled.

The bldgs of which you speak are no more-or-less important than the ones on Barrington IMHO, and in fact were yet another case which led to my disenchantment of a few posts above, the posts which people have felt the need to chastise me for.

Do you know any history of the Schmidtville buildings about to be removed for the abomination illustrated in said thread?

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

FWIW, I think the Brenton Street project will be a mess, and would prefer a different proposal that either incorporated the Victorians or found some other way to save them (i.e. move them), but have succumbed to the idea that it is going to happen whether I like it or not. Just like the Roy building (which was in a friggin heritage district fer chrissakes), and countless others that were knocked down or disemboweled.

The bldgs of which you speak are no more-or-less important than the ones on Barrington IMHO, and in fact were yet another case which led to my disenchantment of a few posts above, the posts which people have felt the need to chastise me for.

Do you know any history of the Schmidtville buildings about to be removed for the abomination illustrated in said thread?

I expect that the soon to be razed historic houses on Brenton Street probably have no particular history asscociated with them, other than they are nice old houses, and the last few remaining on that block. I remember when there were other old houses on the other side of the street, it was nice then.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The Barrington buildings are more significant architecturally, more unique, and also municipally registered heritage buildings (therefore ostensibly protected). They're also in a higher-visibility location. I don't care how shiny or tall a building Dexel might propose for this location, I'm against it.

I don't love losing the Brenton ones either, but it's a less significant loss, all things considered.

And also, in Halifax (and perhaps NS in general) the value of heritage buildings tends to go: stone > brick > wood. With all else being equal, a wood building is just seen as less significant.

[Keith P.]

I was in one of those houses back in the '70s and it was rental student housing back then. I expect that is probably the case for most of them now. Likely not very nice inside. Though I do remember there used to be a boutique of something in part of one of them, though I don't know if it is one of the ones involved in this.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

I expect that the soon to be razed historic houses on Brenton Street probably have no particular history asscociated with them, other than they are nice old houses, and the last few remaining on that block. I remember when there were other old houses on the other side of the street, it was nice then.

Only one lone hold-out on that side of the street, on the corner. Don't know how they were able to hang onto it.

I just meant any insight as to what years they were built in, significant notes about architectural features, etc. Not that they had some kind of famous history or something.

It's interesting how it goes, we lose a little at a time, a couple here a couple there. Incrementally it doesn't seem like we are losing a whole lot until you look at an old photo or talk to somebody who remembers what it was like - then you come to the realization that you've lost a whole street.... often to something that is very boring and regular architecturally. Just as an example, look at the buildings on the other side of Brenton that have already displaced the victorians... are there any there that you would even look at twice?

That whole area has lost so much character to bland buildings in the past few decades, it would be hard to imagine for somebody that doesn't remember it.

Like, how many people remember this?



Source

A real historical/architectural loss, IMHO.

The CBC building will be as well, though I hesitate to say it because I know there will be no agreement here.

That's how it happens, little bits at a time. Then, someday, nobody will know the difference, and sadly probably won't care.

[Keith P.]

The gas station or the "elephant" MT&T logo?

We live in a city, not a museum.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The gas station or the "elephant" MT&T logo?

We live in a city, not a museum.

Gas station.

And yes, your statement is correct.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JET

Interesting to observe: nice shiny tall building proposed (with pictures!) for Brenton Street, and everyone says 'yeh, we don't need those few heritage buildings in the way'; versus: demolition permit for heritage buildings on Barrington, but no pictures of proposed nice shiny tall building, and a lot of people say 'NO!, maintain heritage'. Yeah, I'm a bit confused, as always.

It's worth pointing out that there isn't really the kind of trade-off between heritage buildings and development that a lot of these debates suppose, or that developers and NIMBYs often try to construct ("we can't have new buildings unless we get rid of these"/"we can't have a nice city with highrises all over the place"). There are lots of good development opportunities in and around downtown Halifax; there's lots of room to build condos on sites that don't have heritage buildings on them.

The one huge exception to that is all of the empty lots that are being held up by the various levels of government and public institutions. At this point, most of the empty lots are publicly-owned.

[IanWatson]

Halifax had a display set up at VivaCity to talk about the pending heritage conservation districts. I was talking to their planners and apparently the deal is that a conservation district gives Council the ability to give a hard "no" on requests for demolition. I.e. if the city denies your demo permit you don't get to wait three years and then tear it down anyways. Of course the tradeoff is that a conservation district also opens up access to lots of restoration funding for landowners.

So I think that brings some context to the Dexel application. Are they trying to get in under the wire? Are they using it as a bargaining chip for the conservation district negotiations?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Halifax had a display set up at VivaCity to talk about the pending heritage conservation districts. I was talking to their planners and apparently the deal is that a conservation district gives Council the ability to give a hard "no" on requests for demolition. I.e. if the city denies your demo permit you don't get to wait three years and then tear it down anyways. Of course the tradeoff is that a conservation district also opens up access to lots of restoration funding for landowners.

So I think that brings some context to the Dexel application. Are they trying to get in under the wire? Are they using it as a bargaining chip for the conservation district negotiations?

Interesting...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Halifax had a display set up at VivaCity to talk about the pending heritage conservation districts. I was talking to their planners and apparently the deal is that a conservation district gives Council the ability to give a hard "no" on requests for demolition. I.e. if the city denies your demo permit you don't get to wait three years and then tear it down anyways. Of course the tradeoff is that a conservation district also opens up access to lots of restoration funding for landowners.

Huh. The current Barrington district doesn't offer that--that's why it was so worrisome when Jeff Webber was talking about knocking down the Green Lantern. He really could have done it. But if this is a change that's being contemplated, that's good. It means the districts will be more than a sort of honourific designation with a piddly bit of restoration cash thrown to landowners.

It really does seem like Dexel are trying to sneak this through, since it came out of nowhere, and as of right now, there doesn't seem to be any proposal for the property (I believe that in order to tear down a heritage property, you need to have a redevelopment proposal at the ready as well, and there has to be a public hearing).

It should be easy to fight this. Simply suspend consideration of any new permit approvals or DAs in the proposed district until the district is done. And hurry the hell up on finishing it. They've been talking about it for literally years. Finish the studies and DO it, so it can achieve what it's intended to, rather than wait until the street's most vulnerable buildings are already gone. You know, planning.

Offhand, I walked by on the way to work today and someone had amended the demolition-notice sign with a little commentary:

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by spaustin

It seems like a thoughtful response to a very controversial issue. Mason suggests several possibilities in his post for how we could go forward. If I were to read anything into his words, they seem, to me, favour updating some of the interpretation, not renaming the park and tearing down the statue. Personally, I think that would be the best response. Have you read the plaques there lately? They say nothing about the uglier parts of the time period. Something a bit more comprehensive would go a long way.

+1. If you read this carefully it's pretty obvious he wasn't advocating changing the name of the park and removing all mention of Cornwallis (he pretty explicitly says he wouldn't support the second one and mentions the first as one of many possible changes). It's a bit disingenuous to claim otherwise. I'm also not convinced that if that were his actual position, it would be an unpopular one.

Times are changing man.