Development Rumours

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The Morris House was a nice save, but it's literally the HTNS' only tangible accomplishment in years and years. And indeed, it was still covered in plastic sheeting the last time I saw it.

And let's be real, the current Doyle Block is worth a dozen Morris Houses

I hate to say it, but I think anything brick/stone is worth more than woodframe.

Doyle block is a shame if lost. Probably the biggest loss to downtown since the loss of the brick buildings near Cornwallis park.

[Hali87]

There seems to be some kind of site remediation (soil sampling, etc) going on at the empty lot across from the Queen St Sobeys (used to house Blockbuster and Little Caesars)

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Hali87

There seems to be some kind of site remediation (soil sampling, etc) going on at the empty lot across from the Queen St Sobeys (used to house Blockbuster and Little Caesars)

That building used to have a dry cleaning plant in it, so I imagine the soil could be very bad.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

There seems to be some kind of site remediation (soil sampling, etc) going on at the empty lot across from the Queen St Sobeys (used to house Blockbuster and Little Caesars)

I think this is the one that was recently purchased by the same developers who are doing Southport right now. There should be something interesting coming along for that site in the future.

The area around Queen and Fenwick has a lot of potential.

[kph06]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think this is the one that was recently purchased by the same developers who are doing Southport right now. There should be something interesting coming along for that site in the future.

The area around Queen and Fenwick has a lot of potential.

This lot is still owned by Sobey's. The lot the Southport developer was looking at is the Salvation Army, former Tim's site and parking lot.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Time for Mr. Mason to step up and show what he is made of.

Keith in his post is referring to the possible demolition of some heritage registered buildings on Barrington St that have demolition notices; in todays Herald there is an article where Waye is discussing that Louis Lawen is looking at using the buildings as part of the development. That would be a big save. Given the previous news about the Green Lantern also being saved, dare we hope that there is some work being done to save part of the Doyle Block? I'm usually not optimistic about saving our built heritage, but I'm impressed with these recent developments. Would you agree , Keith?

[kph06]

Originally Posted by JET

Keith in his post is referring to the possible demolition of some heritage registered buildings on Barrington St that have demolition notices; in todays Herald there is an article where Waye is discussing that Louis Lawen is looking at using the buildings as part of the development. That would be a big save. Given the previous news about the Green Lantern also being saved, dare we hope that there is some work being done to save part of the Doyle Block? I'm usually not optimistic about saving our built heritage, but I'm impressed with these recent developments. Would you agree , Keith?

The other interesting part of that article was that he bought 50% share in the Quinpool McDonald's property and is in the planning process for that site as well.

[IanWatson]

I always got the sense Dexel was using the demolition application as a bargaining chip. Seems like that may have been the case. Hopefully they pull off a design that is sensitive to those buildings and integrates well!

[JET]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I always got the sense Dexel was using the demolition application as a bargaining chip. Seems like that may have been the case. Hopefully they pull off a design that is sensitive to those buildings and integrates well!

and would there possibly be some bargaining for the Doyle Block, lots of win-win possibilities.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

and would there possibly be some bargaining for the Doyle Block, lots of win-win possibilities.

I like your optimism.

[Drybrain]

The difference is that the Green Lantern was in a heritage district, and the Dexel-owned buildings on Barrington are registered heritage. The Doyle Block has neither of those protections, meagee though they may be. Westwood is also ready to demolish; I wouldn't be surprised to see the site close off for demolition any day now.

Regarding the Dexel buildings on Spring Garden Road: Does anyone else think Dexel's behaviour (using a threat of demolition to kickstart the discussion on the development) is pretty shitty?

It looks to me like some kind of brinksmanship: Instead of starting the process by proposing a reasonable redevelopment that preserves the heritage buildings, they apply to demolish outright as a scare tactic. I bet the city will be a lot more likely to entertain some hacky facadism now, simply because it isn't a full demolition. It's an extremely shitty way to behave and I'm disappointed that Herald story is so sympathetic to Lawen.

The story is also packed with statements like, "Although Halifax will never be like New York and Toronto, where highrises shorter than 50 storeys are rare..." (the vast majority of tall buildings constructed in Toronto come in well under 50 storeys).

Taylor's reporting always gives off a vibe like he's chumming it up with the business community and desperate not to endanger his access to new developments. That kind of sycophantic coverage is AllNovaScotia's territory now, though, so it'd be nice if the Herald could hire a real reporter to write about development issues.

Sorry, am I complaining a bit?

[kph06]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Regarding the Dexel buildings on Spring Garden Road: Does anyone else think Dexel's behaviour (using a threat of demolition to kickstart the discussion on the development) is pretty shitty?

I never took it at total face value. I think it was mentioned the process for a demo permit on a heritage building is now 3 years? From a business standpoint why not apply for it now if it will take that long, at least if other options are exhausted (if that's the intent) you don't have to start the three year process then. They are starting early on long lead time approvals so they have options. Just because you have a permit doesn't mean you have to take the building down.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by kph06

I never took it at total face value. I think it was mentioned the process for a demo permit on a heritage building is now 3 years? From a business standpoint why not apply for it now if it will take that long, at least if other options are exhausted (if that's the intent) you don't have to start the three year process then. They are starting early on long lead time approvals so they have options. Just because you have a permit doesn't mean you have to take the building down.

Sure, but Dexel nonetheless used a threat of demolition, against the clearly stated standards (i.e., the heritage designation) of the city they work in, in order to put themselves in a stronger bargaining position.

It makes sense, and is well within their legal rights, but it's still a scummy way to conduct business and to treat the city.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Does anyone else think Dexel's behaviour (using a threat of demolition to kickstart the discussion on the development) is pretty shitty?

It looks to me like some kind of brinksmanship: Instead of starting the process by proposing a reasonable redevelopment that preserves the heritage buildings, they apply to demolish outright as a scare tactic. I bet the city will be a lot more likely to entertain some hacky facadism now, simply because it isn't a full demolition. It's an extremely shitty way to behave and I'm disappointed that Herald story is so sympathetic to Lawen.

I agree, and the whole narrative smacks of the old: "we better let the developers do what they want or they'll take their ball and go home" song and dance that we've been hearing for decades.

My prediction: The building with the horrific 1960's brick façade will be totally razed, and the other structure will have some sort of faux semi-facadism attempt. I hope I'm wrong.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree, and the whole narrative smacks of the old: "we better let the developers do what they want or they'll take their ball and go home" song and dance that we've been hearing for decades.

My prediction: The building with the horrific 1960's brick façade will be totally razed, and the other structure will have some sort of faux semi-facadism attempt. I hope I'm wrong.

Now that the city is experiencing prolonged growth with a variety of developers a stronger heritage stance can easily be taken. In past, with very few developments the city was pressured to allow unattractive developments and allow demolition of built heritage to get developers to proceed. The wrecking ball is on the other foot now but the city doesn't see it yet. Structures like the BMO building on Spring Garden and 1351 Barrington should be off limits to demolition. The city needs to recognize its new bargaining power and use it to perserve our BUILT HERITAGE STOCK NOW!

[IanWatson]

In many ways the Barrington South Conservation District was a step in that direction. Outside of conservation districts a developer can apply to demolish a heritage structure and if Council says, "no", they just have to wait three years and then they can demolish it anyways.

Within a conservation district Council actually has the power to give a hard no.

The very sad thing is that all of this is about to (or has already?) change, and it's not really on anyone's radar. Someone has managed to convince this "business-at-all-costs" provincial government to amend the Heritage Property Act to remove the ability of Council to give a hard no to demolition in conservation districts. THIS is the kind of crap the HT should be fighting against.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

The very sad thing is that all of this is about to (or has already?) change, and it's not really on anyone's radar. Someone has managed to convince this "business-at-all-costs" provincial government to amend the Heritage Property Act to remove the ability of Council to give a hard no to demolition in conservation districts. THIS is the kind of crap the HT should be fighting against.

I haven't heard about this - is there an online source to read up on it?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I haven't heard about this - is there an online source to read up on it?

The debate on it is found here.

And the text of the revised bill is here.

It does indeed remove that protection, making heritage conservation districts almost completely meaningless, and making Nova Scotia's heritage protection if not the worst in the country, close to it.

It also adds "financial hardship" as a reason to de-register a building. The rationale is that financial concerns about upkeep and increased taxes prevent people from registering buildings, but the way the text is written, it's extremely vague.

So if some little old widow owns a heritage house and can't manage the taxes, she could deregister it. Fair enough. Or in the example given by the province, imagine a cash-strapped church can't maintain its heritage property. (St. Patrick's church on Brunswick Street was in this exact situation, and earlier this year they were looking to de-register their rectory, so that a developer could buy it and convert it into condos. They planned to use money from the sale to restore the church itself. This seemed like a pretty smart win-win solution, a case where de-registering a heritage property was actually the best thing to do from a heritage perspective. Actually, does anyone know what happened with this?)

But there's no definition of "hardship" in the bill, so I can easily see a Louis Lawen or a Jeff Webber or whoever claiming "hardship" because a heritage property makes their development less profitable--and I can see them getting their way with such a claim.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

So if some little old widow owns a heritage house and can't manage the taxes, she could deregister it. Fair enough.

This is the go-to example for these sorts of rules but it doesn't make a lot of sense. What would deregistration buy? The little old widow who is house-bound and for some reason can't just sell her expensive Schmidtville property (or raise money against it in an environment where lending institutions are throwing money at anybody in such a situation) needs to tack on a third storey? Convert to condos? Just let the building rot? Why does it make sense to promote any of those things? And if this is an obscure corner case for heritage preservation why aren't we just funding the upkeep in those rare instances?

"Little old lady" is one of those victim groups you can just bring up to stop people from asking questions. There are some seniors who need help from the government, but many of the rules that are supposedly for them primarily benefit other people.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Sure, but Dexel nonetheless used a threat of demolition, against the clearly stated standards (i.e., the heritage designation) of the city they work in, in order to put themselves in a stronger bargaining position.

It makes sense, and is well within their legal rights, but it's still a scummy way to conduct business and to treat the city.

In fairness, if I'm a developer and in the past I've experienced hostile, aggressive, and litigious opposition from heritage groups, I'm going to take steps-- like taking out a demolition writ-- to strengthen my position, in any bargaining/negotiations, even if I have no plan to actually use it.

In game theory, you never take your strongest move off the the table, if your aim is a compromise somewhere down the middle. If Halifax had a history of negotiation and compromise and cooperation from Heritage groups, it may be a different story. But mostly, these issues have been polarized and decided through costly litigation.