Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia - Pros and Cons

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Not spin, nothing tricksy, it is a statement of fact.
An accurate description of a sequence of events.
Do you have another description of what happened ?
Try building a home and having a foundation a few inches outside the description in the survey approved by HRM planning. You will not be allowed to occupy the property, you will have to apply for a variance and go through a public hearing and success is not guaranteed. You may be ordered to demolish the building.
Time and money, lives in limbo all for the sake of a few inches. It happens.

As stated by Joe Ramia, which you are ignoring, it was not necessary for Rank Inc. to own Grafton Street. Grafton Steet could have continued to be owned by the municipality with easements allowing Rank Inc. to build the Nova Centre. Not owning Grafton wouldn't prevent the Nova Centre from being built, it would have just prevented it from being condominized. This was clearly explained at the April 29th, 2014 HRM Council meeting.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Not spin, nothing tricksy, it is a statement of fact.
An accurate description of a sequence of events.
Do you have another description of what happened ?
Try building a home and having a foundation a few inches outside the description in the survey approved by HRM planning. You will not be allowed to occupy the property, you will have to apply for a variance and go through a public hearing and success is not guaranteed. You may be ordered to demolish the building.
Time and money, lives in limbo all for the sake of a few inches. It happens.

It is spin. Everything is spin. Calling something a "fact" doesn't make it one. Your "sequence of events" is seriously distorted.

You are gassing off that a street temporarily closed, torn up, and under construction vanishes from existence.

No, it's a street under construction. Happens all over the place.

I agree it is a shame that the street will be turned into a private arcade once the Centre is completed. Then, OK, you can say it's not a street, I guess (but I understand it will still have public access at least for pedestrians.)

The variance was applied for, the hearings happened, etc., etc. I don''t know why you lot are pretending none of that happened. The developer isn't just doing whatever it wants; the government is approving this stuff in response to applications from the developer. There is a process; there are delays.

I'm sorry you feel the developer is getting preferential treatment because their applications appear to be expedited relative to homeowners' applications. But, well, since the government has a big investment in this, I guess they want it to get done, right?

Not sure why that's so hard for your side to grasp.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

They stated their case. They weren't denied that.

But, clearly, they failed to convince the majority with their case. That's on them.

And this is where democracy will play out. However it seems that some would prefer that they have no voice at all.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

This states part of the problem. The problem is the irrational desire to save sick, non-functional buildings "as is" by the Heritage Trust and others. Animals don't live for ever and some people stuff them once they are gone (taxidermy seems rather repulsive to me, but some people have a desire to preserve animals even once their life is gone - that is a good analogy OldDartmouthMark for the Dennis Building). While people accept that animals don't live for ever, some people think that buildings such as the Dennis Building can survive indefinitely.

It is most likely that the only salvageable part of the Dennis Building is the facade, so why not present a practical idea of rebuilding it as a modern building on the inside while saving the facade? Alternatively, it could sit vacant as a museum piece surrounded by a barricade to allow people to see it but not occupy it.

On the surface, preserving history in general seems quite irrational. Why save something that is old and less useful than a new item? However most humans have some desire to learn where we came from, to have a link to the past that will allow them to understand how we got to where we are today.

It appears that you twisted the intended meaning of my quote a little to reinforce your opinion about the Dennis Bldg. Touche.

The taxidermy analogy is just a personal opinion of mine and the meaning that I was trying to convey was that facadism is the equivalent of taking the innards out of a deceased animal so the only thing that remains is its appearance when it was alive - no heart or soul remains. Thus, removing all of the original construction aspects of an old building similarly removes its character - the historical value of how buildings were built back in those times has been lost.

Your application of it to the Dennis Bldg comes down to whether it is "dead" or not. Luckily, when it comes to inanimate objects - unlike living beings - they are never really "dead". They all can be brought back to their former state - it just depends on how much money you want to spend, which is usually directly related to its perceived value. In the case of Dresden Frauenkirche (link below), there was little left of it after allied bombing in WWII, but its intrinsic value was perceived to be worth the cost of rebuild.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Frauenkirche

The Dennis Bldg. is an interesting case as it's government owned, and governments typically like to stay popular with the people so they will be looked upon favourably come election time. As has been mentioned, the actual level of damage to the Dennis seems to be unclear, and the government doesn't seem to be all too anxious to make it clear. So what are their intentions in this case? Cut costs so they can look good financially for the next election? Of course, it is much cheaper to rip it down than to preserve/refurbish it.

Other options for the building have already been covered in various threads, including handing it over to private ownership, so there is no need to rehash what has already been posted. However, to make the assumption that the building's historical value isn't worth the cost of refurbishment is only a matter of opinion at this point. In my opinion it is worth being refurbished as it is a significant part of Halifax's downtown. Your opinion is that it's not. Let's see what happens...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The taxidermy analogy is just a personal opinion of mine and the meaning that I was trying to convey was that facadism is the equivalent of taking the innards out of a deceased animal so the only thing that remains is its appearance when it was alive - no heart or soul remains. Thus, removing all of the original construction aspects of an old building similarly removes its character - the historical value of how buildings were built back in those times has been lost.

I think there's good facadism and bad facadism. In all depends on how the proportions, massing, etc. of the original building is treated. Good facadism generally involves retaining the spatial integrity of the original structure, as seen from the street, and ensuring the facade is not used merely as kitschy architectural adornment (i.e., continues to utilize entranceways, etc.).

I have no problem with rebuilding a structure from the inside out, especially if there's nothing worth retaining inside. (If you've got something like the Merril Lynch building, I would definitely not support facadism, because of the extraordinary interior. In the case of the Dennis, there's apparently nothing of any value inside, so, meh—whatever.)

So there's good and bad.

Granville Mall's west side is good (though it was better when it was used as individual storefronts, not as a gigantic window for that awful Goodlife.)

Founder Square is total crap.

To get out of the Hali headspace and see some fresh examples, some ones I'm familiar with from Toronto:

Good:



All of these are connected to the Brookfield Place mall (you can see the top of the modern structure poking up above the corner building) but the building doesn't get taller until the middle of the block. I walked past these facades for about two years before I made the connection between them and the mall—that's how well they're integrated into the building. And the original storefronts are all still used as individual entranceways. Compare that to Founders Square, where the whole thing is just a a dead appendage to the office tower, with no street interaction. Taxidermy isn't a bad analogy.

Bad:



This is Founder Square-esque, by contrast. (Though at least the main entrance is still through the old facade.)

In any case, DartmouthMark, I agree with you that the Dennis is worth spending money on. Cost is merely one factor here, not the only or even the deciding factor. Great cities spend money on "frills" like aesthetics and beauty.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

On the surface, preserving history in general seems quite irrational. Why save something that is old and less useful than a new item? However most humans have some desire to learn where we came from, to have a link to the past that will allow them to understand how we got to where we are today.

It appears that you twisted the intended meaning of my quote a little to reinforce your opinion about the Dennis Bldg. Touche.

The taxidermy analogy is just a personal opinion of mine and the meaning that I was trying to convey was that facadism is the equivalent of taking the innards out of a deceased animal so the only thing that remains is its appearance when it was alive - no heart or soul remains. Thus, removing all of the original construction aspects of an old building similarly removes its character - the historical value of how buildings were built back in those times has been lost.

Your application of it to the Dennis Bldg comes down to whether it is "dead" or not. Luckily, when it comes to inanimate objects - unlike living beings - they are never really "dead". They all can be brought back to their former state - it just depends on how much money you want to spend, which is usually directly related to its perceived value. In the case of Dresden Frauenkirche (link below), there was little left of it after allied bombing in WWII, but its intrinsic value was perceived to be worth the cost of rebuild.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Frauenkirche

The Dennis Bldg. is an interesting case as it's government owned, and governments typically like to stay popular with the people so they will be looked upon favourably come election time. As has been mentioned, the actual level of damage to the Dennis seems to be unclear, and the government doesn't seem to be all too anxious to make it clear. So what are their intentions in this case? Cut costs so they can look good financially for the next election? Of course, it is much cheaper to rip it down than to preserve/refurbish it.

Other options for the building have already been covered in various threads, including handing it over to private ownership, so there is no need to rehash what has already been posted. However, to make the assumption that the building's historical value isn't worth the cost of refurbishment is only a matter of opinion at this point. In my opinion it is worth being refurbished as it is a significant part of Halifax's downtown. Your opinion is that it's not. Let's see what happens...

You have a problem OldDartmouthMark. Instead of reading a post and comprehending it as written you instead like to decide what a person is thinking. Well, my thoughts are not what you stated above and it is not what I wrote.

My post was that the shell might very well be the only thing worth preserving. You gave an example of a bombed out building that has been restored, which is likely 80 - 90% new construction with new floors and all new interior, so how does this go along with the extremist "save it as it is" viewpoint.

You have proved my point; that some heritage extremists such as yourself have a hard time with reaching practical solutions for heritage buildings. You can't seem to understand that wood rots, stone crumbs, mold forms ... Redoing the interior really might be the best solution whether that seems acceptable to you or not.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

You have a problem OldDartmouthMark. Instead of reading a post and comprehending it as written you instead like to decide what a person is thinking. Well, my thoughts are not what you stated above and it is not what I wrote.

My post was that the shell might very well be the only thing worth preserving. You gave an example of a bombed out building that has been restored, which is likely 80 - 90% new construction with new floors and all new interior, so how does this go along with the extremist "save it as it is" viewpoint.

You have proved my point; that some heritage extremists such as yourself have a hard time with reaching practical solutions for heritage buildings. You can't seem to understand that wood rots, stone crumbs, mold forms ... Redoing the interior really might be the best solution whether that seems acceptable to you or not.

Whoa... holy misinterpretation Batman!

Heritage extremist? You pretend to know me?

I don't know the condition of the interior of the Dennis Bldg. Other people here have alluded that the opinion of one assessor could likely be disproven by another assessor. That's all I was trying to mention. The Dresden church was an extreme case, but an illustration on how far gone a building can be and still be brought back. That's all.

OK, whatever, you win. Enough. Have a nice day.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think there's good facadism and bad facadism. In all depends on how the proportions, massing, etc. of the original building is treated. Good facadism generally involves retaining the spatial integrity of the original structure, as seen from the street, and ensuring the facade is not used merely as kitschy architectural adornment (i.e., continues to utilize entranceways, etc.).

I have no problem with rebuilding a structure from the inside out, especially if there's nothing worth retaining inside. (If you've got something like the Merril Lynch building, I would definitely not support facadism, because of the extraordinary interior. In the case of the Dennis, there's apparently nothing of any value inside, so, meh—whatever.)

To get out of the Hali headspace and see some fresh examples, some ones I'm familiar with from Toronto:

Good:

All of these are connected to the Brookfield Place mall (you can see the top of the modern structure poking up above the corner building) but the building doesn't get taller until the middle of the block. I walked past these facades for about two years before I made the connection between them and the mall—that's how well they're integrated into the building. And the original storefronts are all still used as individual entranceways. Compare that to Founders Square, where the whole thing is just a a dead appendage to the office tower, with no street interaction. Taxidermy isn't a bad analogy.

Bad:

This is Founder Square-esque, by contrast. (Though at least the main entrance is still through the old facade.)

In any case, DartmouthMark, I agree with you that the Dennis is worth spending money on. Cost is merely one factor here, not the only or even the deciding factor. Great cities spend money on "frills" like aesthetics and beauty.

Yes, this. Great post.

New and old can co exist if done well.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

And this is where democracy will play out. However it seems that some would prefer that they have no voice at all.

See this is exactly this kind of straw man argument that I'm talking about. Spin, spin, spin.

Nobody wants the heritage side to have no voice at all. Many people want the heritage side to have a voice, and to use it constructively to protect and restore heritage buildings.

People are however very frustrated with the heritage side using its voice only for obstruction, rarely for positive action on real heritage structures (until it's too late, generally). People are tired of the heritage side arguing about things that have already happened. People are distrustful of the heritage side's spinning, propagandising, straw men, revisionism, and general falsity. For gods' sakes, the heritage side can't even create a simple survey of people's opinions of the view from the Hill without embedding lies right into the questions. It's laughable.

People just want the heritage side to use their very loud voices rationally and helpfully to actually do what the heritage side keeps pretending it's trying to do - to promote heritage.

It's simple.

Go back to the mandate. Be rational. Stop presenting everything in a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, false light. Relearn to Tell. The. Truth.

Drop the very, very, did I say VERY?, arrogant politicking that contributes nothing to the practical considerations being made around development. Stop being so condescending on issues that they obviously don't actually understand very well. Stop denying when they're wrong. Acknowlege mistakes and move on.

Engage with people instead of howling and shaking fists at the sky. Get back to heritage work and stop trying to play hero dismantling the tower of Babel.

That's what people want. Not to take away anyone's voice. But to hear a credible voice they can trust. They don't have that right now.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

On the surface, preserving history in general seems quite irrational. Why save something that is old and less useful than a new item? However most humans have some desire to learn where we came from, to have a link to the past that will allow them to understand how we got to where we are today.

It appears that you twisted the intended meaning of my quote a little to reinforce your opinion about the Dennis Bldg. Touche.

The taxidermy analogy is just a personal opinion of mine and the meaning that I was trying to convey was that facadism is the equivalent of taking the innards out of a deceased animal so the only thing that remains is its appearance when it was alive - no heart or soul remains. Thus, removing all of the original construction aspects of an old building similarly removes its character - the historical value of how buildings were built back in those times has been lost.

Your application of it to the Dennis Bldg comes down to whether it is "dead" or not. Luckily, when it comes to inanimate objects - unlike living beings - they are never really "dead". They all can be brought back to their former state - it just depends on how much money you want to spend, which is usually directly related to its perceived value. In the case of Dresden Frauenkirche (link below), there was little left of it after allied bombing in WWII, but its intrinsic value was perceived to be worth the cost of rebuild.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Frauenkirche

The Dennis Bldg. is an interesting case as it's government owned, and governments typically like to stay popular with the people so they will be looked upon favourably come election time. As has been mentioned, the actual level of damage to the Dennis seems to be unclear, and the government doesn't seem to be all too anxious to make it clear. So what are their intentions in this case? Cut costs so they can look good financially for the next election? Of course, it is much cheaper to rip it down than to preserve/refurbish it.

Other options for the building have already been covered in various threads, including handing it over to private ownership, so there is no need to rehash what has already been posted. However, to make the assumption that the building's historical value isn't worth the cost of refurbishment is only a matter of opinion at this point. In my opinion it is worth being refurbished as it is a significant part of Halifax's downtown. Your opinion is that it's not. Let's see what happens...

Lest my previous post seem too harsh, I should add, I actually totally agree with you on the Dennis building. I'm not buying the idea that it can't be saved. It would obviously need to be gutted and largely reconstructed on the interior, but I think, or at least hope, that more than just the facade can be saved.

[someone123]

Hearing from a single group is only democratic to the point where they get airtime proportional to their size and closeness to the issue at hand. Beyond that point it becomes undemocratic to let one group hijack the public debate or approval process and drown out the voices of everybody else.

When it comes to the Nova Centre, there isn't just STV/HT, there are hundreds (thousands?) of other people who participated in the public consultations, councillors and MLAs who represent hundreds of thousands of constituents and voted on this a bunch of times, and then the various businesses developing the project. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the STV/HT crowd have already gotten sufficient airtime when it comes to the Nova Centre, particularly given the fact that this supposed heritage issue does not directly involve any heritage buildings.

The Dennis Building meanwhile is a separate story.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

See this is exactly this kind of straw man argument that I'm talking about. Spin, spin, spin.

Nobody wants the heritage side to have no voice at all. Many people want the heritage side to have a voice, and to use it constructively to protect and restore heritage buildings.

Not trying to spin at all. Was referring to some members of this forum that whenever any heritage building is discussed, there is an auto-answer "tear it down" message.

And, your second paragraph basically sums up my view on the matter.

The rest of your post would be directed at an individual blindly following and approving of all actions of the HT. That does not describe me.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not trying to spin at all. Was referring to some members of this forum that whenever any heritage building is discussed, there is an auto-answer "tear it down" message.

And, your second paragraph basically sums up my view on the matter.

The rest of your post would be directed at an individual blindly following and approving of all actions of the HT. That does not describe me.

You talking about me? Bring on the dozers.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

I'm not buying the idea that it can't be saved. It would obviously need to be gutted and largely reconstructed on the interior, but I think, or at least hope, that more than just the facade can be saved.

Yep. That's what I'm talking about!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

You talking about me? Bring on the dozers.

I wasn't singling you out, but now that you mention it...

[JET]

interesting that anyone who says something positive about saving heritage buildings is pegged as a heritage extremist in bed with the Heritage Trust. The simplistic black and white characterizations are hilarious.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Hearing from a single group is only democratic to the point where they get airtime proportional to their size and closeness to the issue at hand. Beyond that point it becomes undemocratic to let one group hijack the public debate or approval process and drown out the voices of everybody else.

When it comes to the Nova Centre, there isn't just STV/HT, there are hundreds (thousands?) of other people who participated in the public consultations, councillors and MLAs who represent hundreds of thousands of constituents and voted on this a bunch of times, and then the various businesses developing the project. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the STV/HT crowd have already gotten sufficient airtime when it comes to the Nova Centre, particularly given the fact that this supposed heritage issue does not directly involve any heritage buildings.

The Dennis Building meanwhile is a separate story.

Agreed. Once the Midtown was torn down the heritage aspect was over for me.

The Nova Centre is being built now - it will be beautiful and an asset to the downtown, IMHO. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

interesting that anyone who says something positive about saving heritage buildings is pegged as a heritage extremist in bed with the Heritage Trust. The simplistic black and white characterizations are hilarious.

This is a point of frustration for me.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by someone123

Hearing from a single group is only democratic to the point where they get airtime proportional to their size and closeness to the issue at hand. Beyond that point it becomes undemocratic to let one group hijack the public debate or approval process and drown out the voices of everybody else.

When it comes to the Nova Centre, there isn't just STV/HT, there are hundreds (thousands?) of other people who participated in the public consultations, councillors and MLAs who represent hundreds of thousands of constituents and voted on this a bunch of times, and then the various businesses developing the project. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the STV/HT crowd have already gotten sufficient airtime when it comes to the Nova Centre, particularly given the fact that this supposed heritage issue does not directly involve any heritage buildings.

The Dennis Building meanwhile is a separate story.

Great response.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think there's good facadism and bad facadism. In all depends on how the proportions, massing, etc. of the original building is treated. Good facadism generally involves retaining the spatial integrity of the original structure, as seen from the street, and ensuring the facade is not used merely as kitschy architectural adornment (i.e., continues to utilize entranceways, etc.).

I have no problem with rebuilding a structure from the inside out, especially if there's nothing worth retaining inside. (If you've got something like the Merril Lynch building, I would definitely not support facadism, because of the extraordinary interior. In the case of the Dennis, there's apparently nothing of any value inside, so, meh—whatever.)

So there's good and bad.

Granville Mall's west side is good (though it was better when it was used as individual storefronts, not as a gigantic window for that awful Goodlife.)

Founder Square is total crap.

To get out of the Hali headspace and see some fresh examples, some ones I'm familiar with from Toronto:

Good:



All of these are connected to the Brookfield Place mall (you can see the top of the modern structure poking up above the corner building) but the building doesn't get taller until the middle of the block. I walked past these facades for about two years before I made the connection between them and the mall—that's how well they're integrated into the building. And the original storefronts are all still used as individual entranceways. Compare that to Founders Square, where the whole thing is just a a dead appendage to the office tower, with no street interaction. Taxidermy isn't a bad analogy.

Bad:



This is Founder Square-esque, by contrast. (Though at least the main entrance is still through the old facade.)

In any case, DartmouthMark, I agree with you that the Dennis is worth spending money on. Cost is merely one factor here, not the only or even the deciding factor. Great cities spend money on "frills" like aesthetics and beauty.

Excellent post, and I agree with your points.

I would like to have expressed my views as eloquently. Thank you.