General Updates and News

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Empire

I would like to see some buildings based on historic architecture from Halifax and elsewhere rise at the Cogswell St. Interchange site. The Chicago school built in 1904 shown here is a good example of what could be done. It has style but not too ornate to construct today.

I would to love to see buildings like this built today. Attractive historic buildings that are still eye catching today have stood the test of time.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

Well here is a direct quote:

My paraphrasing would be: if the developers start out by building something that is too large (tall, but maybe wide or deep, it doesn't matter), then nothing can be done to save the project. Scale trumps all other concerns, and the correct scale is one that is similar to the buildings that are there already. Most buildings in Halifax are small single family dwellings and low-slung commercial buildings. Consequently we need architects to tell developers to build small buildings.

I read this in the same was as IanWatson - that architects currently aren't involved in many stages of building design, but should be. Often it is a case of the developer deciding on a building envelope, site plan and rough design and then bringing in an architect to figure out the details (but within the parameters they've already set out). If architects were involved from the start (sometimes they are apparently not involved at all) then we would probably end up with more buildings that respond to the site context (like the Pearl or the Vic) and fewer that feel generic/out of place/do not respond to site very well (Monaghan Square comes to mind). However this is based on conversations I've had with other architects so her words sounded more like confirmation of what I'd already heard - possible that she was talking exclusively about height, or that she meant both, I agree the article made it unclear.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

I would like to see some buildings based on historic architecture from Halifax and elsewhere rise at the Cogswell St. Interchange site. The Chicago school built in 1904 shown here is a good example of what could be done. It has style but not too ornate to construct today.

Are they still building structures of this style in Chicago?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

No.
I think previous councils had a majority of members who voted for every proposal and here is a quote from a recently defeated candidate who said to me before the election : 'most of them hate Mason and Watts '. What we have now is a group of younger councillors who will not vote for a Wellington development, they won't vote for Wellington out of spite and they will have a much different agenda than Hendsbee, Rankin et al.
There were plenty of candidates who mentioned 'concerns about development' when interviewed by media and now they are councillors.

Some Councillors "mentioned" their "concerns" and were elected. Sounds like a clear and broad democratic mandate to revolutionize development to me!

There are 5 new Councillors. One (Lindell Smith) replaces Watts who was always a reliable anti-development vote. So that's a wash.

Sam Austin is a regular poster on here, and he has some very good ideas as an urban planner, and is definitely no anti-height NIMBY.

So, that leaves 3 votes on a Council of 16.

That's your revolution?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Empire

I would like to see some buildings based on historic architecture from Halifax and elsewhere rise at the Cogswell St. Interchange site. The Chicago school built in 1904 shown here is a good example of what could be done. It has style but not too ornate to construct today.

Beautiful! I actually was hoping The Alexander would look something like this. Seems not.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I read this in the same was as IanWatson - that architects currently aren't involved in many stages of building design, but should be. Often it is a case of the developer deciding on a building envelope, site plan and rough design and then bringing in an architect to figure out the details (but within the parameters they've already set out). If architects were involved from the start (sometimes they are apparently not involved at all) then we would probably end up with more buildings that respond to the site context (like the Pearl or the Vic) and fewer that feel generic/out of place/do not respond to site very well (Monaghan Square comes to mind). However this is based on conversations I've had with other architects so her words sounded more like confirmation of what I'd already heard - possible that she was talking exclusively about height, or that she meant both, I agree the article made it unclear.

Sorry, but I think someone123's reading is the better one. There is a hint of this idea (more involvement in early design for architects) in the article, but it's clearly NOT the main thrust of the piece.

It's kind of hard to miss the main point -- it's basically regurgitated and re-stated in about three different ways through out. The architects are critical of developments bringing increased density and along the way implicitly critiquing height. The article does so by making a direct connection between low-density and livability, suggesting we get developments that are higher density, which are bad, because added density decrease livability-- a laughable idea given Halifax has struggled immensely to revive its downtown core, and return more people and vibrancy to its streets. We need more density in many areas, not less.

Overall a bad article offering regressive ideas, even arguably NIMBYism dressed up in professional lingo, for downtown. In other words, pretty standard fair for CBC News Halifax's coverage of planning/development in this City. I'm a CBC fan, but the local outlet is awful on these issues.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Empire

I would like to see some buildings based on historic architecture from Halifax and elsewhere rise at the Cogswell St. Interchange site. The Chicago school built in 1904 shown here is a good example of what could be done. It has style but not too ornate to construct today.

I think that's a great idea. Actually it would blend in well with the collection of old buildings and façades in the Granville/Historic Properties area.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Overall a bad article offering regressive ideas, even arguably NIMBYism dressed up in professional lingo, for downtown. In other words, pretty standard fair for CBC News Halifax's coverage of planning/development in this City. I'm a CBC fan, but the local outlet is awful on these issues.

Quite simply, there is a bias/agenda here. It doesn't have to be rooted in any kind of truth or fairness (like when people call variances "illegal").

[Dmajackson]

Public Informaiton Meeting - Case H00427 & H00428

Thu, 1 December, 18:30 – 21:00

Halifax City Hall, 1841 Agryle Street, Halifax, NS, Canada (map)

As part of Heritage Advisory Committee meeting

Case H00427 Application for Demolition of a registered municipal heritage property located at 1333-35 Barrington Street, Halifax.

Case H00428 Application for Demolition of a registered municipal heritage property located at 1349-53 Barrington Street, Halifax

[Halifaxns]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Public Informaiton Meeting - Case H00427 & H00428

Thu, 1 December, 18:30 – 21:00

Halifax City Hall, 1841 Agryle Street, Halifax, NS, Canada (map)

As part of Heritage Advisory Committee meeting

Case H00427 Application for Demolition of a registered municipal heritage property located at 1333-35 Barrington Street, Halifax.

Case H00428 Application for Demolition of a registered municipal heritage property located at 1349-53 Barrington Street, Halifax

What are the developers thinking???? That building can be used like many in Toronto as a gateway to a modern tower instead of destroying the beautiful building it is! I'm all for development, however this isn't appropriate and it'll be a huge mistake to raze 1351 Barrington

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Public Informaiton Meeting - Case H00427 & H00428

Thu, 1 December, 18:30 – 21:00

Halifax City Hall, 1841 Agryle Street, Halifax, NS, Canada (map)

As part of Heritage Advisory Committee meeting

Case H00427 Application for Demolition of a registered municipal heritage property located at 1333-35 Barrington Street, Halifax.

Case H00428 Application for Demolition of a registered municipal heritage property located at 1349-53 Barrington Street, Halifax

Is there a link for this? I see nothing online.

[yal]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Public Informaiton Meeting - Case H00427 & H00428

Thu, 1 December, 18:30 – 21:00

Halifax City Hall, 1841 Agryle Street, Halifax, NS, Canada (map)

As part of Heritage Advisory Committee meeting

Case H00427 Application for Demolition of a registered municipal heritage property located at 1333-35 Barrington Street, Halifax.

Case H00428 Application for Demolition of a registered municipal heritage property located at 1349-53 Barrington Street, Halifax

This is Dexel for you. Pillaging the heritage one block at a time... Look at their future works page:

http://www.dexel.ca/Future-Work

3 out of 5 projects there will destroy very unique heritage buildings. They just dont care.

[TheGreenBastard]

Originally Posted by yal

This is Dexel for you. Pillaging the heritage one block at a time... Look at their future works page:

http://www.dexel.ca/Future-Work

3 out of 5 projects there will destroy very unique heritage buildings. They just dont care.

The buildings on Barrington are quite unfortunate. There must be a way to stop them..


I will say though that they have built some of my favourite modern buildings in Halifax. Looking forward to SGW if that ever gets approved....

[someone123]

On the bright side they now list 6324 Quinpool and that's the site of a McDonald's with parking lot and drive through, so it will be hard for that lot to end up looking any worse.

I wonder what's up with the empty lot across the street? I think it used to be a gas station? Maybe it still needs remediation.

[JET]

They did a nice job with Greenvale School; why can't the City limit what they can do with Historic Buildings?

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by JET

They did a nice job with Greenvale School; why can't the City limit what they can do with Historic Buildings?

the provinces heritage act is spineless. even if the city denies a demolition permit, the developer can do it as of right in year 3. the only chance these buildings have is for the barrington south HCD to come into effect before that year 3 - as hcd's eliminate as of right year 3 demos unless allowed by the hcd's policies.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

the provinces heritage act is spineless. even if the city denies a demolition permit, the developer can do it as of right in year 3. the only chance these buildings have is for the barrington south HCD to come into effect before that year 3 - as hcd's eliminate as of right year 3 demos unless allowed by the hcd's policies.

Dexel gets a lot of heat but they are simply playing by bad rules. If they didn't buy up these properties there's a good chance that some other developer would; they have an incentive to find underdeveloped properties and a lot of those have heritage buildings on them.

I wonder what the holdup is with the Barrington South heritage conservation district? It has been talked about for years. I would also like to see one that encompasses areas like Brunswick Street and Falkland/Maynard.

I wish there were also more of an emphasis on good adaptive reuse in the planning rules. Unfortunately it seems like the city is stuck in an all-or-nothing debate where heritage advocates want many buildings preserved in amber and developers are totally ambivalent. There are lots of heritage buildings on big lots that could accommodate more development, and some of the heritage building additions like Barrington Espace have worked out really nicely. Others have not been so great, but I don't think there are any guidelines around how to reuse buildings (e.g. dead facadism vs. retaining old entrances and interior spaces).

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by someone123

Dexel gets a lot of heat but they are simply playing by bad rules. If they didn't buy up these properties there's a good chance that some other developer would; they have an incentive to find underdeveloped properties and a lot of those have heritage buildings on them.

I wonder what the holdup is with the Barrington South heritage conservation district? It has been talked about for years.

I would also like to see one that encompasses areas like Brunswick Street and Falkland/Maynard.

its in the works. soon i believe. probably once schmidville is done.
i believe they already had the public meeting.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Dexel gets a lot of heat but they are simply playing by bad rules. If they didn't buy up these properties there's a good chance that some other developer would; they have an incentive to find underdeveloped properties and a lot of those have heritage buildings on them.

I wonder what the holdup is with the Barrington South heritage conservation district? It has been talked about for years. I would also like to see one that encompasses areas like Brunswick Street and Falkland/Maynard.

I'm frankly done defending elected officials the city's heritage planners on this front. It's taken an absurd amount of time to get this thing in place, and it's not going to be in place until next year, which means the Elmwood, and the building at Hollis and Bishop are pretty much doomed, and these two on Barrington will suffer whatever ignominious facade-hacking Dexel sees fit to subject them to. Or maybe even be entirely demolished.

This is as much the fault of the slow-moving bureaucracy as anything else, and frankly whenever I hear the issue raised with any elected official of heritage planner, the response is always a vague defence of the plainly inadequate process, despite the fact that these kinds of districts pass through the study and implementation phase far faster in many cities.

The whole thing is pathetic.

Anyway, there's a community workshop on the Old South Suburb HCD on Nov 30. Good place to go and start talking about these buildings.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Dexel gets a lot of heat but they are simply playing by bad rules. If they didn't buy up these properties there's a good chance that some other developer would; they have an incentive to find underdeveloped properties and a lot of those have heritage buildings on them.

I agree with this. As much as it irks me that they could potentially demolish or at least substantially change these buildings, it's really the weak rules that are at fault.

I wonder what the holdup is with the Barrington South heritage conservation district? It has been talked about for years. I would also like to see one that encompasses areas like Brunswick Street and Falkland/Maynard.

The city politicians/officials seem to place heritage preservation quite far down on their priorities list. While I can't be completely negative towards them since they are actually making at least a small effort towards heritage conservation, it's still pretty obvious that they don't consider it to be all that important.

I wish there were also more of an emphasis on good adaptive reuse in the planning rules. Unfortunately it seems like the city is stuck in an all-or-nothing debate where heritage advocates want many buildings preserved in amber and developers are totally ambivalent. There are lots of heritage buildings on big lots that could accommodate more development, and some of the heritage building additions like Barrington Espace have worked out really nicely. Others have not been so great, but I don't think there are any guidelines around how to reuse buildings (e.g. dead facadism vs. retaining old entrances and interior spaces).

Again, the city has not put much energy into this. It's funny, the heritage advocates always get skewered for trying to have buildings 'preserved in amber', but they are almost never successful at this. One would think from these comments that Halifax is a treasuretrove of pristinely preserved heritage properties, but instead we consider ourselves lucky if a developer sees fit to even keep part of the facade.

But I agree, some heritage buildings lend themselves well to accommodate further development, such as the Espace as mentioned, and The Dillon. It would be nice if the city could expend some effort to determine which ones should be preserved, which ones will lend themselves to adaptive development, and which ones are OK to demolish, and make strong rules to to enforce each circumstance. But, there is basically nothing.

Essentially, it's up to the developer to decide whether they want to expend the effort and cost to preserve at least part of a heritage property as a benefit to the city, but if they don't have that inclination, it is no problem to demolish pretty much any building they want while following the rules as they currently exist.