General Updates and News

[someone123]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Wooooooo! Good choice on their part. Hopefully Dexel keeps the upper masonry and not just the required granite lower floors.

The potential of lopping off the upper floors of registered heritage buildings is something I've only heard of in Halifax. It was contemplated for the Bluenose II building as well. These upper floor additions are older than many heritage buildings in other North American cities.

In many (most?) cities in the developed world the Dennis Building would be fully preserved. Nothing else would be allowed.

Halifax needs to hugely bump up its level of heritage preservation. Loss of prewar masonry buildings should not really be tolerated at all, and a lot more effort should go into keeping wooden buildings in a presentable state. Even the smaller towns around the region do a better job of preservation than Halifax does. There is way more money to support preservation in Halifax, and a bigger potential value payoff. The Province House area for example should be seen as a national gem and tourist attraction. Instead it's managed in an incredibly parochial way; concern #1 is to spend as little money as possible on this area and concern #2 seems to be to make MLA parking as convenient as possible.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I think in general it's good news, much better than when it appeared that they were just going to level it all. At least the empty lot on Granville, and I assume Barrington (though the article doesn't mention it), will be filled in after decades of these empty lots looking more like an NHL player's smile than a streetscape.

The provincial restrictions for the site are very loose:

• maintain the granite facade of the Dennis building and facade of the Hansard building

• no commercial or retail space on Granville Street

• no balconies facing Granville Street

But I would hope that Dexel keeps the entire facade of the Dennis Bldg, as the upper floors add so much character to the building - the height and contrasting stone really gives the impression of a looming historic structure. Makes sense for a 9-storey structure anyhow - to have the first 7 in original stone, and step back the upper 2 with glass, much like the Espace project up on Barrington.

It would be even better if more than just the facade was kept. Here's hoping for the best!

[OldDartmouthMark]

For sake of interest, a few historical photos of the project area:


Source


Source


Source


Source


96-98 Granville St., Canadian Press Building [fire]
Retrieval code: 102-111-4-5.64
[194-?]


Ernie Reksten's business trip photographs of Halifax and Dartmouth
Halifax - Near Waterfront
Retrieval code: CR25-24
15 Apr. 1956

[someone123]

Here's a view of the Massachusetts State House:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3583.../data=!3m1!1e3

I realize that Boston's a bigger city and Massachusetts is a bigger state, but boy does this ever make the Province House area look dumpy. Theoretically Boston should have fewer small heritage buildings near the state house because land values are much higher there. In Halifax that all would have been declared uneconomical and torn down in the 60's.

Another big difference I noticed is how much more detail there is on the buildings. Halifax streetscapes look denuded in comparison. So many buildings are missing their old iron detailing, awnings, cornices, etc.

The differences aren't due to "homo economicus" type decisions alone, they've got to come down to culture and priorities too. Nova Scotia is incredibly utilitarian and doesn't really value its past much aside from the folksy stuff.

[Drybrain]

A big part of me wonders if there's not simply a difference in the quality of architecture. I remember being similarly struck when travelling from Toronto to New York for the first time--Toronto's historic building stock, with some exceptions, is far less ornamented and impressive and more in line with Halifax's.

Fully agree re: the generally utilitarian nature of things. Again, partly a Canadian trait, I think, but the east coast also seems to have a sort of austerity mentality. No frills, etc.

I hope Dexel retains the brick; I know a couple of years ago the province declared it unsalvageable, but they also declared the entire building unsalvageable at one point, when clearly seeking to make the case for demolition. Agreed that it should be a no-brainer to preserve and it doesn't speak well of our civic priorities that its' been such a slog to get even to this point, though I'm optimistic.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

A big part of me wonders if there's not simply a difference in the quality of architecture. I remember being similarly struck when travelling from Toronto to New York for the first time--Toronto's historic building stock, with some exceptions, is far less ornamented and impressive and more in line with Halifax's.

I'm sure that is part of it but a lot of historic photos show that many, many buildings in Halifax have been stripped down. The buildings in their original state look very similar to well-preserved buildings that exist today in Boston, e.g.:


Source

I could repeat this probably 30 times. For example think of the Pacific Building. The Dennis Building situation is something out of Detroit more or less. But Detroit isn't growing by 2% a year with construction cranes all over the place. Then there's the Tramway Building, Province House with its parking lot (which probably stands up just fine against Boston buildings from the 1810's), and on and on.

On the flip side I think Halifax gets more urban infill than most similar American cities and consequently has better affordability and is improving faster. Boston has a bit of a preserved-in-1991 feel. But there's no reason why that's incompatible with keeping heritage buildings in good shape. It probably wouldn't have been much of a sacrifice to permit development on the parking lot around the Dennis Building while insisting that its exterior be carefully restored.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

For example think of the Pacific Building. I kind of doubt that Boston has steel structures in its downtown designed to catch falling masonry.

That's absolutely true. what an absolute embarrassment to construct a permanent structure for such a purpose. (On the upside, at least there are restoration plans for the Tramway in the offing.)

[someone123]

I really think it is cultural. There is a lingering sense that Nova Scotia is poor and Halifax is a small town and so it's futile to try to have nice things. The economy will fall apart unless developers are allowed to do absolutely whatever they want, and the province will go bankrupt if it spends money on frills.

On a deeper level there's a lack of appreciation that a good quality public realm will have a significant positive impact on the people in it. And provincially there's always some hesitation to spend money on things in the capital that seem like they're on a higher level than what you'd get in Truro or Glace Bay.

Then with infrastructure there's the sense that the city isn't growing that much so little adjustments here and there are enough to make everything work out. No new bridges needed, no trains needed, no new roads. The infrastructure that was built for 250,000 people will essentially be fine forever (is the nearly 50 year old MacKay still called the "new bridge"?).

This is all very noticeable looking at NS from afar.

[teddifax]

Is there a schedule for this work, hopefully, it will start soon and take into consideration the heritage of the adjoining buildings and keep the existing buildings as intact as possible....

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

I really think it is cultural. There is a lingering sense that Nova Scotia is poor and Halifax is a small town and so it's futile to try to have nice things. The economy will fall apart unless developers are allowed to do absolutely whatever they want, and the province will go bankrupt if it spends money on frills.

On a deeper level there's a lack of appreciation that a good quality public realm will have a significant positive impact on the people in it. And provincially there's always some hesitation to spend money on things in the capital that seem like they're on a higher level than what you'd get in Truro or Glace Bay.

Then with infrastructure there's the sense that the city isn't growing that much so little adjustments here and there are enough to make everything work out. No new bridges needed, no trains needed, no new roads. The infrastructure that was built for 250,000 people will essentially be fine forever (is the nearly 50 year old MacKay still called the "new bridge"?).

This is all very noticeable looking at NS from afar.

Once again, great analysis!

I think the problem is that Halifax once had a history of having very "worldly" people. Now, many of the critics are people that have never really lived anywhere else... or seen what is possible. It is culturally a shame when comparing ourselves to similar sized cities in North America and elsewhere. We have the same access to resources, but we squander them or shoot down good ideas.

Trips don't count. People need to actually live in different places for EXTENDED periods of time to see how things can be done. We deserve more than the bar that is set and those put in charge of making the difference.

What is most disturbing is the folks that move from cities like Toronto (not necessarily worldly people just because they come from a bigger Canadian city) and don't want to see change.

Then we paint some people who resist the stupid ideas. For example, the Arm bridge is just a bad idea. I'm not anti-development at all for being against a bad idea.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

A big part of me wonders if there's not simply a difference in the quality of architecture. I remember being similarly struck when travelling from Toronto to New York for the first time--Toronto's historic building stock, with some exceptions, is far less ornamented and impressive and more in line with Halifax's.

I think that is at least part of the situation. For example, check out the historical photos of Boston linked below. Most of these photos were taken in the late 1950s, and from my understanding many of these buildings were razed for urban renewal. I think the photos illustrate your point. The sheer volume of ornamented stone/masonry buildings that they had was astounding, and far greater than Halifax.

MIT - Perceptual Form Of The City Introduction

https://dome.mit.edu/handle/1721.3/3...by=none&etal=0

[someone123]

The Dennis Building is actually nicer and more imposing than a bunch of the heritage buildings around the Massachusetts State House. They are three and four storey brick while the Dennis has a granite facade. But they are well maintained and the Dennis Building is falling apart.

The Pacific Building is the same. If it were nicely restored and transported to Boston it would look great next to the architecture there. It was not built to a lower standard than contemporary buildings there. It is falling apart now due to lack of maintenance.

The fact that Boston has more masonry buildings is an argument for better maintenance of the relatively small collection that has survived in Halifax. HRM could spend a tiny fraction of its budget to keep that inventory of buildings in great shape.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I think you know that we both agree that Halifax needs to do a better job of looking after its heritage buildings. I've long argued that on this board.

Yes, I agree that the treatment of the Dennis building is shameful, considering that it was very close to being razed completely, and now the requirements for maintaining its heritage elements seem to be almost nothing more than keeping part of its facade.

Yes, I agree that the city allowing Dongdu to construct a permanent structure to allow the Pacific building to continue to crumble without requirement for repair and restoration is disgusting.

Boston certainly appears to be doing a better job than most cities in protecting its heritage building. My point is, spend a few hours going through the MIT photos and you will see that the scale of the buildings in Boston was/is much greater than Halifax ever had.

The continual negativity towards Halifax and Haligonians is getting a little old, though. If Halifax wasn't such a great place to live I suspect our more 'worldly' members wouldn't bother to populate this forum....

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think you know that we both agree that Halifax needs to do a better job of looking after its heritage buildings. I've long argued that on this board.

Yes, I agree that the treatment of the Dennis building is shameful, considering that it was very close to being razed completely, and now the requirements for maintaining its heritage elements seem to be almost nothing more than keeping part of its facade.

Well, considering that it burned to the ground 100 years ago and was rebuilt, just keeping the facade at that time, perhaps it is just history repeating itself and thus historically accurate, not shameful.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, considering that it burned to the ground 100 years ago and was rebuilt, just keeping the facade at that time, perhaps it is just history repeating itself and thus historically accurate, not shameful.

That rebuild and the adding of extra storeys on top is part of its history. A fire is an accident, but neglect is intentional.

[someone123]

To me there really seem to be two separate issues. There's the question of which city has more heritage buildings, Boston or Halifax. Boston obviously does. But then there's also the question of which city has done a better job of taking care of what's survived in the modern day. Boston has. Boston is a good example because for any given heritage building in Halifax you can usually find something similar in Boston.

Aside from being larger Boston also followed a different historic arc of development, and has a lot more construction from the 1890-1930 period when Halifax was barely growing. If you subtract those buildings from the mix the two cities start to look pretty similar. Have a look at Charlestown and you will see something eerily similar to the North End or Schmidtville, but more intact and in a better state of repair. The Falkland area could still look like that or better.

I don't think it's negative to point out that Halifax does a relatively poor job of maintaining its heritage buildings. In a way that outlook is actually much more positive than the defeatist attitude that nothing can or should be done and the city will slowly crumble. Halifax is a provincial and regional economic capital with a successful economy and it's on its way to having half a million people. It can and should have an extensive inventory of heritage buildings kept in great shape.

To take another example, I posted a picture of the newly-restored St. Paul's Building in the Canada section. Somebody immediately pointed out how incomplete the restoration looked because the cornice was still missing and the original sache windows were replaced by featureless oversized panes of glass. The good news is that if more investment happens in this building in the future it can still be restored to a higher standard. The bad news is that this barely seems to register in Halifax right now; the result that looks shoddy someplace else was created by newly increased heritage preservation grants (which are still inadequate, but a step in the right direction).

[Drybrain]

I think both Someone123 and OldDartmouthMark have good points. Obviously Boston, being an even older city than Halifax, and considerably larger in the 19th century, has more imposing and impressive buildings from the era. (Boston had 400,000 people in the 1880s, while Halifax was only at 70,000 at the same time).

I think it's also true, though, that there's a level of care and reverence for the urban history in Boston that isn't really found in Halifax. It's not really a Canadian trait in general, except I suppose Montreal and increasingly Toronto. But Halifax definitely suffers from being parochially governed, despite its many other great strengths. I think this is changing from the ground up--the citizenry here feels just about as worldly as any other major Canadian city I'm familiar with. The provincial/municipal government, not so much. (Then again, Doug Ford...)

[OldDartmouthMark]

Well said, Drybrain. Thank you.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

But Halifax definitely suffers from being parochially governed, despite its many other great strengths. I think this is changing from the ground up--the citizenry here feels just about as worldly as any other major Canadian city I'm familiar with. The provincial/municipal government, not so much. (Then again, Doug Ford...)

It was a while ago but I remember when the former Kelly's building on Granville was demolished. There was some discussion in HRM council and a bunch of the councillors shrugged and said something about how the building was at the end of its life and was uneconomical. This explanation at the time was enough to pass muster in Halifax. Most people accepted that logic at face value as a kind of wise tough truth about impermanence that we all have to accept. According to HRM council logic, the economics of pretty much every European city, most of which are poorer than Halifax, don't work out.

It was here: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6486...7i13312!8i6656

It looked like this:


Source

Not exactly Notre-Dame de Paris but for relatively little effort it could have been incorporated into the TD redevelopment and the city would have ended up with a little more character as a result.

Part of what is frustrating about this to me is that a lot of people don't even see what is going on economically. What is happening is land prices are going up so it is more profitable for developers to tear down heritage buildings. It's not about a lack of money to maintain the old heritage buildings, it's about profit maximization. The lack of maintenance is a way to justify demolition, which then opens up larger scale redevelopment.

HRM has to step in to fix this because of how the tax system works. Land is taxed at a low rate and private landowners capture the value of increases in desirability in a neighbourhood even when their own properties are a drag on the area. The tax system rewards lazy landlords because poor maintenance reduces the tax bill that owners pay while they wait to flip the land. This is also why most new land use downtown is either highrise or parking lot. The incentives of property owners are not aligned with what is good for the city.

The Heritage Trust et al. sort of understood this and wanted a 4 storey height limit to make heritage buildings relatively attractive by reducing the profitability of demolishing them. But this is a terrible hamfisted solution in a city full of empty lots or modern characterless buildings. The heritage buildings should be preserved, not the parking lots.

Another factor is that the city and province are poor stewards of the heritage buildings that they maintain. Case in point: the city still has no idea what to do with the old library, years after the new one was built. This is the city that declared a climate change emergency a little while ago.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

To me there really seem to be two separate issues. There's the question of which city has more heritage buildings, Boston or Halifax. Boston obviously does. But then there's also the question of which city has done a better job of taking care of what's survived in the modern day. Boston has. Boston is a good example because for any given heritage building in Halifax you can usually find something similar in Boston.

Aside from being larger Boston also followed a different historic arc of development, and has a lot more construction from the 1890-1930 period when Halifax was barely growing. If you subtract those buildings from the mix the two cities start to look pretty similar. Have a look at Charlestown and you will see something eerily similar to the North End or Schmidtville, but more intact and in a better state of repair. The Falkland area could still look like that or better.

I don't think it's negative to point out that Halifax does a relatively poor job of maintaining its heritage buildings. In a way that outlook is actually much more positive than the defeatist attitude that nothing can or should be done and the city will slowly crumble. Halifax is a provincial and regional economic capital with a successful economy and it's on its way to having half a million people. It can and should have an extensive inventory of heritage buildings kept in great shape.

To take another example, I posted a picture of the newly-restored St. Paul's Building in the Canada section. Somebody immediately pointed out how incomplete the restoration looked because the cornice was still missing and the original sache windows were replaced by featureless oversized panes of glass. The good news is that if more investment happens in this building in the future it can still be restored to a higher standard. The bad news is that this barely seems to register in Halifax right now; the result that looks shoddy someplace else was created by newly increased heritage preservation grants (which are still inadequate, but a step in the right direction).

It's interesting that you use the St. Paul's Building example, as I posted a photo in that very thread which showed that the cornice had been removed sometime before the photo was taken in 1951, when the building would have been just over half a century old. We both speculated on the possible reasons for its removal, but of course we won't know unless somebody finds documentation about it. Regardless, at the time it would have been considered just an old building, and it had some features changed (maybe due to structural integrity, maybe due to 'modernization', we don't know).

Here's that page in the thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...203463&page=17

To put it in perspective, the Ralston building, a federal government property, had steel reinforcements stuck in over the stone cladding to prevent it from falling on pedestrians when it was similar in age as the St. Paul's bldg in the photo I posted in said thread. Now, it's about 10 years older than that and it's being torn down, despite having a heritage designation on it. But it's a federal building... is that a Halifax or Nova Scotia failing as well? Is it because of Haligonians' "defeatist" attitude?

How about the fact that nobody except rich real estate investors can afford to buy a house in Vancouver? Is that because Vancouverites have a "defeatist" attitude? How come the citizens of Vancouver didn't step in and prevent this from happening? C'mon, you talk like Halifax is the worst of the worst, but every city has its issues.

The irony here is that we agree on most points, and the buildings you've mentioned were discussed on this forum many times and again I've agreed with your points, but am tiring of this continual denigration of Halifax and Haligonians as if these issues don't happen in any other cities.

I agree it needs to be better, the Heritage Trust has tried very hard to make it better, but even they are called idiots on this forum, because of some mistakes they have made in their philosophy/game plan. IIRC, there are other organizations trying to advocate for saving old architecture in Halifax as well. It's not like nobody cares or nobody tries, as has been alluded to.