[Halifax] Benjamin Wier Addition (1478 Hollis St) | 24 m | 6 fl | Proposed

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I heard the same CBC radio report this morning, and they did say at one point that they were just keeping the facade. However, the way they presented it on the radio seemed a little confusing. The web story indicates that they will keep most of the building, which to me is "retention of the heritage value".

I still wish they would just leave it as a stand-alone structure, but if they just remove the rear face to incorporate it into the new building then this is the best compromise we could hope for.

That's what they're doing. I honestly don't mind this proposal. It would be nice not to remove those rear features, but I actually like the juxtaposition.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think the Heritage Commitee came to a tie, basically, and therefore they couldn't recommend for or against.

But I listened to the council discussion yesterday, and the proposal hasn't changed since it was first tabled. The whole house will be retained, except for the balcony and rear dormers, which will be removed to attach the addition. The rest of the original structure, including the interior, will remain.

I don't know what the CBC radio report said, but they have an accurate web story up.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I heard the same CBC radio report this morning, and they did say at one point that they were just keeping the facade. However, the way they presented it on the radio seemed a little confusing. The web story indicates that they will keep most of the building, which to me is "retention of the heritage value".

I still wish they would just leave it as a stand-alone structure, but if they just remove the rear face to incorporate it into the new building then this is the best compromise we could hope for.

I'm shocked, shocked to find local CBC radio presenting a Halifax development story inaccurately and in a negative light!

[counterfactual]

Also, the fact that the Heritage Committee came to a tie on a great proposal and very much preserves a heritage building is just another reminder that "heritage activists" in this city mostly care about opposing development and not promoting heritage preservation. If they cannot support a development like this, what will they EVER support? Answer: nothing.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Also, the fact that the Heritage Committee came to a tie on a great proposal and very much preserves a heritage building is just another reminder that "heritage activists" in this city mostly care about opposing development and not promoting heritage preservation. If they cannot support a development like this, what will they EVER support? Answer: nothing.

I can see how someone would not support this development. It's not exactly the worst heritage development, but it's not exactly great either. The addition is pretty clunky IMHO, and I don't think it's unfair to ask for better. Especially considering that the current building is particularly beautiful and well-preserved.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Also, the fact that the Heritage Committee came to a tie on a great proposal and very much preserves a heritage building is just another reminder that "heritage activists" in this city mostly care about opposing development and not promoting heritage preservation. If they cannot support a development like this, what will they EVER support? Answer: nothing.

I think the reason they came to a tie is because there are certain nationally and internationally recognized best practices with regards to heritage conservation, and not messing with the existing building envelope is high among them. This proposal does, so some committee members were basically like "Eh, it's pretty good, but we're bound by the national guidelines". Others stepped outside of that to say it was an acceptable compromise. But I think a similar advisory panel in other cities would probably have the same debate.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Also, the fact that the Heritage Committee came to a tie on a great proposal and very much preserves a heritage building is just another reminder that "heritage activists" in this city mostly care about opposing development and not promoting heritage preservation. If they cannot support a development like this, what will they EVER support? Answer: nothing.

The Heritage Advisory Committee is not the same thing as "heritage activists." It's an advisory body to council that provides advice based on whether or not it believes that something meets the requirements governing the preservation protection and development of heritage resources.

In this case, I believe that the committee had difficulty reconciling the preservation of "much" of the exterior envelope with the removal of character-defining features (the bay window at the rear). I think the removal is counter to the National standards by which projects involving heritage properties are supposed to abide and which (I think) the city has adopted. It's a fact that character defining elements are being lost, and it's not up to the committee to balance those. It reports to council on IF the building complies with the heritage rules, but there are plenty of other rules that guide development and COUNCIL must weigh goals of increased density against goals of committing to internationally respected (the Canadian standards are very similar to other national and international standards) standards for heritage protection.

Probably right the committee not recommend it (if it's a tie, it's not recommended). Up to Council to consider more than just the heritage inputs.

I'm not upset by the process or the outcome here.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think the reason they came to a tie is because there are certain nationally and internationally recognized best practices with regards to heritage conservation, and not messing with the existing building envelope is high among them. This proposal does, so some committee members were basically like "Eh, it's pretty good, but we're bound by the national guidelines". Others stepped outside of that to say it was an acceptable compromise. But I think a similar advisory panel in other cities would probably have the same debate.

yes - the city has adopted the Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation.
Available Online (PDF) here
one is that you don't interfere with character defining elements, which this building has on the rear.

its probably a reasonable compromise to remove a rear feature that will be obstructed by the Alexander, but following the guidelines, it shouldn't be allowed. that said - there is probably a way to integrate it into the new building, as an atrium or something.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

yes - the city has adopted the Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation.
Available Online (PDF) here
one is that you don't interfere with character defining elements, which this building has on the rear.

I thought so - thanks for checking.

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

its probably a reasonable compromise to remove a rear feature that will be obstructed by the Alexander, but following the guidelines, it shouldn't be allowed. that said - there is probably a way to integrate it into the new building, as an atrium or something.

Agree - I think council has more latitude in considering compromise because it must balance multiple inputs which include heritage aspects. Heritage aspects aren't the ONLY inputs though, and I'm not aware of any policy that directs Council to weight one input higher than another.

I think the committee has far less latitude and in this case, the proposal probably didn't meet the Canadian Standard against which it was being measured.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

The Heritage Advisory Committee is not the same thing as "heritage activists." It's an advisory body to council that provides advice based on whether or not it believes that something meets the requirements governing the preservation protection and development of heritage resources.

In this case, I believe that the committee had difficulty reconciling the preservation of "much" of the exterior envelope with the removal of character-defining features (the bay window at the rear). I think the removal is counter to the National standards by which projects involving heritage properties are supposed to abide and which (I think) the city has adopted. It's a fact that character defining elements are being lost, and it's not up to the committee to balance those. It reports to council on IF the building complies with the heritage rules, but there are plenty of other rules that guide development and COUNCIL must weigh goals of increased density against goals of committing to internationally respected (the Canadian standards are very similar to other national and international standards) standards for heritage protection.

Probably right the committee not recommend it (if it's a tie, it's not recommended). Up to Council to consider more than just the heritage inputs.

I'm not upset by the process or the outcome here.

Well said.

[Keith P.]

If a rear window that nobody other than the occupants ever sees is the reason to reject this, there is only one thing that can be said about those standards - utterly dumb.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

If a rear window that nobody other than the occupants ever sees is the reason to reject this, there is only one thing that can be said about those standards - utterly dumb.

It may be "utterly dumb," or may not. I'm not a specialist, but I think it's predicated on the idea that heritage value is strongest when the building is preserved as a whole - anything less is a degradation of the asset. That principal may be flawed (or dumb), but I think there's at least some merit in considering how it might contribute to a healthy city.

One of the issues I think Halifax has is that too many insignificant buildings are considered "heritage" and many that are significant aren't registered... it means that buildings that are not worth saving are protected and buildings that should be protected are not. It results in preserving some dumb stuff.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

One of the issues I think Halifax has is that too many insignificant buildings are considered "heritage" and many that are significant aren't registered... it means that buildings that are not worth saving are protected and buildings that should be protected are not. It results in preserving some dumb stuff.

I would certainly agree with you there - many Halifax "heritage" buildings were utilitarian and utterly unremarkable architecturally even when brand-new. They are now deemed worthy of preservation simply because they are old. That seems foolish. I suppose 100 years from now someone may try to preserve a beige vinyl-sided chipboard McMansion as well.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

...100 years from now someone may try to preserve a beige vinyl-sided chipboard McMansion as well.

Exactly. Shouldn't we really seek to retain/highlight the best?

[someone123]

Sometimes a building looks modest but is registered because of some historically important event.

There are some heritage buildings like that (the Wanderers Grounds one was a potential example but I think it's gone now anyway) but the larger problem is buildings that should be heritage and aren't. Or, looking at it another way, there should be some kind of protection for "character buildings" that were often built to a higher level of quality and are more attractive and durable than the newer developments that replace them. Height/density bonuses would be one good way to deal with this problem. A lot of old buildings are torn down merely because they happen to be on larger lots that can accommodate something larger, not because it is impossible to maintain them. They are torn down because incorporating the older building would be a bit more expensive than tearing it down and the developer has little economic incentive to do so.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

It may be "utterly dumb," or may not. I'm not a specialist, but I think it's predicated on the idea that heritage value is strongest when the building is preserved as a whole - anything less is a degradation of the asset. That principal may be flawed (or dumb), but I think there's at least some merit in considering how it might contribute to a healthy city.

One of the issues I think Halifax has is that too many insignificant buildings are considered "heritage" and many that are significant aren't registered... it means that buildings that are not worth saving are protected and buildings that should be protected are not. It results in preserving some dumb stuff.

In actuality, the main issue that Halifax has is that "heritage" is a designation in name only, without much else involved. It doesn't matter if a building is "significant" or not, if there's a business case to tear it down, then it will probably happen. I don't really see a lot of "insignificant" buildings being saved "just because they are old", rather I see several old buildings not being torn down because there is not enough money to be made in tearing them down and redeveloping, and several being torn down because there is.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

In actuality, the main issue that Halifax has is that "heritage" is a designation in name only, without much else involved. It doesn't matter if a building is "significant" or not, if there's a business case to tear it down, then it will probably happen. I don't really see a lot of "insignificant" buildings being saved "just because they are old", rather I see several old buildings not being torn down because there is not enough money to be made in tearing them down and redeveloping, and several being torn down because there is.

Bingo. Or, we see them being torn down because of a lack of imagination within the development community. Many developers in Halifax are quite a bit behind the curve when it comes to taking advantage of the marketability and rarity of heritage buildings in their developments--from a business perspective, heritage is a non-renewable and diminishing resource. Destroying historic buildings just to gain an additional fraction of develop-able land on a large building parcel is nuts, and it doesn't happen in most cities with nearly the frequency it does here.

[fenwick16]

According to allnovascotia.com, Killam Properties has bought the Weir House. This seems like a good sign since they also own the Governor's Plaza lot adjacent to it - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=224759, and the Alexander project. I think there is a good chance that the Weir House and Governor's Plaza will be developed at the same time (just my opinion based on the tight quarters that they will have to work with).

[NDPer4life]

.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

According to allnovascotia.com, Killam Properties has bought the Weir House. This seems like a good sign since they also own the Governor's Plaza lot adjacent to it - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=224759, and the Alexander project. I think there is a good chance that the Weir House and Governor's Plaza will be developed at the same time (just my opinion based on the tight quarters that they will have to work with).

That is good news, especially in light of the quality of materials (stone) being applied to the podium of the Alexander. To my way of thinking, this indicates that the Weir House should get the respect it deserves.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Sometimes a building looks modest but is registered because of some historically important event.

There are some heritage buildings like that (the Wanderers Grounds one was a potential example but I think it's gone now anyway) but the larger problem is buildings that should be heritage and aren't. Or, looking at it another way, there should be some kind of protection for "character buildings" that were often built to a higher level of quality and are more attractive and durable than the newer developments that replace them. Height/density bonuses would be one good way to deal with this problem. A lot of old buildings are torn down merely because they happen to be on larger lots that can accommodate something larger, not because it is impossible to maintain them. They are torn down because incorporating the older building would be a bit more expensive than tearing it down and the developer has little economic incentive to do so.

I just re-read this conversation and an example came to mind which illustrates that just because a heritage building isn't grand in scale or decoration, it can still have historical significance.

The case in mind is 133 Octherloney Street in Dartmouth. At first glance it doesn't appear to be much - and in terms of its physical stature it isn't. It's a very small, basic house, likely built at a relatively small cost.

On Google: https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.66924...7i13312!8i6656

Looking into it further, though, you will discover that it actually was one of the houses lived in by Irish labourers that were building the Shubenacadie Canal. The house was built in 1831 and is perhaps the only one remaining from the Irish Town community in Dartmouth.

From page 9 of the walking tour brochure linked below:

In this neighbourhood Irish labourers lived
while building the Shubenacadie Canal.
The area became known as “Irish Town”. In
the collection of the Nova Scotia Museum
we identified a picture taken of two houses
on Ochterloney Street in 1931. Future
historians may be able to identify where
these houses once stood. At this time only
the house at 133 Ochterloney Street is
confirmed as an Irish Town House.

http://downtowndartmouth.ca/images/u...es_Revised.pdf

http://www.halifax.ca/Heritage-Prope...sDartmouth.pdf

So, while it may not be impressive in its physical form, it is still very significant as a part of local history.

Sorry, I realize that this is a bit of a derail of this thread, but I think it's an important part of the discussion.