1592 Barrington | 22 m | 6 fl | Complete - Page 3

Duff · #41 Posted **Nov 28, 2012, 8:24 PM**

There isn't much left of this building now. You can see the walls of the neighbouring buildings through the glass. Should be done pretty soon I would think. Here is a picture I took on my phone while waiting for the bus.

SekishikiMeikaiHa · #42 Posted **Dec 8, 2012, 6:02 AM**

Really gutted:

ScovaNotian · #43 Posted **Dec 8, 2012, 1:08 PM**

What have they done to the Tramway building?

Jonovision · #44 Posted **Dec 8, 2012, 2:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScovaNotian

What have they done to the Tramway building?

That looks horrible!

Drybrain · #45 Posted **Dec 8, 2012, 4:43 PM**

What the hell? Is that why the scaffolding was over Tramway? What is the purpose of this, and why on Earth was it allowed?

eastcoastal · #46 Posted **Dec 8, 2012, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScovaNotian

What have they done to the Tramway building?

LOL. I hadn't noticed. Hasn't the tramway building looked consistently borderline derelict for the past 30 years?

Nifta · #47 Posted **Dec 8, 2012, 5:02 PM**

I walked past it today. The rendering is really patchy and looks amateurishly done.

bluenoser · #48 Posted **Dec 8, 2012, 6:01 PM**

Wow, I can see wanting to restore the building but I wonder why the tops of the columns were cut off - and how they will replace them, if at all? They were sort of the main feature... Also, why take down all the scaffolding after only accomplishing the demo?

Drybrain · #49 Posted **Dec 8, 2012, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluenoser

Wow, I can see wanting to restore the building but I wonder why the tops of the columns were cut off - and how they will replace them, if at all? They were sort of the main feature... Also, why take down all the scaffolding after only accomplishing the demo?

The owner of the Tramway Building, Morris Strug, was complaining this spring about CD Plus/Tip-Top development, concerned that it would affect the heritage features of the Tramway. The minutes from a Heritage Advisory meeting include this passage: "He asks that if the proposed design [for the Tip-Top site] does go forward, that he be permitted to access the right of way [side alley] to help maintain and preserve his historically significant building and that it not cover up the light well in a manner that would make the building less attractive or possibly damage it."

So it SOUNDS like he's not the kind of owner to just start destroying his own building. I pray that's the case, because it looks like an unfinished concrete cube now. Completely ruined. I can't imagine the city would allow this in a conservation district either, but who knows. Perhaps it will all be reconstructed in good time, and the removal of the facade has to do with facilitating something going on next door.

If anyone knows more, it'd be great to hear.

someone123 · #50 Posted **Dec 8, 2012, 11:18 PM**

I wish there were better communication about work done on heritage buildings. Property owners could go to the media and explain their intentions, or the details could go up on the HRM website. Even in cases where owners do plan on altering the buildings, public perception would probably be a lot better if the owners were to explain some of the rationale behind their decisions. In a lot of other cases, the modifications are only temporary but people worry what will happen because they have no information and because property owners in Halifax have a very spotty track record when it comes to heritage buildings.

As for 1592, I'm looking forward to watching the new building go up. With the replacement of CD Plus and Barrington Espace the stretch from the Khyber to Prince Street will be pretty nice. If the NFB Building is ever restored then this will be a great stretch of buildings.

Jstaleness · #51 Posted **Dec 19, 2012, 11:59 PM**

Here is a shot I grabbed from Discovery Centre.

someone123 · #52 Posted **Dec 29, 2012, 6:53 PM**

Demolition is expected to be completed in about a week, at which point they'll start excavation immediately.

I wonder if some of the Roy Building tenants will be re-located here before that building is redeveloped. The Sam redevelopment alone looks quite a bit smaller than Roy, but I don't know how full it is.

Aya_Akai · #53 Posted **Dec 30, 2012, 3:08 AM**

So I haven't seen much change in design etc with this, other than the other proposed idea.. are we still going to be seeing what this originally had proposed way back (the one presented in the PDF in post #1) Because overall I really quite enjoy this building.

someone123 · #54 Posted **Dec 30, 2012, 10:08 PM**

They are still doing electrical, engineering, and mechanical design work, but I think that original design is what was approved and what will be built.

I also like the design. The 6 storey scale will be interesting. It's important to preserve what's there, but Barrington also needs some new investment and its buildings need to adapt to suit modern needs. I think replacing CD Plus and then restoring others like, say, Green Lantern is a good balance. It doesn't make sense to try to preserve everything on a street with a mixed building stock that includes small structures of little or no remaining heritage value that are in poor condition. If the street were lined with an unbroken row of 6 storey masonry Victorians I'd feel a bit different, but it's not.

SekishikiMeikaiHa · #55 Posted **Jan 26, 2013, 5:41 PM**

The demo continues:

someone123 · #56 Posted **Feb 19, 2013, 1:15 AM**

Excavation for this one is set to begin in a couple of weeks.

SekishikiMeikaiHa · #57 Posted **Mar 9, 2013, 4:24 AM**

Update:

someone123 · #58 Posted **Mar 9, 2013, 5:49 AM**

Good timing.

I really hope that's a temporary state for the Tramway Building.

Drybrain · #59 Posted **Mar 9, 2013, 3:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Good timing.

I really hope that's a temporary state for the Tramway Building.

I emailed Waye Mason a while ago out of concern for the Tramway, actually.

The good news is that the plan is to restore it. The bad news is that the plans are vague and long-term.

He said that the facade was stripped away like that as a safety issue because the concrete was crumbling. (If you look at the north side of the building, you get a sense of how rough it is.) As for the parapets, apparently they were wood underneath sparging, and were rotten after 95 years up there. It seems to me that the building was just a victim of Barrington's mid-century decline and got very little regular TLC for a few decades.

But it was recently sold to a new owner (the old owner was, well, old) who intends to apply for some government money to fix it, but he's going to focus on the interior first. So it's going to look like this for a while, maybe a couple of years (which, of course, I'm sure could easily extend into more than a couple.)

I'd love to see the city's heritage staff step in with some sort of plan to expedite this--it's such a nasty-looking black mark at such a prominent location, and such a terrible state for such a (formerly) distinctive building. It's also an unfortunate step back for an otherwise revitalizing Barrington.

someone123 · #60 Posted **Mar 9, 2013, 7:04 PM**

One of the problems with Barrington is that there's a leisurely attitude toward fixing up buildings like this one. The city's the same way with public infrastructure. The state of the street just isn't seen as an urgent problem. When somebody says "oh yes, this is terrible, we'll get to it in a few years" they don't actually care that much about it. This is true when regional council comes up with plans that say how wonderful and important the downtown is but that never seem to turn into concrete action; the councillors are paying lip service to the downtown and then directing their attention to real issues like cat bylaws or completely HRM-funded quadruple ice rinks in Hammonds Plains.

Hopefully in a few years standards along the street will be better. There will be a higher share of nicely kept new or restored buildings and the ones in poor condition will stand out more.