Morse's Tea Building Signage

[lmccabe55]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

It doesn't display for me but maybe others can see it ?

Nope, I can't see it either.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I thought the same thing... Anyway, as much nostalgia as people have including me, it's scary that private ownership seemingly means nothing.

What if I wanted to paint my house a different colour? Think about it.

Private ownership is never absolute though. If it were, we wouldn't have urban planning at all and it would be just a big laizze faire free-for-all. The Morses Tea Building is a heritage building and has been for years. It was registered prior to Starfish purchasing it so they should have been well aware of the resulting restrictions. They are generally a model landowner in the Downtown! Almost all of the best buildings on Barrington Street are theirs! Nevertheless, the sign is listed as part of the Morses Tea Building's heritage character statement and as a result Starfish can't just do whatever it wants. The same restriction applies to all heritage properties. The idea is to strike a balance between private ownership and the greater public value. It's a good goal! It's too bad that the debate has become really clouded over the last several decades with arguments over vacant lots. The polarization of opinion has made dealing with real heritage issues more difficult.

I personally think that we need to improve the incentives around heritage properties (maybe a small tax rebate), because registration doesn't provide the owner with much. Right now, the system relies on owners agreeing to restrict what they can do with their properties and all they receive in return is, basically, a small plaque. It really relies on the owner registering their property out of the goodness of their heart which is not exactly a winning formula for protecting our heritage buildings! It's no wonder that many significant properties fall through the cracks (Roy Building and Elmwood Apartments for example).

[SignalHillHiker]

You know what you're getting when you buy a heritage property. In St. John's, the city dictates just about everything, right down to paint colours, in the old town core's designated heritage area. You buy there, you follow the rules. If you don't want the rules to affect you, get a house somewhere else.

And the city isn't shy about enforcing these rules. My parents were talking the other day about a woman who had to spend a fortune to have new windows installed twice. The new ones she installed initially didn't meet heritage requirements for how they opened, so she had to replace them again. I kind of hope it's not true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by spaustin

I personally think that we need to improve the incentives around heritage properties (maybe a small tax rebate), because registration doesn't provide the owner with much.

I agree. This has happened somewhat along Barrington but there should be stronger heritage incentives throughout the city. Unfortunately, instead of questioning why some heritage buildings are not economical, politicians and heritage advocates have often taken the easy way out and pointed fingers at property owners. They can wag their fingers all they want but that is not a viable heritage strategy.

Occasionally people like Phil Pacey have made economic arguments, but I have never seen anything convincing. One proposal (I think from Pacey) was that the height limit throughout the downtown should be 4 storeys in order to remove the incentive for developers to redevelop small older buildings. That proposal would have done nothing in terms of making downtown a successful retail, office, and residential district supporting rents sufficient to maintain expensive masonry buildings. Pacey has also suggested that upzoning properties is bad for housing affordability. Maybe that would be true in an unsustainable, moribund district of ageing, unmaintained buildings. I would not consider that successful heritage preservation.

It's too bad that the debate has become really clouded over the last several decades with arguments over vacant lots.

Yeah, it is too bad. Heritage preservation used to mean architecture, then streetscapes, then views, and now it has been expanded to include pretty much any development. A big part of the problem is that there's considerable overlap between the heritage advocates and NIMBY groups, and the NIMBYs have hijacked the heritage debate to further their agenda.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yeah, it is too bad. Heritage preservation used to mean architecture, then streetscapes, then views, and now it has been expanded to include pretty much any development. A big part of the problem is that there's considerable overlap between the heritage advocates and NIMBY groups, and the NIMBYs have hijacked the heritage debate to further their agenda.

Very true... its almost just an excuse for no height that can be thrown up when there is nothing else. I find it funny that some heritage structures are taller than the actual proposals that are put out there.

If they turned it back into Jerusalem warehouse signage... wouldn't that be actual heritage restoration because the Morse's tea's sign is almost a violation of the real heritage that exists there. Just food for thought... people take things in Halifax as if they were never modified in the first place. All those upper floors are technically an add on.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

I find it funny that some heritage structures are taller than the actual proposals that are put out there.

Yes, there are lots of heritage buildings in Halifax that are in the 8-14 storey range (a few of them can be considered "highrises") and many of them would be deemed "out of scale" with their surroundings.

What would the NIMBYs say about a building the size of the Lord Nelson or Nova Scotian Hotel today fronting onto the Public Gardens or Cornwallis Park? What about the Dominion Public Building? Hospital buildings? Roy Building? Bank of NS? Dennis Building? There are some 2 storey commercial buildings on Bedford Row right next to the Dominion building.

The real issue is how the buildings are designed, not how tall they are compared to their neighbours.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

The civic addresses in a city commonly change as the city is built out.

Halifax's system is based on a single-quadrant grid (top-left quandrant of a graph) where the civic addresses are given based on their distance from the south (x-axis) and east (y-axis). As the peninsula was developed it was necessary to renumber the existing lots to fit in with the new development. This crude drawing I made shows what I mean;

Thanks for the information (I can see the image now - maybe the flickr.com server was previously down in the US because of the storm).

It seems that in the GTA the south-north addresses start at Lake Ontario and then increase, whereas east-west streets start at a particular south-north street and have east portions and west portions.

[fenwick16]

deleted post - moved it to the RBC Waterside thread

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

If they turned it back into Jerusalem warehouse signage... wouldn't that be actual heritage restoration because the Morse's tea's sign is almost a violation of the real heritage that exists there. Just food for thought... people take things in Halifax as if they were never modified in the first place. All those upper floors are technically an add on.

Technically this would only be a correct restoration if those top floors were added on while it was still considered the Jerusalem warehouse, and only if that signage appeared on the original building...

However, I think the significance is that the Morse's era is also significant to Halifax's past and the signage had survived this long and remained in reasonably good condition (with a little patina, but completely in fitting with the character of the building). It was not an eyesore, and it displayed a style of signage no longer common in today's world.

In the car world, it is commonplace to restore a car to an era which is not necessarily the era of when the car was new. For example, there are many hot rods built on '30s-era vehicles that are restored to the way they would have looked in the '50s. While not in "original condition", they do correctly depict a significant era in the car's life. I think this principle applies to the Morse's sign.

Personally, I think it was a bonehead move to paint over it.

[scooby074]

So whats the deal on the sign currently? Any official clarification on why the sign was painted over and what text will be put back?

Any response from the city? Or heritage?

Is the developer just waiting for the outrage to die down to place whatever they want up there?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Any more word on this? If I were to take a wild guess, I'd say it sounds like they decided to paint over the sign to remove the Morse's lineage and wait for it to be off the radar before they "rebrand" it... people have short memories and will likely not care a few months down the road after they have forgotten about the Morse's sign.

Again, it's too bad the heritage trust people didn't jump on it, but the damage is done now.

[Terroir]

Originally Posted by someone123

The real issue is how the buildings are designed, not how tall they are compared to their neighbours.

This is actually quite an important issue to maintain a scale that works with the surrounding landscape. The height is part of how they are designed and buildings should fit within the context of their particular street and in the larger urban scape. That being said you can put higher buildings next to shorter ones if you keep the front adjacent to the street in scale with the buildings next to it then step back and put more stories on that don't impose on the street or block light or create wind tunnels etc. Most important are the pedestrians and users of the building or street and having a skyscraper in a strip of 2 story townhouses just doesnt work.

[Haligonian88]

An article from the Chronicle Herald about the legality of the painting:

Building’s sign change may have broken law
January 11, 2013 - 6:54pm BY MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE STAFF REPORTER

The Morse's Tea sign on this downtown Halifax heritage was painted over in October. (RYAN TAPLIN / Staff)

Halifax city hall is looking into whether a sign alteration done last year on a municipal heritage property downtown contravened the law.

Once municipal staff finish their investigation of the painting in October of the Morse’s Tea building sign, a course of action will be recommended to senior management and regional council.

The building’s owner, Starfish Properties Ltd., altered two painted signs on the Hollis Street structure “by having the exposed letters painted … leaving solid white bands in their place,” says a staff report on council’s agenda for its Tuesday session.

...

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/4...ave-broken-law

[MTLskyline]

By the looks of things the old letters are still barely visible. A skilled painter should be able to repaint it. I don't see the city just letting this slide.

[halifaxboyns]

This is the staff report going to this coming Tuesday's council meeting.

[fenwick16]

Are they seriously considering leaving a white strip? Even completely removing the lettering would be better.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

This is the staff report going to this coming Tuesday's council meeting.

Based on the report, I'd say the developer would only have recourse to argue that the painted signs are not integral to the structure/form and should not be considered "character defining elements." I think that argument would be a stretch, and if this were to go to the Supreme Court, he'd end up looking like a fool. He'd be best served by restoring it ASAP and avoiding any kind of public battle. I wonder if his ego could handle that?

I've been wondering WHY he'd do it... the only thing I can come up with is that in order to lease the top 5 floors (they are still vacant, aren't they?) he wants to be able to provide the ability for a tenant to brand the building themselves. Now, I wonder if providing a company the ability to align themselves with a questionable alteration of a landmark (heritage value or not), would be more of a disincentive. I would have thought he'd be better off providing potential tenants with the possibility of locating in the "Landmark Morse's Teas Building (tm)."

[scooby074]

A nice fine and complete restoration of the sign should be in order.

The "Morse's Tea" sign was in my opinion a defining part of the building and Historic Properties for that matter.

[someone123]

I am hoping that somebody at the city will just call Starfish and ask them politely to restore the sign (maybe Waye Mason, the downtown councillor).

If nobody has tried that yet it makes me wonder why they'd create a report like this, adding more fuel to the fire and wasting time in the process. Maybe the developer is refusing to comply and not talking to the media...? It's not clear.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by someone123

I am hoping that somebody at the city will just call Starfish and ask them politely to restore the sign (maybe Waye Mason, the downtown councillor).

If nobody has tried that yet it makes me wonder why they'd create a report like this, adding more fuel to the fire and wasting time in the process. Maybe the developer is refusing to comply and not talking to the media...? It's not clear.

Regarding discussions with the owner, text from the report:
It is staff’s opinion that the painted signs are character-defining elements that strongly contribute to the heritage value of the building. Staff have discussed this with the building owner who does not share this opinion but, instead, believes that permission was not required prior to undertaking the painting of the signs. Additionally, the owner has indicated that he intends to take no further action at this time relative to the remaining white bands.