Halifax Retail

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As mentioned, façadism is a better choice than knocking it down completely but not as good as restoring the original. Anti-heritage types will continue to promote façadism as an excuse for gutting buildings and then acting like heroes because they "gave up so much to 'save' it". In reality, it's really just a compromise in which the developer benefits more than the fans of heritage buildings - but it's better than nothing, and a concession that I would have been OK with for the Maritime Life bldg, if it had even been offered as an option.

I assign ~95% of the blame for this to the city.

First of all, they issue the demolition permits.

Beyond that, there isn't much in the way of incentive for developers to retain character buildings. Hypothetically there probably could have been a great compromise on the Doyle site, e.g. keep the sandstone building on the corner but permit a tower on top so that the rest of the project is still economically viable.

As it is on a lot of the small blocks under the viewplanes there isn't much that can be done. Even with the NFB, the developer could not rebuild the clock tower because it would have infringed on the viewplane. It is silly.

The viewplanes and ramparts bylaw also impose a weird contrived urban form on the city rather than organically determined building heights and adornments on buildings. In other words, we will get blobs of buildings that look like the frustums of the viewplanes, rather than a nice mix.

[IanWatson]

I think facadism can be good or bad depending on the context and why the building is valuable. If the building is valued because it provides a nice street front with high-quality materials and a style of craftsmanship that's no longer practiced, then facadism is fine. If the building is valued for its historical value and interior details, then facadism is not okay.

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Fortunately everybody did not think like you regarding the NFB building. Somehow, despite the overwhelming anti-heritage movement in Halifax, it has managed to survive and now will continue to grace the street for decades to come.

As mentioned, façadism is a better choice than knocking it down completely but not as good as restoring the original. Anti-heritage types will continue to promote façadism as an excuse for gutting buildings and then acting like heroes because they "gave up so much to 'save' it". In reality, it's really just a compromise in which the developer benefits more than the fans of heritage buildings - but it's better than nothing, and a concession that I would have been OK with for the Maritime Life bldg, if it had even been offered as an option.

Luckily for you, though, is that the anti-heritage types almost always get their way around here, which is probably why you get to enjoy gloating so much about it and then kicking everybody who cares to mention what was lost. You got your ugly blockbuster on Doyle, so why don't you just leave it be and quietly bask in the glow of your apparent victory?

To quote somebody else, I like the cut of your jib. Well said.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

As mentioned, façadism is a better choice than knocking it down completely but not as good as restoring the original. Anti-heritage types will continue to promote façadism as an excuse for gutting buildings and then acting like heroes because they "gave up so much to 'save' it". In reality, it's really just a compromise in which the developer benefits more than the fans of heritage buildings - but it's better than nothing, and a concession that I would have been OK with for the Maritime Life bldg, if it had even been offered as an option.

Luckily for you, though, is that the anti-heritage types almost always get their way around here, which is probably why you get to enjoy gloating so much about it and then kicking everybody who cares to mention what was lost. You got your ugly blockbuster on Doyle, so why don't you just leave it be and quietly bask in the glow of your apparent victory?

You seem to have missed my comment that I have not passed judgement on the Doyle either way until I see the finished product first-hand. I also find your "anti-heritage types" comments curious. The critics of facadism I have heard in this town - for decades now - have all been heritage advocates, who have consistently derided saving vintage facades by putting a new modern structure behind it as the equivalent of a Chinese knockoff electronics device.

As @IanWatson correctly notes, facadism can be a good or a bad thing. It all depends on the facade and how it relates to the street and the use. I find the NFB Building lacking severely in that regard. The same was true for the Maritime Life and brick Victorians in this case. I am not against heritage but clinging to it beyond all reason is one of the reasons why development in the city was stagnant for so long.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You seem to have missed my comment that I have not passed judgement on the Doyle either way until I see the finished product first-hand. I also find your "anti-heritage types" comments curious. The critics of facadism I have heard in this town - for decades now - have all been heritage advocates, who have consistently derided saving vintage facades by putting a new modern structure behind it as the equivalent of a Chinese knockoff electronics device.

As @IanWatson correctly notes, facadism can be a good or a bad thing. It all depends on the facade and how it relates to the street and the use. I find the NFB Building lacking severely in that regard. The same was true for the Maritime Life and brick Victorians in this case. I am not against heritage but clinging to it beyond all reason is one of the reasons why development in the city was stagnant for so long.

To be fair, the heritage advocates on this forum (some of whom may be in this town) have supported saving the façade as a last ditch effort, when the only alternative is to raze the building. Many of us would prefer to save as much of a heritage building as is possible, as was done with Keith Hall.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You seem to have missed my comment that I have not passed judgement on the Doyle either way until I see the finished product first-hand. I also find your "anti-heritage types" comments curious. The critics of facadism I have heard in this town - for decades now - have all been heritage advocates, who have consistently derided saving vintage facades by putting a new modern structure behind it as the equivalent of a Chinese knockoff electronics device.

As @IanWatson correctly notes, facadism can be a good or a bad thing. It all depends on the facade and how it relates to the street and the use. I find the NFB Building lacking severely in that regard. The same was true for the Maritime Life and brick Victorians in this case. I am not against heritage but clinging to it beyond all reason is one of the reasons why development in the city was stagnant for so long.

Coining the phrase "anti-heritage types" is just as fair as your generalizing everybody advocating to save a heritage property as "anti-development types". I find it amusing that you appear to be offended by my comment.

I don't disagree with Ian's statement, but your statement regarding NFB and brick Victorians is purely your opinion. There could have been compromises made by the developer to repurpose those Victorians and incorporate them into the development, thus retaining some of the historic characteristics of the street, providing nice contrast to the new development, and retaining some of the fine-grained appearance of the street as has been mentioned by other posters (none of which I would consider to be "anti-development").

Additionally, someone123 makes a very good point about the city's failure to provide options to the developer in exchange for compromises that would have actually resulted in a better finished product. I don't think all of the blame can be placed on the city, however, as I don't recall the developer ever discussing it as an option and I do know I never received a response from them when I asked if it were a possibility to save the façade.

And, as usual, JET's comments are spot-on.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Coining the phrase "anti-heritage types" is just as fair as your generalizing everybody advocating to save a heritage property as "anti-development types". I find it amusing that you appear to be offended by my comment.

Why would anyone be offended by this?

Luckily for you, though, is that the anti-heritage types almost always get their way around here, which is probably why you get to enjoy gloating so much about it and then kicking everybody who cares to mention what was lost. You got your ugly blockbuster on Doyle, so why don't you just leave it be and quietly bask in the glow of your apparent victory?

Saying I am gloating when I am not, saying I am kicking everybody when I am not. I post a reasonable comment and you go straight to 11 with it. I should have reported it but I didn't. I honestly do not get the attitude.

And, as usual, JET's comments are spot-on.

You mean, the platitudinous "well said" response to you? He must be Rick Howe under another name.

[JET]

Keith, you need to pay more attention, you're missing stuff.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Why would anyone be offended by this?



Saying I am gloating when I am not, saying I am kicking everybody when I am not. I post a reasonable comment and you go straight to 11 with it. I should have reported it but I didn't. I honestly do not get the attitude.



You mean, the platitudinous "well said" response to you? He must be Rick Howe under another name.

Good Lord.

Please, report me. Same ol' Keith.

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Good Lord.

Please, report me. Same ol' Keith.

Pretty sad when one poster talks of reporting another poster.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by JET

Pretty sad when one poster talks of reporting another poster.

Yup. Unclear exactly what was to be "reported". Sounds more like Trump threatening lawsuits against people who are critical, but then of course never following through.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Pretty sad when one poster talks of reporting another poster.

Even more sad when someone posts a reasonable opinion and gets slammed by another poster for gloating and kicking other members.

[hoser111]

allright.... 'nuff outta y'all! Go to your rooms and if there any more shenanigans there'll be no fun snacks or playtime tomorrow!

[JET]

Who is Rick Howe? Is he someone we should know?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Who is Rick Howe? Is he someone w should know?

Good question...

[Jstaleness]

He is the voice of the Rick Howe show on News95.7 Other than that I actually know nothing more about him.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

He is the voice of the Rick Howe show on News95.7 Other than that I actually know nothing more about him.

Thanks - that would explain it. I usually don't bother listening to talk radio.

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks - that would explain it. I usually don't bother listening to talk radio.

Oh, I see, I always wondered who might listen to talk radio.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

He is the voice of the Rick Howe show on News95.7 Other than that I actually know nothing more about him.

More specifically, he was among the first of whom I am aware to popularize the maxim "Well said" when he was at a loss to come up with a reply after a guest blathers on about something at length, regardless of how foolish and impractical their ramblings may have been.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

More specifically, he was among the first of whom I am aware to popularize the maxim "Well said" when he was at a loss to come up with a reply after a guest blathers on about something at length, regardless of how foolish and impractical their ramblings may have been.

Thanks for your explanation.

Good thing you don't ever post anything negative, or one might construe that commentary as an insult aimed at another poster...