[Halifax] Waverley Inn (1266 Barrington) | 28 m | 10 fl | On Hold

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

These things often become permanent though.

Indeed, but the Ghosns still own the building, and the arrangement is being presented as a partnership with them. They seemed really gung-ho about the whole project as of last year. I definitely hope it proceeds; it's one of my favourite proposals in town.

The Elmwood appears to be moving forward in any case. Went by the other day and there are huge steel beams underpinning the old structure, presumably preparing to move it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

While the cause appears to be a good one, it’s a disappointment as I was looking forward to see this one proceed. It seemed like it could be a great example of how to save and repurpose heritage buildings, while combining them with new development that hadn’t been done much in the past in Halifax. It might have shown the way for more old buildings to be saved in that fashion.

I don’t claim to have any exceptional insight into this situation, but I would think this would be hard to take back in the future, unless other things change for the housing situation, and for these groups in particular. Seems like there would be great public and political force to keep it going indefinitely.

[someone123]

Generally the city's scarce historic buildings and civic spaces aren't given a lot of special care and maintenance. There is always a reason why, with the latest for the Grand Parade being that there is a homelessness crisis. In many cities with less affordable housing they wouldn't let people camp on the central town square and there would be higher standards for heritage preservation; they wouldn't be treated as fungible rental stock.

I don't know the details of this project but I'm not sure I am confident it won't deteriorate and then burn down or something like that. I don't think that's most likely but also don't feel like it's far-fetched, or that there's a coherent vision to bring this area up to standards for one of the city's nicer heritage neighbourhoods (where a lot has already been lost, making the remaining stuff even more valuable).

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Maybe the generous offer by the developer comes with a generous increase in height for the new tower sometime in the future? Now that the rule book has been thrown out in favour of an individual decision maker any speculation could possibly be fact.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

While the cause appears to be a good one, it’s a disappointment as I was looking forward to see this one proceed. It seemed like it could be a great example of how to save and repurpose heritage buildings, while combining them with new development that hadn’t been done much in the past in Halifax. It might have shown the way for more old buildings to be saved in that fashion.

I don’t claim to have any exceptional insight into this situation, but I would think this would be hard to take back in the future, unless other things change for the housing situation, and for these groups in particular. Seems like there would be great public and political force to keep it going indefinitely.

Well, the Elmwood is still going to do that a block away (though I feel like the attention to architectural detail in the Waverley proposal is superior). I honestly don’t think this is the end of this project—the Ghosns own the building, and I doubt they’re going to be okay turning it into a shelter forever. The province is only leasing it, and while the government could try and buy it, I doubt the developer would want to give up a major downtown property that way. The YWCA is going to be onsite 24/7 providing service, so it’s not like it’s being made into an unmonitored flophouse—I’d be curious to know how the arrangement came about, and who proposed it initially, but I’m still pretty optimistic this will proceed in due course. An indefinite postponement is disappointing, of course.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Well, the Elmwood is still going to do that a block away (though I feel like the attention to architectural detail in the Waverley proposal is superior). I honestly don’t think this is the end of this project—the Ghosns own the building, and I doubt they’re going to be okay turning it into a shelter forever. The province is only leasing it, and while the government could try and buy it, I doubt the developer would want to give up a major downtown property that way. The YWCA is going to be onsite 24/7 providing service, so it’s not like it’s being made into an unmonitored flophouse—I’d be curious to know how the arrangement came about, and who proposed it initially, but I’m still pretty optimistic this will proceed in due course. An indefinite postponement is disappointing, of course.

I'm happy to share in your optimism. Let's hope it still happens in a few years.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Well, the Elmwood is still going to do that a block away (though I feel like the attention to architectural detail in the Waverley proposal is superior). I honestly don’t think this is the end of this project—the Ghosns own the building, and I doubt they’re going to be okay turning it into a shelter forever.

The Elmwood is on a prominent corner too. I think it will be more impactful and likely turn out great if the execution is decent and they don't pivot to grey metal cladding and LEDs for the old hotel or something. It has the potential to increase the urbanism level around there while adding character.

Part of what's frustrating about this area is it's so close to being a really interesting and eclectic medium-scale heritage district but there are just enough flaws to hold it back, and it feels like it's been treading water for decades. I don't think it was coordinated but it's like there's a rule in Halifax that you're not allowed to have more than 4 nice buildings in a row. To add insult to injury, in the overall scheme of the city, it would take very little tactical investment to make some of these areas far nicer. If the Snappy Tomato building were replaced with a 4 storey Hal Forbes style apartment building with a retail unit in the corner that would be huge.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

If the Snappy Tomato building were replaced with a 4 storey Hal Forbes style apartment building with a retail unit in the corner that would be huge.

Every single building on that very significant corner is terrible, despite a wealth of very good buildings immediately nearby. Would love to know what it looked like 100 years ago.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Every single building on that very significant corner is terrible, despite a wealth of very good buildings immediately nearby. Would love to know what it looked like 100 years ago.

Not 100 years ago, but 1945 (after the VE Day riots):


https://archives.novascotia.ca/eastc...hives/?ID=4475

[Drybrain]

Well that's a downgrade! OTOH, much as I'd love to see the Snappy Tomato building restored to its former appearance, two storeys is too small for this location nowadays anyway. But this is a location that demands something of especially high quality for redevelopment.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I have to agree. The interesting Victorian-ish storefront elements are long gone, and the building doesn't hold much architectural value in its current form (IMHO), even if it is a legitimate heritage structure. I wouldn't be opposed to a redevelopment, but as you say it would have to be high quality for me to be on board. If somebody could do new construction with authentic heritage cues (not the typical 'faux hertiage' stuff we tend to see) it would help to cement the feel of the area.

Although then, there would be the obvious optics of tearing down a legitimate heritage building to build a 'fake' one...

I think it would be a reasonable compromise, though, if it were done right, added density, and improved the street feel of the area. If the empty lot next door could be part of a new development, this would be an additional improvement.

[someone123]

Somebody posted another view of these buildings: https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/com...ington_street/

The duplex that was torn down looks great there. Just as good as the surviving buildings.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think it would be a reasonable compromise, though, if it were done right, added density, and improved the street feel of the area. If the empty lot next door could be part of a new development, this would be an additional improvement.

A new development like Vic Suites with a well-done 4-storey wood building with decorative elements and a midrise tower would look great. It would be a lot like the Elmwood plan, but with the corner building being new as well.

Given the state of things I think if Halifax wants to have complete heritage districts there will need to be some new construction here and there that adds traditional character.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Here it is in December 1974, presumably after a fire, and just before being demolished:



Source

[someone123]

Sometimes people ask why Halifax doesn't have as many rowhouses as some other cities in the region. I'm not sure that's actually true (how big is the Hydrostone which is mostly rowhouses?) but I think the perception is due to a mix of changes like this as well as Halifax's old buildings covering a larger area that's harder to explore on foot as part of a quick visit. Halifax is not Chicago but it's about a 5 km walk from the historic rowhouses of Inglis out to the end of the Hydrostone, and areas like Jubilee aren't that close either. I don't even really see a lot of pictures of these areas online.

I wonder why these small lots stayed empty for so long? My theory is that due to development potential, virtually every small lot owner is the temporarily embarrassed owner of a much more valuable land assembly that could have some larger modern condo or apartment building on it. Rising land prices also mean that you can hold on to these parcels and pay taxes on them without using them much, and the tax on improvements provides an incentive for owners to underuse parcels. In cities where the land value is low and stable, having functional old buildings can be much more profitable. I was looking at the economics of properties in Sydney recently and you'd much rather hang on to an old building there than have an empty lot (though maybe that will change now).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder why these small lots stayed empty for so long?

I suspect that for a long time, any lot containing a derelict building in Halifax could be obtained somewhat cheaply, and as you said, held onto due to the property tax structure allowing them to be kept almost no cost. Now we are seeing them being built up as the lots are much more desirable (and valuable).

For people playing the long game (and perhaps some of them have been handed down genrationally?), now those purchases are paying off. I wouldn't be surprised to see this lot being built up in the near future, TBH.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

For people playing the long game (and perhaps some of them have been handed down genrationally?), now those purchases are paying off. I wouldn't be surprised to see this lot being built up in the near future, TBH.

I wonder how easy it is to fill in these small lots and what the city does to encourage it. Some areas with mixed attached and small apartments are I believe zoned for detached only now.

If you look at a street like Agricola it is much the same story and a lot of the gaps were small houses, often attached row housing, that were demolished. Ideally the eventual mix there would include some short street frontage developments in the 2-5 floor range.

HRM by Design or Centre Plan rules don't seem to do very well with variety in a local area. Organic development tends to create it naturally but if you have an imposed density limit the constrains development you get the tabletop look. There are worse things but sometimes it's nice to have a tall landmark, and the goal should not be to tear down all of south Barrington or Agricola to build 8 storey condos.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how easy it is to fill in these small lots and what the city does to encourage it. Some areas with mixed attached and small apartments are I believe zoned for detached only now.

I don't know, TBH. However, given that the lot next door has a development proposed (as you posted in the "Bearly's" thread), I'm assuming that something with a little density would be possible here, even though the lot appears to be much more shallow.

It's a good question, though, and I also suspect that the city doesn't make it easy to do something that might not be cut and dried by existing zoning.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Former Halifax hotel opens as supportive housing project

People have begun moving into a new supportive housing facility at a former hotel in Halifax's south end.

The former Waverley Inn on Barrington Street is now open and will offer housing for women and gender-diverse people.

The YWCA Halifax is providing on-site support staff for the program.

"We're excited that the Waverley is open," said Danielle Hodges, the YWCA's senior director of programs. "We've worked really hard over the last couple of months in partnership with the province, with HRM, to get the property ready."

The facility will have room for 32 people.

Priority is being given to those on a list of people sleeping rough in HRM. The list is kept by the Affordable Housing Association of Nova Scotia.

According to the list, 1,138 people were homeless in Halifax as of Feb. 13.

"We're helping to break cycles of homelessness," Hodges said, adding people will be moving in gradually over the next couple of weeks.

Support workers will be there to help people settle, she said, and help connect them to resources.

A Nova Scotia government news release last November said the province will invest $1.9 million to support staffing programming and leasing costs.

The project is a collaboration with Grafton Developments, the release said. The developer will provide use of the building for at least three years.

Bolded part by me. I wonder if this means that there will be zero construction on the lot for at least 3 years?

It's obviously a good service to provide, considering the mess that (due to the actions and inactions of the federal government) we are all in now. I suspect that the developer would not have offered use of the building if they were planning to get at it right away, and with the Waverley building being used (as opposed to being left vacant), heating and maintenance will definitely be good for the structure (as well as the people benefiting from its use).

I do wonder about the future of this project, though.

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Former Halifax hotel opens as supportive housing project



Bolded part by me. I wonder if this means that there will be zero construction on the lot for at least 3 years?

It's obviously a good service to provide, considering the mess that (due to the actions and inactions of the federal government) we are all in now. I suspect that the developer would not have offered use of the building if they were planning to get at it right away, and with the Waverley building being used (as opposed to being left vacant), heating and maintenance will definitely be good for the structure (as well as the people benefiting from its use).

I do wonder about the future of this project, though.

I expect that this means that there will be no construction during the 3 years. I applaud the developer providing this location for a shelter for three years.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

I expect that this means that there will be no construction during the 3 years. I applaud the developer providing this location for a shelter for three years.

Yes, I’m sure there are rules against major construction happening on a site that is otherwise occupied. I don’t know the specifics, however, so I was musing how this works from a business perspective.

I’m assuming that there is a combination of being community minded, generosity, and a business case that works for them (given that there are government funds involved). It’s also possible that there may be a behind the scenes change in direction that this may facilitate.

Either way, for at least 3 years, there is a place for some people to live who likely would be on the street. Hopefully there will be a plan in place for these people to go if/when it’s time for the project to continue.