Heritage, vibrancy compatible partners in downtown vision

[sdm]

Heritage, vibrancy compatible partners in downtown vision

By PETER DELEFES
Sat. Aug 16 - 5:15 AM

THE SUPPORTERS of heritage in the HRM and across Nova Scotia envision a vibrant and beautiful Halifax. We differ strongly from the Halifax by Design plan proponents who want to achieve their ends through a process which favours speculative development and high buildings; we want to focus on our unique built heritage as the cornerstone of economic and cultural revitalization of the downtown.

Halifax is one of the great historic cities from the age of sail along the East Coast of North America. Its natural topography of a hill crowned by the Citadel sloping down to a magnificent harbour is one of the outstanding features of the downtown area. There is still a visible connection to the water which must be maintained.
The other remarkable feature is a unique collection of heritage buildings: 70 per cent of all the buildings in the central business district are heritage buildings or would merit heritage designation. It’s the most historic square kilometre in English Canada.

Cities like Amsterdam and Venice are also blessed with a magnificent natural topography and heritage buildings. They have melded these two elements into downtown areas of breathtaking beauty. We believe we can do the same in Halifax. Unfortunately, over the years, we have allowed some dreadful buildings to creep into our downtown, buildings higher than the historic norms, intruding into some of the historic commercial streetscapes and beautiful old neighbourhoods. Despite this, the cityscape below the Citadel is still a coherent and handsome whole. We believe that through proper design regulation, over a decade or two, all elements may be retrofitted into a new and harmonious whole where the character of the city’s proud historic buildings sets the tone.

The success of Victoria, Quebec City, Old Montreal and Edmonton’s Old Strathcona district as thriving, economically viable communities is based on their low-rise, human-scaled proportions and the preservation and reuse of their historic building stock.

We believe that historic preservation makes good economic sense. Heritage advocates want to foster new, sensitive development and the renovation and restoration of heritage buildings which would showcase the downtown and increase the number of people living and working in the area. Such in-scale development would provide the commercial and residential space which will be needed well into the future. The success of other cities in preserving and finding new uses for their low-rise historic buildings proves plenty of developers believe there are economic benefits in adaptive reuse of older buildings.

The measures proposed by Halifax by Design are out of step with current best practices in heritage renewal in the world’s great heritage cities like Paris, London, Rome, Quebec City, Charleston and Jerusalem. These cities are tightening design controls and blocking the erection of highrise buildings in their city centres.
Halifax by Design is taking the opposite course. This plan, if adopted, will raise permissible building heights well above historic norms. It will result in huge windfall profits for those who own heritage properties. There will be an incentive for them to demolish their buildings and erect new, higher ones. Realistically, the proposal will permit the erection of more than 30 highrise buildings throughout the downtown centre and the waterfront area, traditionally low-rise areas. The historic ambience will be overpowered and destroyed by the adjoining highrise new buildings.

HRM’s release of the proposed Halifax by Design plan to the public has resulted in a rush of proposals by some developers who are taking advantage of the climate of uncertainty caused by the plan. Judging from their proposals, they have taken an "anything goes" approach to downtown development.

They completely ignore the Municipal Planning Strategy (e.g., Policy 7.2.1, which states that the "design of new buildings should be complementary to" adjacent heritage buildings) and the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy, just adopted in 2006, governing any new developments in connection with municipally registered heritage properties. For example, Policy CH-1 of the regional strategy ensures "any new work is physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the heritage properties." Policy CH-1 also requires "maintaining the essential form and integrity of the heritage property" and ensures that "significant architectural or landscaping features are not removed or significantly altered." These are the current laws governing development in the downtown area.

One of the most outrageous proposals in recent weeks is by the Armour Group: a nine-storey office building between Hollis and Upper Water streets on the centre block of Historic Properties. Clearly, the proposed huge, modernistic development is not physically and visually compatible with or subordinate to the historic buildings.

It’s evident that many citizens are concerned that the Halifax by Design Plan will compromise the historic downtown core and may actually result in the loss of heritage buildings. On the Natal Day weekend, in the pouring rain, over 700 people filled out and submitted a card opposing the Armour proposal.
Historic preservation is not an end in itself, but the means to broader ends. Here in Halifax, it is the means that will enable us to revitalize the downtown, stabilize neighbourhoods, create jobs and provide both affordable and luxury housing.


Peter Delefes is Nova Scotia’s representative on the Heritage Canada Foundation.

[sdm]

From the sounds of this if he had his way we would not build anything new downtown, just spend lots of money on our heritage buildings which are environmentally inefficent and not useful for todays modern office use.

Peter Delefes was one of the members appealling the UG towers.

[hfx_chris]

70 percent, huh? Anybody care to debunk that?

[Dmajackson]

Well it is hard to argue that for the reason that it's what he thinks deserves heritage desgination not what actually would. But 70% is still a very high number. Maybe hes counting the Maritime Centre...it's getting up their in age.... .

Besides we can't move the new proposals onto SGR with the random viewplane and the low height restrictions.

[spaustin]

Halifax may have a number of old buildings, but in the downtown they tend to be scattered. About the only true districts we have are a few blocks of Barrington Street and Granville Mall/Historic Properties. Comparing Halifax to places where things are still intact (Quebec City, Montreal, Saint John, NB etc) isn't very reasonable. The chance to do heritage as the primary motif downtown passed in the post war era when blocks were razed and modern buildings appeared. Since we can't do that what we need is a viable mix of old and new. Let modern buildings be modern buildings next to old building.

It's really too bad that the heritage supporters have been led over a cliff by their leadership (too much fighting to protect parking lots). It's too bad because it's hard to take them seriously, even on proposals where there are real heritage questions (the Roy and Waterfront Place), because they've been crying wolf too often.

[Keith P.]

The museum mentality he exhibits in the article is what drives me crazy about these people. Heritage buildings will be restored and reused when there is an economic case to do so. To expect them to magically be restored regardless of the economics simply doesn't make sense. And, as I and others have said, many of what are called heritage buildings are really just old and unremarkable. We're not talking the Halifax equivalent of Penn Station here. A 2 or 3 storey wooded box isn't something necessarily worth saving just because it was built in the late 19th century.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Halifax isn't even comparable to those cities. I don't like when people talk about things like this as if they have lived in some of these places... because I have.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The museum mentality he exhibits in the article is what drives me crazy about these people .... A 2 or 3 storey wooded box isn't something necessarily worth saving just because it was built in the late 19th century.

Nor because it was once the home of some sea captain or ropemaker. Sheesh!

[kwajo]

Clearly, the proposed huge, modernistic development is not physically and visually compatible with or subordinate to the historic buildings.

Is the author implying that we should create some sort of architectural caste system whereby all new buildings shall be required to kneel at the feet of all buildings which came before them?

Oy.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by kwajo

Is the author implying that we should create some sort of architectural caste system whereby all new buildings shall be required to kneel at the feet of all buildings which came before them?

Clearly, that is what has prevailed in the downtown core for the last while. All new buildings actually receiving approval have been faux-Victorian replicas -- Neptune, the Marriott on Grafton, the apartments on the corner of Blowers and Barrington, etc etc. None of them have been allowed to stand on their own two feet architecturally.