[Halifax] RBC Waterside Centre | 37 m | 9 fl | Completed

[JET]

I agree. If a heritage property cannot be maintained by the owner then it should be expropriated, and maimtained by someone with an interest in such properties. For undeveloped property, (for example lets say the Sobeys wasteland on Gottingen Street (20 years a vacant lot?)) some cities with backbone increase the land tax each year on such properties, as an "incentive" to not let it go wild. There's not a lot of old properties in the downtown. Be nice to hold on to remaining heritage. JET

[JET]

Addendum:
http://www.halifax.ca/council/minutes/1998/c981215.pdf
page 16; on December 15, it will be 20 years that there has been discussion about the Sobeys property. 10% increase in land tax/year might have resulted in some development there. JET

[Empire]

REFORM PUNCH LIST:

- no demolition permit issued for registered heritage properties
- generous tax reduction for registered heritage properties
- neglected registered heritage properties will be expropriated and sold at fair market value ...owner will get up to the assessed value and the remainder deposited into a heritage trust fund
- timeline for development on a development agreement set at 3 years max. after which time the agreement is null and void
- tax rate increases by 10% for a property where a building has been demolished...after the property has been developed the tax rate will be reassessed
- current vacant lots subject to surcharge of 10% per year in CBD until developed

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Empire

REFORM PUNCH LIST:

- no demolition permit issued for registered heritage properties
- generous tax reduction for registered heritage properties
- neglected registered heritage properties will be expropriated and sold at fair market value ...owner will get up to the assessed value and the remainder deposited into a heritage trust fund
- timeline for development on a development agreement set at 3 years max. after which time the agreement is null and void
- tax rate increases by 10% for a property where a building has been demolished...after the property has been developed the tax rate will be reassessed
- current vacant lots subject to surcharge of 10% per year in CBD until developed

That sounds like a good list to me.

Does anyone know if HRM by Design will help adress any of these problems? They must have something in the Heritage Corridors (Districts) to adress these problems.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

REFORM PUNCH LIST:

- no demolition permit issued for registered heritage properties
- generous tax reduction for registered heritage properties
- neglected registered heritage properties will be expropriated and sold at fair market value ...owner will get up to the assessed value and the remainder deposited into a heritage trust fund
- timeline for development on a development agreement set at 3 years max. after which time the agreement is null and void
- tax rate increases by 10% for a property where a building has been demolished...after the property has been developed the tax rate will be reassessed
- current vacant lots subject to surcharge of 10% per year in CBD until developed

Interesting points, however how would you deal with;

No demolition, what happens when a building is uneconomical to fix? Under that rule even if it was uneconomical to fix it can't be torn down?

Neglect?, that is subjective, and what happens if a property owner doesn't have the finacial capacity to perserve? they should lose their property rights and be short changed on their investment? So does this mean the city should be accountable for the neglect on the field house on sackville street, which is now recently become a heritage property and is BOARDED UP?

Current vacant lots subject to surcharge of 10% per year in CBD until developed? Well the province tax rates are going up as they own the most amount of downtown (vacant) lots.

Ask me it is what makes a building a Heritage building is the root of the problems. Just because something is OLD doesn't make it heritage, nor does some of the features make it heritage.

Under the current system, and If this keeps up, we are going to consider Scotia Square, fenwick, and Maritime Centre etc as a heritage building?

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by sdm

Under the current system, and If this keeps up, we are going to consider Scotia Square, fenwick, and Maritime Centre etc as a heritage building?

Of course not, but the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbo, Spain (to pick the first random modern example that came to mind) will be a "heritage" building.

The "Sweet Basil" building was old, but I wouldn't consider it significant. It was just a simple wooden box. I think it actually looks better with it gone. It didn't fit in being surrounded on all sides by masonry buildings.

I agree that if a building is registered (and as well all know, the "Sweet Basil" building was not), it should not be allowed to be torn down. What's the point otherwise?

[JET]

It takes a lot of decline for an old building to be uneconomical to fix. My house is 100+ plus years old. It's the only one on our street with the original outside detail. It takes work to keep it up, but that's why we bought it.
With a lot of old buildings, neglect is cosmetic, and a relatively easy fix. Most of the old buildings will last a lot better than new construction. The Grammer school took over tower road school; it's a building that could be around a lot longer than a new school built today.
The field house wasn't in bad shape ten years ago. It's not a particularly nice building, and not in a great spot, but with some vision... Sweet Basil was a nice building, it had some charm. The proposed building for that site.. well I can't remember many people on this site saying that they liked it.
Undeveloped lots. Incremental tax, 10%, 15%, 20%.. if it keeps going up, it will be developed or sold to someone who will develop it. 20 years for the sobeys lot on Gottingen. That's a crime.
Heritage is related to when something started. it's fairly easy to see that we won't have to worry about the heritage status of the buildings you mention; they'll fall down long before that. JET

[Empire]

Originally Posted by sdm

Interesting points, however how would you deal with;

No demolition, what happens when a building is uneconomical to fix? Under that rule even if it was uneconomical to fix it can't be torn down?

Neglect?, that is subjective, and what happens if a property owner doesn't have the finacial capacity to perserve? they should lose their property rights and be short changed on their investment? So does this mean the city should be accountable for the neglect on the field house on sackville street, which is now recently become a heritage property and is BOARDED UP?

Current vacant lots subject to surcharge of 10% per year in CBD until developed? Well the province tax rates are going up as they own the most amount of downtown (vacant) lots.

Ask me it is what makes a building a Heritage building is the root of the problems. Just because something is OLD doesn't make it heritage, nor does some of the features make it heritage.

Under the current system, and If this keeps up, we are going to consider Scotia Square, fenwick, and Maritime Centre etc as a heritage building?

Correct it can’t be demolished. When a building is registered the condition is logged and that condition is expected to be maintained even if it is just a shell. If it is worthy of registration then it can be repaired but may require the assistance from the heritage fund depending on the economic business plan presented by the owner including unable to afford the renovations. Registered heritage buildings left vacant after being occupied would qualify for confiscation. Yes the province owns most of the vacant lots downtown. One of the goals of HRM by Design is to infill these available lots. Half of the 10% surcharge would go to the heritage fund and the rest to infrastructure. Under this system Scotia Square, fenwick, and Maritime Centre etc will never be considered as heritage buildings but under the system we have now we will lose many important buildings and likely be replaced with a 2008 version of Scotia Square type buildings as is happening at the moment.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by JET

.
Undeveloped lots. Incremental tax, 10%, 15%, 20%.. if it keeps going up, it will be developed or sold to someone who will develop it. 20 years for the sobeys lot on Gottingen.
JET

That will just force people to build outside the core, and make developments uneconomical.

Remember developments are market driven, if there isn't a market all your doing is penalizing persons for things they can't control.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

Correct it can’t be demolished. When a building is registered the condition is logged and that condition is expected to be maintained even if it is just a shell. If it is worthy of registration then it can be repaired but may require the assistance from the heritage fund depending on the economic business plan presented by the owner including unable to afford the renovations. Registered heritage buildings left vacant after being occupied would qualify for confiscation. Yes the province owns most of the vacant lots downtown. .

I underlined issues.
Worthy, doesn't that go back to the problem we currently have; buildings that shouldn't be heritage, but are?

Depending on economic business plan? who reviews and determines if it is economical? People who don't have invested interest?

Furthermore, what happens when there is structural issues? What if the building can't be occupied cause it doesn't meet codes and or no one wants to rent it?

[sdm]

Oh and it think this stuff should be posted under heritage section on the board as it may promote others to post their views

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by sdm

Furthermore, what happens when there is structural issues? What if the building can't be occupied cause it doesn't meet codes and or no one wants to rent it?

Then somebody torches it in the night, and we have another repeat of the NFB building; just a wall, held up with supports.
But at least the tourists will think it's real and take pictures of the shell of our past

[Empire]

Originally Posted by hfx_chris

Then somebody torches it in the night, and we have another repeat of the NFB building; just a wall, held up with supports.
But at least the tourists will think it's real and take pictures of the shell of our past

What are your favourite five buildings built anywhere in HRM in the past ten years?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by sdm

I underlined issues.
Worthy, doesn't that go back to the problem we currently have; buildings that shouldn't be heritage, but are?

No, you will find very few registered buildings that don't adhere to strict guidelines under the heritage act before they are accepted.

Originally Posted by sdm

Depending on economic business plan? who reviews and determines if it is economical? People who don't have invested interest??

HRM by Design is formulating a heritage segment just as they are a design review committee.

Originally Posted by sdm

Furthermore, what happens when there is structural issues? What if the building can't be occupied cause it doesn't meet codes and or no one wants to rent it?

Then you fix it up, apply for heritage fund assistance or sell it to someone who will fix it up.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

HRM by Design is formulating a heritage segment just as they are a design review committee.

.

Does not HRM by Design allow the facades of Heritage buildings to be kept? and roof top additions allowed? I believe the last copy states that.

Under your rules that couldn't happen, correct?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by sdm

Does not HRM by Design allow the facades of Heritage buildings to be kept? and roof top additions allowed? I believe the last copy states that.

Under your rules that couldn't happen, correct?

Complete demolition would not be allowed such as the Armour group is threatening to do with the remaining buildings at Waterside. Also renovations could include incorporating the facade in new developments but the Waterside proposal would not qualify because it would involve completely demolishing the Imperial Oil Building and then rebuilding to a lesser architectural detail. For example the copper dentil roof detail would be lost. The Harrington building that is now completely exposed due to the demolition of the wooden part of Sweet Basil is a perfect example of what wouldn't qualify for gutting and leaving the facade. The building fronts on Hollis and Upper Water St. and has a completely intact ironstone wall that mirrors the Morse's Tea building and should remain intact.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Empire

Complete demolition would not be allowed such as the Armour group is threatening to do with the remaining buildings at Waterside. Also renovations could include incorporating the facade in new developments but the Waterside proposal would not qualify because it would involve completely demolishing the Imperial Oil Building and then rebuilding to a lesser architectural detail. For example the copper dentil roof detail would be lost. The Harrington building that is now completely exposed due to the demolition of the wooden part of Sweet Basil is a perfect example of what wouldn't qualify for gutting and leaving the facade. The building fronts on Hollis and Upper Water St. and has a completely intact ironstone wall that mirrors the Morse's Tea building and should remain intact.

I suggest you check your facts as they conflict what i've read and have seen.

[Barrington south]

Empire..."what are your favorite 5 buildings from the last 10 years?" well I have to say empire, halifax really missed out on landmark projects over the last 10 years, but there would have been some impressive stuff built if it where not for the Pil Pacey crowd and the backwards approval process.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Barrington south

Empire..."what are your favorite 5 buildings from the last 10 years?" well I have to say empire, halifax really missed out on landmark projects over the last 10 years, but there would have been some impressive stuff built if it where not for the Pil Pacey crowd and the backwards approval process.

1- The Martello - top of Park Lane
2- The Inglewood - renovation on Inglis St.
3- Tex-Park (not started)
4- International Place (not started)
5- The Trillium (not started)
6- Time & Space building Agricola
Garden crest and the gladstone are not bad but still a bit on the fake material side..........

The rest are cheap garbage!

[worldlyhaligonian]

One thing we can all agree on is that the system is seriously flawed.

I actually do like some buildings that have gone up. The Martello is quite impressive and I think that the Waterton towers are quite nice. Armoury Square was a bit of a let down, but there has been half-decent development where is has been allowed.

This being said, things have to change downtown. The Heritage Trust doesn't accomplish ANYTHING.

Don't try to argue this fact, we have seen how ineffective they are and how they "promote heritage" but do not effectively save it.