[Halifax] 5645 Fenwick Street | ? M | 10 FL | Proposed

[Dmajackson]

WM FARES RENDERING

Google Streetview

I see permits are starting to be submitted for this development along Fenwick Street next to The Vuze/South Village. I'll add some more information and a "before" photo over the next little bit. The buildings do appear to be vacant which stands out especially at the first of September in one of Halifax's student focused areas.




HalifaxDevelopments.ca (Photos by David Jackson)

[someone123]

This reminds me of an 80s retro design, but I don't mind it. It's nice to get away from the black and white siding that has become so prevalent.

It's a bit frustrating that while this area is getting some good developments, the prominent holes and ugly buildings have persisted for the most part. Queen between Victoria Rd and Fenwick should feel like a little hub for this area but it's mostly surface parking. The little strip of storefronts at the corner of Queen and Fenwick shows what kind of neighbourhood commercial feel could exist throughout.

[ArchAficionado]

The lot where blockbuster + little caesars has been empty for ages now.

And man, how I miss it! The pizza + movie combo was an epic errand. Could do your dry cleaning too all under the same roof!

[someone123]

I was thinking about this. Not that the Little Caesar's strip mall was an architectural marvel but it was better than an empty lot.

Likewise there was a charming pair of Victorian houses on Barrington above some small storefronts that got demolished. They were the kind of buildings that, if renovated, would have added some character to the block, and they probably offered affordable apartments and small business space. There's a lot of that kind of piecemeal demolition in Halifax that gives some neighbourhoods a two steps forward, one step back sort of feel. Bigger infill buildings are added but some small buildings become empty gaps and the fine-grained feel that developed in some cases over centuries is lost.

[connect2source]

Looks like we'll lose a few nice heritage structures for this.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

The lot where blockbuster + little caesars has been empty for ages now.

And man, how I miss it! The pizza + movie combo was an epic errand. Could do your dry cleaning too all under the same roof!

When I lived in the area the long-gone structure there was an old poured concrete dry cleaners mostly with a couple of small retail slots shoehorned in. Oddly I can't recall ever taking my cleaning there. I suppose better than the empty lot it is now but not by much. I can only presume the owner is holding out for big bucks being offered by a developer.

The surprising thing for me is that the old 1950s 2-storey brick apartment buildings going uphill on the east side of Queen are still there. I almost rented one of those in the '80s. They had an old-school landlord operating them with cheap rents, but I knew some of the tenants and they said they were well-run.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

The lot where blockbuster + little caesars has been empty for ages now.

And man, how I miss it! The pizza + movie combo was an epic errand. Could do your dry cleaning too all under the same roof!

Is that the place that had some sort of "pay the time" promotion eg $5 at 5 pm for a pizza in the late 90's/early 00's? I vaguely remember that from my student days. Good times!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Likewise there was a charming pair of Victorian houses on Barrington above some small storefronts that got demolished. They were the kind of buildings that, if renovated, would have added some character to the block, and they probably offered affordable apartments and small business space. There's a lot of that kind of piecemeal demolition in Halifax that gives some neighbourhoods a two steps forward, one step back sort of feel. Bigger infill buildings are added but some small buildings become empty gaps and the fine-grained feel that developed in some cases over centuries is lost.

I’m curious, would this be a uniquely Halifax thing, or something that most cities do, of which Halifax is one? I agree with your points, where the older structures, especially the nicer, more attractive ones, would ideally remain and add variety and interest to the streetscape, plus add affordable housing and business space where it’s needed.

However, it seems like these choices aren’t (or can’t be?) made, and we are mired in the pure-business-case mode, where, if something like this happens, it’s more coincidence than planning. Just wondering what others, who have been paying attention to how other cities build and plan, think about this.

[someone123]

I think it's a general issue that affects a lot of North American cities but it's different if you start looking at more historic cities or Europe. Vancouver is pretty close to an anything goes model, but this city is much less historic and grew so much that often it's just 60s strip malls and the like that are being redeveloped.

I think Halifax is somewhat unique for the level of history combined with the lack of protections. There are not a lot of 200+ year old buildings with neglectful landlords and no protections in other cities. I'm thinking of some of the buildings around Barrington/Hollis that are just crumbling or got landlord special beige vinyl siding.

Actually even a lot of smaller towns around the region probably have stronger heritage rules than Halifax and on a per capita basis have more preserved older buildings, even though their property values are lower. Part of the problem is that in Halifax any site can become a large infill building, even a registered heritage property.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Looks like we'll lose a few nice heritage structures for this.

Looks like only one is nice... I do think, though, that there needs to be a plan in place for this whole area.

Worker's Comp building should have height on South, but transition to the height of the truly nice houses further west at the back.

I wonder what ever happened to the southwest corner of South and South Park. There was a rendering floating around a few years back and those particular houses are pretty rough looking.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Here's where I mean: https://maps.app.goo.gl/p3A49FnNSR7Po4CH8

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it's a general issue that affects a lot of North American cities but it's different if you start looking at more historic cities or Europe. Vancouver is pretty close to an anything goes model, but this city is much less historic and grew so much that often it's just 60s strip malls and the like that are being redeveloped.

I think Halifax is somewhat unique for the level of history combined with the lack of protections. There are not a lot of 200+ year old buildings with neglectful landlords and no protections in other cities. I'm thinking of some of the buildings around Barrington/Hollis that are just crumbling or got landlord special beige vinyl siding.

Interesting. Thanks!

When I think back to how I perceived the older areas of the city in my young years, my impression was that old=run down and not worth saving. I think it’s because this philosophy has been endemic here for decades. Even to this day the attitude seems to linger on, so we get this weird case that our old buildings are worthless but we can’t have too much development or we’ll change the city too much.

It’s a shame, because when one takes the time to look at old photos it becomes apparent that Halifax used to have a ton of elegant old buildings that were torn down some 50 - 70 years ago, many of which I have never seen in person, much less the young people of today who may have grown to appreciate them, and the heritage of their city, had some effort been made to keep up on their maintenance and/or have more careful city planning.

Originally Posted by someone123

Actually even a lot of smaller towns around the region probably have stronger heritage rules than Halifax and on a per capita basis have more preserved older buildings, even though their property values are lower. Part of the problem is that in Halifax any site can become a large infill building, even a registered heritage property.

It’s interesting that you say this, as I have noticed this a lot when driving through many of the smaller towns in NS. I just figured that people in more rural areas have a better appreciation for who and what came before them than folks in the city.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Here's where I mean: https://maps.app.goo.gl/p3A49FnNSR7Po4CH8

Yes, those do look very rough. Unlike some posters here, I do not automatically believe that just because something is old and has survived for a long time means it is worth preserving. Decades of deferred maintenance and zero upgrades can make what was once a nice building uneconomical to save. If it wasn't a nice building to begin with (those two look rather utilitarian) the odds stack against them even more. These sort of structures in that particular area are likely profitable rentals to either students (who don't care) or hospital workers (who need a place to live close to where they work despite it being awful, until they find something better).

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yes, those do look very rough. Unlike some posters here, I do not automatically believe that just because something is old and has survived for a long time means it is worth preserving. Decades of deferred maintenance and zero upgrades can make what was once a nice building uneconomical to save. If it wasn't a nice building to begin with (those two look rather utilitarian) the odds stack against them even more. These sort of structures in that particular area are likely profitable rentals to either students (who don't care) or hospital workers (who need a place to live close to where they work despite it being awful, until they find something better).

Indeed - these ones would better serve the community as new housing that is more attractive and less run down. Much of the area is worth preserving, but this particular corner is not great.

The hospital parking lot needs to see something of scale... dig deep and underground the whole lot and build relatively tall on that site. It could easily support a Fenwick-like (Vuze) height.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Here's where I mean: https://maps.app.goo.gl/p3A49FnNSR7Po4CH8

Most of the bland structures that fall into disrepair have already had character elements stripped from them and sit with faded 80’s siding. If some of those trim elements were restored you would have a classic structure. Story is the same time after time. What looks like a depilated building is far superior to everything built today. Inside those shabby buildings you have ornate plaster molds, marble fireplaces, seasoned hardwood floors and 10ft ceilings.

HRM still doesn’t realise that tax revenue from new builds will still happen without destroying character structures. Hard to believe you would allow the demolition of a row of Victorian structures for an ugly plastic sided square box. Provide tax breaks for structures of vintage architecture that make Halifax unique. Demolishing these structures is a huge mistake.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Empire

HRM still doesn’t realise that tax revenue from new builds will still happen without destroying character structures. Hard to believe you would allow the demolition of a row of Victorian structures for an ugly plastic sided square box. Provide tax breaks for structures of vintage architecture that make Halifax unique. Demolishing these structures is a huge mistake.

It's strange in that the municipality is allowing very high densities and large developments nearby (good), yet also allows for marginal tear-downs of heritage buildings that likely won't move the needle much if at all from a housing perspective.

The "missing middle" and YIMBY discussions also tend to leave out heritage concerns. There are a lot of "just build 7 floors everywhere like Paris" arguments that are devoid of any thought about the consequences in an existing area: loss of character, major disruption, huge waste of existing buildings for marginal density gains.

A neighbourhood with some highrises offering affordability and views along with a lot of preserved street-level heritage character is great. And there is room for thoughtful additions and adaptive reuse; in fact they can be a big plus. That's not what random land clearance and 4-7 floor plastic boxes are.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Empire

Most of the bland structures that fall into disrepair have already had character elements stripped from them and sit with faded 80’s siding. If some of those trim elements were restored you would have a classic structure. Story is the same time after time. What looks like a depilated building is far superior to everything built today. Inside those shabby buildings you have ornate plaster molds, marble fireplaces, seasoned hardwood floors and 10ft ceilings.

HRM still doesn’t realise that tax revenue from new builds will still happen without destroying character structures. Hard to believe you would allow the demolition of a row of Victorian structures for an ugly plastic sided square box. Provide tax breaks for structures of vintage architecture that make Halifax unique. Demolishing these structures is a huge mistake.

Adding more bureaucratic loopholes and hurdles is not the solution. Those character elements you speak of were not stripped frivolously. They were stripped because they had fallen off, rotted, cracked, or otherwise failed. The same holds true for structural elements. If sills and beams were subject to water damage, insects or general rot then the building is compromised and often cannot be fixed economically. It's the same reason you don't see many Model A cars on the street. Do you want every "character" building to fall into a regime of requiring a bureaucrat to approve a color change or minor renovation?

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

It's not difficult to find failed vinyl siding around this city. For certain cedar shingles are much more durable lasting far longer in terms of remaining in their original condition. So much siding was installed to cover up near useless sheets of exterior insulation and to cover up shoddy wall repairs after the installation of new too-small windows. And then there's the lazy and cheap factors that vinyl purveyors are able to take advantage of too. Vinyl siding has gotten better over the years but the older stuff is no better than graffiti and is a blight on our city. I've personally replaced sill plate on a near 200 year old house and will say with confidence that it's easier than building a whole new house. But any 'good' salesman will advise you differently. It wouldn't be difficult for the city to put up a colour chart and incentivise folks to maintain heritage homes and our city would be better off for it.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Adding more bureaucratic loopholes and hurdles is not the solution. Those character elements you speak of were not stripped frivolously. They were stripped because they had fallen off, rotted, cracked, or otherwise failed. The same holds true for structural elements. If sills and beams were subject to water damage, insects or general rot then the building is compromised and often cannot be fixed economically.

These kinds of building elements may be discarded because they're old and in poor repair, but it's hard to argue (IMO) that there isn't a civic culture here that simply doesn't value these things. I don't really buy the the idea that it's un-economical in all or most cases to repair these things; it's absolutely cultural, when we compare to other regions. If you look at cities throughout the developed world, I do think that in this part of Canada we fall on the "cheap" end of the spectrum with regards to aesthetics. (Canada overall does, and the east coast even moreso).

On one end you have parts of Europe--I was in Denmark two months ago and expected to see a higher regard for architectural aesthetics but was still surprised to see it in action. Everywhere you go, run-of-the-mill 300 year-old buildings undergoing regular maintenace, facade work, and other upgrades, and the overall standard of beauty and function is very high. We're talking right down to the distinctive types of door levers used citywide for the past few hundred years, still being manufactured--not a lot of cheapo Home Depot-type hardware to be found.

But you don't even have to go to those extremes (though it's wonderful). Down in New England, buildings of exactly the same age and vintage as ours, in essentially the same climate, are on average maintained to a higher level. Of course there are still plenty of rundown buildings and vinyl siding, but overall you've got got fewer vinyl-covered boxes and more houses that have distinguishing features like gables, brackets, finials, corbels, etc., and relatively more wood siding. These streetscapes in South Boston (like this and this and this) are more typical. There's definitely some dubious siding and generations of patchwork repairs on some of these, but the equivalent Halifax streetscapes would still be a lot more box-like.

There's also just a strange attachment to vinyl siding. The Hydrostone is the best example--I cannot think of anywhere else in the world where perfectly good masony facades have been covered up en masse by vinyl siding. People are convinced it's necessary for insulation or whatever, which is ludicrous. It's just become the norm. If it were necessary for insulation you would expect all those Victorian Montreal gray stones and brick rowhouses to be covered in vinyl too (which of course they're not, because that would be ludicrous).

[JET]

The great thing about vinyl siding is that once it goes on you can forget about it, you don’t ever have to clean it.