General Updates and News

[MonctonRad]

I like the building with the turquoise or dark green siding, but the other three buildings look like cheap facsimile faux historical buildings, that, yes, might be found in a Disney World theme park somewhere.

If you are going for a historical look, then please do a better job with your cladding choices - thanks.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

So no, Mr. Property Owner, you cannot use drywall, you must use horsehair plaster. And no, you cannot use clapboard siding, you must use cedar shingles and must paint them only certain approved colors. And forget about building that addition.

Nice strawman. Heritage designations don't apply to the inside of a building so use whatever drywall or plaster your heart desires. There are no approved colours. Registered heritage buildings each have their own character statement that defines what the essential elements are that are to be preserved and what is listed will obviously vary by building. So what exterior materials are allowed will vary, but it's not going to be as narrow as "cedar." And no, you can add onto a heritage building. It requires an extra step of applying to HRM for a modification and there is a risk of a no if the proposed addition is poorly designed, but generally people get to yes. In fact, in most instances now, a registered heritage building grants more rights than would otherwise be the case. We've had several developers applying to register so that they can exceed what the planning rules would otherwise allow through a development agreement.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

No good deed goes unpunished by some in this forum.

Good deed? It’s just business…

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

We were talking about a slightly different situation though. That being Coun Sam I Am Austin and some of his supporters here looking to designate privately-owned and barely qualifying old properties as "heritage" over the objections of their owners and without much groundswell of support from neighbors, who do not want the same to happen to their properties.

That does not mean they are taking away the property, but that they are imposing significant costs and restrictions upon the property owner should they ever wish to renovate. So no, Mr. Property Owner, you cannot use drywall, you must use horsehair plaster. And no, you cannot use clapboard siding, you must use cedar shingles and must paint them only certain approved colors. And forget about building that addition.

As Sam said, very much a strawman argument here. I live in the Hydrostone, and in many cities, in many countries, exterior renovations in a historic district like this would have to conform to original massing and materials and reinforce that heritage.

But this neighbourhood is a hodge-podge of siding materials, awkward portruding additions and character-diminishing "renovations."

I'm not necessarily saying that we should have super-restrictive rules around how historic buildings can look. Sometimes those restrictions go too far, assuredly. But Halifax absolutely does not have overly restrictive rules.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

The covid huts at the Bicycle Thief restaraunt are quite nice. Two of the three were occupied when I walked by mid afternoon today.

20220221_143710_HDR by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

20220221_143725_HDR by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I like the building with the turquoise or dark green siding, but the other three buildings look like cheap facsimile faux historical buildings, that, yes, might be found in a Disney World theme park somewhere.

If you are going for a historical look, then please do a better job with your cladding choices - thanks.

That kind of sums up my thoughts on them. I wasn't actually going to comment until I read your differentiation of the green vs other sections of the building.

IMHO, which is very much a layman's opinion, the green section on its own, at first glance, could pass for a 100+ year old building that had received some updates (i.e. new windows, etc). The other sections are missing details that make me want to say "nice try", but not quite there... with the outer sections looking kind of bland and featureless, with only the rounded top windows to indicate that it's an attempt at replicating an older building. Maybe an added cornice or some other features to give depth to the facades?

All that said, I do like the general look of the entire ground floor section.

To keep it all in context, I have only seen these pics and have not viewed it in person... so I might think differently seeing it on the ground.

Overall, though, not bad... certainly a step up from some of the bland architecture that has been built in Halifax recently. I applaud them for trying to make the new development fit in well with its surroundings.

[someone123]

I cleaned up a few posts in here that were not really development related. Please try to be friendly to other posters and not inflammatory.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Overall, though, not bad... certainly a step up from some of the bland architecture that has been built in Halifax recently. I applaud them for trying to make the new development fit in well with its surroundings.

I think the storefronts are a nice addition. Agreed that the two facades on the ends in particular look a bit simple/fake and don't seem to borrow much from styles in the area. You could say the same with the mansard roof portion but it looks better to me. The two "end" facades would look better with cornices. This is true of a lot of Halifax buildings including heritage buildings where the cornice deteriorated and then got replaced with some sheet metal.

One tiny thing that bothers me is how the roofline of the facade with the "brewery park" sign is obviously fake, with the dark metal visible above.

If we take a step back and consider the neighbourhood this is a good change. There are some renovations happening, some medium-sized apartment-style buildings, and then this adds to the commercial spaces. Agricola seems to be improving a lot.

[MastClimberPro]

1) I own (and live in) a heritage property on North Street and would like to weigh in on this property rights business. I love the drafty old junk heap I live in. It has many well preserved features and many that date back only 10 years. I have made many improvement inside that are thoroughly modern but have made many more in the spirit of preserving its old timey charm. But who am I to judge? Sometimes I veer from the old way because its cheaper or I'm lazy and just want to get something done. Sometimes I labour to preserve something even if I'm not entirely sure what's accurate to 1891. That's the inside.

On the street face, I absolutely take the time to consult with folks who know before renovating, restoring or repairing anything. I feel like I owe it to the city. When it comes time to sell the place I'd be happy to take a bit of a hit on resale to invoke a covenant that would prevent the future demolition of the place (if such a thing were legal). But that's me. Because heritage renovations are pricey, they have gone slowly for me. I can't afford to do many things "by the book" so they get pushed off and pushed off. As a result the place looks like crap in some ways, and I'm sure it keeps some resale value off my neighbour's places, so its not with out negative impacts on others in my immediate community.

2) When it come to "should the city be able to dictate the preservation of an historic home/building" the answer for me is yes. Obviously the city has to function as a city and as such, individual property "rights" will occasionally need to take a back seat. When they changed the approach to the Halifax side of MacDonald bridge houses were acquired by the city and torn down to accommodate it. Was that wise? Who knows/ Cities are complicated and run by humans so mistakes are inevitable. Properties are also owned by humans, so just because its an individual doesn't means they're gonna get it right either.

However, if we are making the argument that the exterior of a building (or the entirety of the building itself) is somehow part of the public trust because it influences how we collectively feel about a place, that should come with significant public responsibility to pay for the preservation of such. It would introduce thorny questions (like "How that would impact how much the property owner gets paid on resale") but these would probably be soluble, if imperfectly.

3) What's lost in this discussion I feel is the problem with R2 zoning generally. If significant rules begin to be imposed upon older structures the pressures that would put on the market would need to be resolved in someway other than sprawl. The west end and south end areas have ably employed NIMBYism to avoid big changes to their neighbourhoods at the expense of (let's call it) Old Town Halifax.

The large and largely unprotected (heritage wise) areas away from Old Town should be more of a weapons-free environment. Even if no new rules about heritage protection were instituted, public push back and costs of development would have some cooling effect on the pressure to diminish the heritage inventory of the city.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

One Man's Opinion

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

I cleaned up a few posts in here that were not really development related. Please try to be friendly to other posters and not inflammatory.

You removed my response to Austin, which I did not believe was inflammatory, but did not remove his original slam at me. I expect better TBH.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MastClimberPro

1) I own (and live in) a heritage property on North Street and would like to weigh in on this property rights business. I love the drafty old junk heap I live in. It has many well preserved features and many that date back only 10 years. I have made many improvement inside that are thoroughly modern but have made many more in the spirit of preserving its old timey charm. But who am I to judge? Sometimes I veer from the old way because its cheaper or I'm lazy and just want to get something done. Sometimes I labour to preserve something even if I'm not entirely sure what's accurate to 1891. That's the inside.

On the street face, I absolutely take the time to consult with folks who know before renovating, restoring or repairing anything. I feel like I owe it to the city. When it comes time to sell the place I'd be happy to take a bit of a hit on resale to invoke a covenant that would prevent the future demolition of the place (if such a thing were legal). But that's me. Because heritage renovations are pricey, they have gone slowly for me. I can't afford to do many things "by the book" so they get pushed off and pushed off. As a result the place looks like crap in some ways, and I'm sure it keeps some resale value off my neighbour's places, so its not with out negative impacts on others in my immediate community.

2) When it come to "should the city be able to dictate the preservation of an historic home/building" the answer for me is yes. Obviously the city has to function as a city and as such, individual property "rights" will occasionally need to take a back seat. When they changed the approach to the Halifax side of MacDonald bridge houses were acquired by the city and torn down to accommodate it. Was that wise? Who knows/ Cities are complicated and run by humans so mistakes are inevitable. Properties are also owned by humans, so just because its an individual doesn't means they're gonna get it right either.

However, if we are making the argument that the exterior of a building (or the entirety of the building itself) is somehow part of the public trust because it influences how we collectively feel about a place, that should come with significant public responsibility to pay for the preservation of such. It would introduce thorny questions (like "How that would impact how much the property owner gets paid on resale") but these would probably be soluble, if imperfectly.

3) What's lost in this discussion I feel is the problem with R2 zoning generally. If significant rules begin to be imposed upon older structures the pressures that would put on the market would need to be resolved in someway other than sprawl. The west end and south end areas have ably employed NIMBYism to avoid big changes to their neighbourhoods at the expense of (let's call it) Old Town Halifax.

The large and largely unprotected (heritage wise) areas away from Old Town should be more of a weapons-free environment. Even if no new rules about heritage protection were instituted, public push back and costs of development would have some cooling effect on the pressure to diminish the heritage inventory of the city.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

One Man's Opinion

Great post. I appreciate your take on the experience of actually owning and working to improve one of these older places that make up the built heritage of our city. Also, I think your approach in terms of its value to the city is very fair-minded - it's respectful to historical value but also realistic in terms of responsibilities and expectations.

In one of my previous posts I alluded to the idea (I may not have stated it clearly) that there should be some sort of financial 'equalizer' when it becomes a city requirement to maintain the exterior appearance to some sort of historical standard. In fact, I believe there are grants available in some areas (Barrington Street comes to mind) to help offset the costs to the owners to repair/restore the appearance of their buildings from streetside. Your part (2) touches on this as well. It wouldn't have to be grants per se, but perhaps a tax break to take a bit of the sting off the costs, which would remove an overall negligible amount from the overall tax base, while returning benefit to the city in an amount not measurable in financial terms, but certainly an improvement to the overall quality and character of neighborhoods.

Anyhow, enough of my rambling. Thanks for your post!

[JonHiseler]

Originally Posted by MeEtc

Demolition fencing is now up around the site of St Josephs - A Mackay school on Russell/Kaye St. Playground structure was already removed. This is in preparation of a 2 year project for the site. It was originally going to be a renovation(?) (reference), but now appears to be a demolish and rebuild (ref)

Teardown has begun



via reddit user meetc

[MeEtc]

Yeah, that's my photo!

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I do hope that this ugliness is very temporary. Home owners nearby should get a property tax reduction and free psychological counselling so that they may avoid PTSD.


IMG-20220317-WA0006 by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

IMG-20220317-WA0007 by AJ Forsythe, on Flickr

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

so that they may avoid PTSD.

I suspect if anyone is getting PTSD it's the people who have had to live rough on the streets for however long...

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I suspect if anyone is getting PTSD it's the people who have had to live rough on the streets for however long...

Yeah, found that comment a bit tasteless to be honest. It's unfortunate all around, but the owners of houses across the street are not the ones truly suffering in this situation.

[someone123]

One irony here is that housing was proposed for the empty lot right next to this and the city fought it (IIRC it was one of those "let's use the hotel zoning technicality to fight more housing" scenarios; if a hotel is reasonable then an apartment building of similar size is reasonable). The capacity of appropriate housing construction on these empty sites would be far higher than the trailers. Perhaps the trailer inhabitants would not have moved into those particular buildings but expanding the supply would rebalance the market at a more favourable, affordable, and plentiful equilibrium.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I suspect if anyone is getting PTSD it's the people who have had to live rough on the streets for however long...

Those who have taken over Meagher Park have far bigger problems than PTSD. They should be in institutions.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I suspect if anyone is getting PTSD it's the people who have had to live rough on the streets for however long...

I have no doubt that you are correct and that the list of both mental and physical health issues these people suffer is extensive and deserves great sympathy and intervention. Soooo....lets make things worse by not addressing the neighbours? I feel for the neighbours of Meagher Park and suspect some of them will suffer long lasting negative affect.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

Yeah, found that comment a bit tasteless to be honest. It's unfortunate all around, but the owners of houses across the street are not the ones truly suffering in this situation.

People seem easily offended these days. I don't think it bodes well for future constructive and problem solving conversations.