[someone123]

The problem with the argument that this should be torn down because it's in rough shape is that such an argument can be used to justify tearing down any building as long as the owner neglects it for a while. This is exactly the pattern that has been happening over and over; a developer buys an old building, lets it deteriorate, then argues that it must be torn down because it is in a deteriorated state. Usually even at that point the buildings are still financially viable. They're just not maximally profitable for developers.

I have heard the claim that Halifax is behind the times a lot but I don't think that usefully explains what is going on. Halifax is not an isolated Amazonian tribe and in fact it was once ahead of the curve in terms of heritage preservation. It is still ahead of many other North American cities in a lot of areas, just not in heritage preservation. Why? Developers profit from the status quo, they have ties to regional council or the councillors don't care, most of the bureaucrats just seem to be counting down to retirement, and the provincial government doesn't understand or care.

The good news is that it's pretty easy to make councillors care about issues. They often win their seats by only a few hundred or thousand votes.