Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin
Convention Centre grudge match aside, people do love to scapegoat the Trust for all of Halifax's development ills. For about 20 years starting in 1989 there was almost nothing built Downtown and the Trust is frequently blamed for that, which has little basis in reality. The lack of development Downtown has way more to do with economics and planning than the Trust. The bottom fell out of the commercial real estate market in 1989 and it took 20 years for commercial rents to recover to the point that new construction was attractive. We're somewhat back to square one again as the 2008 recession has pushed vacancy rates back up again and everyone is scrambling for tenants. The Heritage Trust has had nothing to do with the 89 and 08 recessions. Needless to say, they don't control vacancy rates, construction costs or bank financing.
On the other side, we've had crappy planning rules that have made it tough to build Downtown while allowing sprawl to spread ever outward. Since 89, there has actually been a number of office development in HRM, they just haven't been Downtown. They've been in the suburban market which in that period grew to have more than 50% of the total space available in Halifax. This makes us fairly unique in Canada as one of the only cities that doesn't have most of its office space Downtown. We recover some of the cost of new development, but a lot of it ends up paid for by the taxpayer (see Washmill Lake Underpass, Timberlea sewage diversion, etc), which means that Downtown is subsidizing its competition. Until recently, HRM has shown no interest in tackling any of the bigger picture planning problems that has made the suburbs a more appealing place to build. Again, the Trust has not controlled this.
Telling people that economics and planning are the problem is tough and complicated. Telling them its the Trust is at fault is easy, especially when the Trust is so vocal in the media and have chosen some pretty poor battles to fight (trying to block development on vacant lots because it's next to a heritage building isn't a great strategy!). It's no wonder they've become a favourite target. It's unfortunate because, as a result, we're now in a place where heritage is seen as a detriment to development and old Halifax is getting knocked down at an alarming rate. Pity.
|
I somewhat agree with your last paragraph, however, I think you have oversimplified the situation in order to defend the Heritage Trust. I think the following article gives a good description of the obstacles that were put in place to the Halifax city by-laws in the early 1970's -
http://downtownhalifax.ca/index.php/...ck-to-the-plan. The article represents the viewpoint of the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, and in my opinion, they give a much more rational stance on heritage protection than the Save the View group -
http://www.savetheview.ca/). The Save the View representatives (mostly representatives of the Heritage Trust) sound like an irrational, extremist group to myself and others.
Although heritage protection in Nova Scotia doesn't receive the same level of public funds that it does in Quebec and Quebec City, taxpayer's funds are already being used to save significant NS heritage buildings in downtown Halifax. There is little concern that the Halifax City Hall, Government House, Province House or other significant buildings will be torn down. I think private sector groups, such as Armour Group, deserve far more credit in saving city streetscapes than the Heritage Trust. The following streetscapes were saved and developed into practical purposes by the Armour Group:
http://www.armourgroup.com/building_...?building_id=1
http://www.armourgroup.com/building_...?building_id=2
http://www.armourgroup.com/building_...building_id=27
Is the Heritage Trust, in the absence of public funding, capable of saving the
less significant heritage buildings? I think the answer is obviously "no". The Heritage Trust is doing a poor job as heritage conservationists because they have lost the support of residents and business leaders. They are too irrational to work with developers and think that they can achieve their goal through blocking development as they have numerous times and continue to do (Nova Centre, 22nd Commerce Square, and so on). However, in the absence of public funding, heritage protection of the less significant heritage buildings has become a private sector endeavor. Repurposing obsolete, "sick" buildings containing poor electrical systems, poor fire-protection systems, poor ventilation, low ceiling heights, etc. is the job of building professionals not the job of people with PhDs in chemistry, such as Phil Pacey.
As a side-note, Phil Pacey taught one chemistry course that I took in 1975-76. He was a good chemistry professor but he is not an economist/architect/engineer/construction tradesman. As is the case with other Heritage Trust representatives, they seem to have ventured into unknown waters and have become lost.