Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87
The other big difference here is that heritage preservation trumps any other objectives, including sustainability, affordability, and the sense that the future matters in any way. This doesn't mean that it's hard to demolish heritage buildings (it actually isn't necessarily hard to do this at all) but any upgrading/renovations beyond brick-for-brick restoration based on original blueprints for example is seen as anti-heritage. Building high-rise buildings on vacant lots near heritage buildings is seen as anti-heritage. Highrise buildings that are tall enough to be seen from point x within the stone walls of the Citadel are ILLEGAL.
|
This is one of the worst aspects of the situation in Halifax -- the draconian policies are not even successful when it comes to their narrow (purported) purpose. Halifax has not done a good job of preserving its heritage buildings. Even over the past few years we have seen the demolition of the Kelly Building, South Street rowhouses, and now it looks like the building by SMU is going to come down. Nobody saved the Birks building and who knows what will happen with the Dennis Building? Losing these structures destroys the city's unique character far, far more than construction on empty lots.
I agree that the "30 year" crowd is partly responsible for the flawed focus of the planning system, and I think there's something related but deeper at play in Halifax. Many people there are anti-developer, anti-wealth, and suspicious of anybody successful. It's not universal, but Halifax can be an unambitious backwater town. The difference from Toronto or Vancouver is striking, but unsurprising given that Halifax has had 30+ years of the most ambitious people leaving for greener pastures. Maybe this will change after another 10 or 20 years of reasonably strong economic growth. It's probably the worst and most insidious long-term consequence of a weak economy and outmigration.