HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 7:52 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Looking at that pic (and the one that JET posted the link to at the Herald), the buildings don't look so bad to me - kind of a shame that it was sterilized to build Cogswell, as it looks like a neat neighborhood. Makes me wonder what it would be like today had it been allowed to evolve naturally, rather than be razed by the government...
It would have been razed by someone else, either en masse or piecemeal. But you cannot seriously believe that this sort of streetscape would remain like that today in the middle of downtown, even in this progress-hating burg?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 10:22 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
It would have been razed by someone else, either en masse or piecemeal. But you cannot seriously believe that this sort of streetscape would remain like that today in the middle of downtown, even in this progress-hating burg?
And without progress, we would not have had The Lobster Trap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 10:29 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
It would have been razed by someone else, either en masse or piecemeal. But you cannot seriously believe that this sort of streetscape would remain like that today in the middle of downtown, even in this progress-hating burg?
I can believe it. Toronto's commercial arterials are barely denser than that. I'm in New York right now, and the amount of effort and money that's gone into restoration of former slum areas is incredible. In Brooklyn, there are loads of commercial streets lined with two-storey and three-storey buildings.

It would've been a nice connector between downtown and the neighbourhood north of Cogswell, as long as some of the truly crappy buildings were extracted and replaced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 12:56 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
I can believe it. Toronto's commercial arterials are barely denser than that. I'm in New York right now, and the amount of effort and money that's gone into restoration of former slum areas is incredible. In Brooklyn, there are loads of commercial streets lined with two-storey and three-storey buildings.

It would've been a nice connector between downtown and the neighbourhood north of Cogswell, as long as some of the truly crappy buildings were extracted and replaced.

This is not intended to be argumentative. I completely agree with your last sentence

I can't understand the hype surrounding New York City. Manhattan is somewhat impressive, however downtown Chicago impresses me more. San Francisco greatly outmatches New York City as far as suspension bridges goes, and even in terms of the skyline.

The surrounding boroughs and suburbs of Manhattan seem to be very bleak to me both in person and on TV. Toronto's boroughs and suburbs are much nicer in spite off the oppressive highways in the GTA (however, the GTA is hardly eye-candy except for maybe Oakville and Burlington).

I am getting off topic but why do people consider New York City to be so impressive? I was completely underwhelmed by New York City when I visited several years ago. On the other hand, I can't think of any city that comes close to matching San Francisco (Halifax is a cool city though in terms of surroundings and history, however I am biased ).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 4:56 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
It would have been razed by someone else, either en masse or piecemeal. But you cannot seriously believe that this sort of streetscape would remain like that today in the middle of downtown, even in this progress-hating burg?
"Razed" is something that is not done on a small scale - it requires government intervention to make such major changes as this. You know that. Private property owners could not simply reconfigure entire neighborhoods on a whim, especially back then in this "progress-hating burg".

IMHO, there would be some buildings that would have been knocked down and replaced, and some that would have remained. Perhaps in some places two or three lots would have been bought up and replaced with some 1970s faceless block-building with inadequate ventilation, but the thread of the neighbourhood would have remained.

While I believe what happened at Cogswell was well-intentioned, it didn't come without a cost, and I believe history has shown that it wasn't the right thing for that area.

I have to say that if that little piece of land had been left alone, the downtown area would look quite different today, especially in the areas north of Cogswell. Again, IMHO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 5:00 AM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
This is not intended to be argumentative. I completely agree with your last sentence

I can't understand the hype surrounding New York City. Manhattan is somewhat impressive, however downtown Chicago impresses me more. San Francisco greatly outmatches New York City as far as suspension bridges goes, and even in terms of the skyline.

The surrounding boroughs and suburbs of Manhattan seem to be very bleak to me both in person and on TV. Toronto's boroughs and suburbs are much nicer in spite off the oppressive highways in the GTA (however, the GTA is hardly eye-candy except for maybe Oakville and Burlington).

I am getting off topic but why do people consider New York City to be so impressive? I was completely underwhelmed by New York City when I visited several years ago. On the other hand, I can't think of any city that comes close to matching San Francisco (Halifax is a cool city though in terms of surroundings and history, however I am biased ).
OT, but I have to agree that in all of the cities that I have visited, San Francisco stands out as one of the most architecturally blessed that I have seen. Especially impressive considering how much was lost in the 1906 earthquake and how quickly it was rebuilt.

Toss in the cable cars as a functional transit system dating back to the late 19th century and I can't help but be duly impressed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 9:20 AM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
I can believe it. Toronto's commercial arterials are barely denser than that. I'm in New York right now, and the amount of effort and money that's gone into restoration of former slum areas is incredible. In Brooklyn, there are loads of commercial streets lined with two-storey and three-storey buildings.
Any denizen of these pages who visits NYC should make a point to visit the Tenement Museum on Orchard Street, Lower East Side. Built in 1863, the building was a time capsule, empty and untouched for 50 years before being purchased for a museum in 1988.

Over the years it housed thousands of immigrant workers and the building has been only minimally restored to recreate the claustrophobic apartments (six of them now) of the families that lived there. It might well give a sense of what it was like to live in some of those lost Jacob Street tenements.

Much of the rest of the Orchard Street streetscape is also preserved but most of the buildings have been restored to house offices, apartments and shops (not all of them trendy).

It's a real window on the past and well worth a visit if you are in Manhattan.


http://www.tenement.org/about.html

.

Last edited by ns_kid; May 17, 2015 at 9:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 9:30 AM
ns_kid's Avatar
ns_kid ns_kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
And without progress, we would not have had The Lobster Trap.
Now that brought back some memories!

In the mid-70s I attended a broadcasting school located in the bowels of the then-Trademart building. We operated a 24-hour cable radio station (CRXL) and the only access after-hours was through the Lobster Trap. Which was a real eye-opener for a green kid in those days when you had to be 21 to be inside such a place.

One of our newcomers, a fresh-faced kid just off the bus from Cape Breton, was embarrassed when she had to push by a provocatively-dressed woman she took to be a prostitute, standing at the door to the Trap late one night.

She was even more appalled when we pointed out to her, that wasn't a woman.

Ahhh, the days when Halifax was colourful....

Last edited by ns_kid; May 17, 2015 at 9:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 10:25 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
Any denizen of these pages who visits NYC should make a point to visit the Tenement Museum on Orchard Street, Lower East Side. Built in 1863, the building was a time capsule, empty and untouched for 50 years before being purchased for a museum in 1988.

Over the years it housed thousands of immigrant workers and the building has been only minimally restored to recreate the claustrophobic apartments (six of them now) of the families that lived there. It might well give a sense of what it was like to live in some of those lost Jacob Street tenements.

Much of the rest of the Orchard Street streetscape is also preserved but most of the buildings have been restored to house offices, apartments and shops (not all of them trendy).

It's a real window on the past and well worth a visit if you are in Manhattan.


http://www.tenement.org/about.html

.

This is very interesting. Few people get to see the condition of these buildings as they would have existed in the 1800's. Once people get to see them they have been restored with modern amenities such as running water, easily accessible washroom facilities, adequate insulation, modern HVAC and meeting modern fire safety codes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 3:11 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by ns_kid View Post
Any denizen of these pages who visits NYC should make a point to visit the Tenement Museum on Orchard Street, Lower East Side. Built in 1863, the building was a time capsule, empty and untouched for 50 years before being purchased for a museum in 1988.

Over the years it housed thousands of immigrant workers and the building has been only minimally restored to recreate the claustrophobic apartments (six of them now) of the families that lived there. It might well give a sense of what it was like to live in some of those lost Jacob Street tenements.

Much of the rest of the Orchard Street streetscape is also preserved but most of the buildings have been restored to house offices, apartments and shops (not all of them trendy).

It's a real window on the past and well worth a visit if you are in Manhattan.


http://www.tenement.org/about.html

.
This article gives a realistic look at how bad conditions were. I suspect many of the properties on the streets we are talking about in Halifax were very similar.

http://www.tenement.org/admin/includ...iew.php?ID=838
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 3:13 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
OT, but I have to agree that in all of the cities that I have visited, San Francisco stands out as one of the most architecturally blessed that I have seen. Especially impressive considering how much was lost in the 1906 earthquake and how quickly it was rebuilt.

Toss in the cable cars as a functional transit system dating back to the late 19th century and I can't help but be duly impressed.
Likely the reason it was impressive is that the quake wiped out - or "razed" - a lot of the old junky buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 3:19 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
"Razed" is something that is not done on a small scale - it requires government intervention to make such major changes as this. You know that. Private property owners could not simply reconfigure entire neighborhoods on a whim, especially back then in this "progress-hating burg".

IMHO, there would be some buildings that would have been knocked down and replaced, and some that would have remained. Perhaps in some places two or three lots would have been bought up and replaced with some 1970s faceless block-building with inadequate ventilation, but the thread of the neighbourhood would have remained.

While I believe what happened at Cogswell was well-intentioned, it didn't come without a cost, and I believe history has shown that it wasn't the right thing for that area.

I have to say that if that little piece of land had been left alone, the downtown area would look quite different today, especially in the areas north of Cogswell. Again, IMHO.
I have no idea what was across the street from this area back then, but whatever was there was "razed" when the Citadel Inn was built in the early 1960s. With no govt involvement.

As for whether it was the right thing for the area, the stretch between Cogswell and Duke received 3 fairly sizeable apartment buildings, bringing residents to the downtown core - these days, that kind of density in the downtown is seen as a good thing. The area north of Cogswell received the Trade Mart, which was the first part of Scotia Square to be constructed, and which I will not defend - but it has been proven to be a successful development from an occupancy point of view ever since it was built, so you cannot say it was a total failure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted May 17, 2015, 10:02 PM
Ziobrop's Avatar
Ziobrop Ziobrop is offline
armchairitect
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Halifax
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I have no idea what was across the street from this area back then, but whatever was there was "razed" when the Citadel Inn was built in the early 1960s. With no govt involvement.

As for whether it was the right thing for the area, the stretch between Cogswell and Duke received 3 fairly sizeable apartment buildings, bringing residents to the downtown core - these days, that kind of density in the downtown is seen as a good thing. The area north of Cogswell received the Trade Mart, which was the first part of Scotia Square to be constructed, and which I will not defend - but it has been proven to be a successful development from an occupancy point of view ever since it was built, so you cannot say it was a total failure.
Scotia square was always intended to be a mixed use development, the 3 apartment blocks were part of it, though built later.

Scotia square has never met its projected tax revenue from the city, and that was the reason the proposal was selected over the others. Highest revenue for the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 1:31 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
I have no idea what was across the street from this area back then, but whatever was there was "razed" when the Citadel Inn was built in the early 1960s. With no govt involvement.

As for whether it was the right thing for the area, the stretch between Cogswell and Duke received 3 fairly sizeable apartment buildings, bringing residents to the downtown core - these days, that kind of density in the downtown is seen as a good thing. The area north of Cogswell received the Trade Mart, which was the first part of Scotia Square to be constructed, and which I will not defend - but it has been proven to be a successful development from an occupancy point of view ever since it was built, so you cannot say it was a total failure.
Looks like it was row housing (military?) at the site of the Citadel Inn, at least in 1935.

However, wasn't that whole area part of the redevelopment plan, therefore being razed at the same time?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 1:39 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Likely the reason it was impressive is that the quake wiped out - or "razed" - a lot of the old junky buildings.
Actually the reason it was impressive is how quickly the massive rebuild happened. An engineering/technical/construction feat for the time.

http://www.usfca.edu/about/history/recovery_rebuilding/

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/T...es-2537103.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_Sa...sco_earthquake


And there were far more impressive buildings lost among the "old junky buildings"...







Just
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 6:44 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Actually the reason it was impressive is how quickly the massive rebuild happened. An engineering/technical/construction feat for the time.

http://www.usfca.edu/about/history/recovery_rebuilding/

And there were far more impressive buildings lost among the "old junky buildings"...

Actually, I think this quote from the link you provided above says it all:

"A large number of buildings in San Francisco were rebuilt exactly as they had been before the earthquake and fire, but there were significant changes as well. On Market Street, for example, many of the smaller buildings were replaced by much taller structures. South of Market, commercial buildings, small factories, and middle-class apartments were built in areas that had once been slums. Nob Hill was transformed from a wealthy enclave of lavish mansions into luxury apartments and hotels. Civic Center was also redesigned, and a new classically inspired city hall was erected a block away from the one that had been destroyed. Although the new city hall was not dedicated until 1915, and the main library was not completed until 1917, much of the city was rebuilt within a year of the devastation, and virtually the entire city was restored by 1909. Although approximately 28,000 buildings had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire, by 1909 more than 20,500 better-constructed buildings had replaced them and formed the heart of a new city."


Urban renewal, at its finest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 8:02 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Actually, I think this quote from the link you provided above says it all:

"A large number of buildings in San Francisco were rebuilt exactly as they had been before the earthquake and fire, but there were significant changes as well. On Market Street, for example, many of the smaller buildings were replaced by much taller structures. South of Market, commercial buildings, small factories, and middle-class apartments were built in areas that had once been slums. Nob Hill was transformed from a wealthy enclave of lavish mansions into luxury apartments and hotels. Civic Center was also redesigned, and a new classically inspired city hall was erected a block away from the one that had been destroyed. Although the new city hall was not dedicated until 1915, and the main library was not completed until 1917, much of the city was rebuilt within a year of the devastation, and virtually the entire city was restored by 1909. Although approximately 28,000 buildings had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire, by 1909 more than 20,500 better-constructed buildings had replaced them and formed the heart of a new city."


Urban renewal, at its finest.
We've swayed a little off of the original intent of my post, which was to state that most of the buildings that (quickly) replaced the earthquake damaged ones are still standing to this day, and SF has a very attractive city core perhaps as a result of this. Walk around Union Square and the architecture is interesting and vibrant. You can look anywhere in the downtown area and find buildings from the early 20th century that are either updated or repurposed. And it hasn't hurt the city one bit.

I'm sure you're right that many of the buildings lost in the quake were slums (the standard of living in the US back then was quite lower than today, of course), but there were many impressive, larger scale buildings lost that would likely still be standing now.

So what point were you trying to make? That you find the homes of poor people being toppled in an earthquake (taking many of their lives) impressive? "Urban renewal, at its finest"? I don't get it.

Oops... forgot... satire, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 10:40 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Keith P. makes an interesting point. It is because of the 1906 earthquake that San Francisco has such a large collection of well-built early 20th century architecture.

Halifax has the hydrostone district because of the great Halifax explosion, however, I realize that this does not negate the great loss of life and bodily injury that resulted from the explosion.

I often wonder what Halifax would be like today if it had of avoided the Halifax Explosion. The population would probably be somewhat larger. The north end architect and street layout would be somewhat different. Also, because of the "butterfly effect" many of the people in the Halifax area would be genetically different since there would be marriages and births that would not have otherwise occurred. Over the period of 4-5 generations with such a large percentage of people affected, almost everyone in the Halifax area would be different in some way (many would never have been born, and many others would have been).

Last edited by fenwick16; May 19, 2015 at 11:26 PM. Reason: ... maybe I would make fewer spelling mistakes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 11:13 PM
teddifax's Avatar
teddifax teddifax is online now
Halifax Promoter!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 868
I would also think the population would be considerably larger as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 11:28 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
So what point were you trying to make? That you find the homes of poor people being toppled in an earthquake (taking many of their lives) impressive? "Urban renewal, at its finest"? I don't get it.

Oops... forgot... satire, right?
We seem to have a cadre of folks here who believe that no old building should ever be demolished, despite it being a slum or unsafe. Then there are others who believe that just as in nature, things have a natural lifespan, and some things get replaced by better-adapting, newer things. Although the SF quake wasn't part of the normal lifecycle of buildings, the result is as you have seen - it led to a significantly improved city in the long run.

I made no reference to minimizing the lives of those lost in the SF quake and frankly find your comment extremely offensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.