HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 5:09 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
You know that building is not what everybody is talking about.

I think this quote is a good indication of their mindset:



But, whatever, we should just give developers free rein over the city, I don't really care to argue anymore.
So the two old Victorian-era rentals beyond, which have been student housing for decades and retain little character inside, should obstruct this? Is that what is meant by "respectful development"?

Look, you take the good with the bad. Getting rid of that ugly brick box on the corner with the parking next to the sidewalk can only be a good thing. So not everything you like gets saved in the real world. I think that's a more than fair trade-off. We do not live in a museum, and developers are not charities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 6:31 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
So the two old Victorian-era rentals beyond, which have been student housing for decades and retain little character inside, should obstruct this? Is that what is meant by "respectful development"?

Look, you take the good with the bad. Getting rid of that ugly brick box on the corner with the parking next to the sidewalk can only be a good thing. So not everything you like gets saved in the real world. I think that's a more than fair trade-off. We do not live in a museum, and developers are not charities.

So what you are telling me is that there are no architects who can somehow incorporate even elements of this row of Victorians into a new structure? That's too bad, I thought they were capable of more creative and innovative ideas than some strange Legoland-type concrete and glass structure. I'm sorely disappointed in the profession as a whole.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.64164...7i13312!8i6656

But, I really meant it when I said:

Quote:
I don't really care to argue anymore.
So I'll leave it at that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 7:12 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
So what you are telling me is that there are no architects who can somehow incorporate even elements of this row of Victorians into a new structure? That's too bad, I thought they were capable of more creative and innovative ideas than some strange Legoland-type concrete and glass structure. I'm sorely disappointed in the profession as a whole.

Maybe they can get a deal on some styrofoam faux-Victorian trim pieces and glue them to the side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 7:13 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Maybe they can get a deal on some styrofoam faux-Victorian trim pieces and glue them to the side.
That would be perfect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2015, 9:51 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
This argument about Schmidtville is getting old and frankly has been solved by Council. It's called HRM by Design - there is no conflict in planning at all. Council made a clear decision to allow taller buildings through HBD in the block between Spring Garden and Clyde from South Park all the way over to Queen - period. The building heights, rules etc. all reflect a desire to increase density; taller and greater intensity.

The two blocks that are between South Park Street and Dresdon Row are the only ones not impacted by viewplanes (literally a viewplane line goes down the middle of DR). So these two blocks are where taller buildings are emphasised by the planning documents - they tried and failed to have that thinking changed. Move on.

The 'midrise' blocks are the parking lots from DR to Queen - which are impacted by viewplanes and height limited.

Don't get me wrong - I love a lot of the buildings in the Schmidtville low rise area (below Clyde to Morris) - but tall/mid-rise and the smaller buildings can live quite fine together. Just make sure there are good separation distances; stepping the building back as it goes up to break up the massing and shadow studies to make sure that the street gets some light for a certain # of hours. Wow - it's not rocket science.

This also speaks to what is heritage and who determines it - I made a point of that in a post a few weeks ago. We really need a list of buildings that are Council (not the public not even staff; but Council decides on) that are of heritage value. Maybe let the public submit stuff for consideration but legislatively it should be council who decides.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 1:25 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
This argument about Schmidtville is getting old and frankly has been solved by Council. It's called HRM by Design - there is no conflict in planning at all. Council made a clear decision to allow taller buildings through HBD in the block between Spring Garden and Clyde from South Park all the way over to Queen - period. The building heights, rules etc. all reflect a desire to increase density; taller and greater intensity.

The two blocks that are between South Park Street and Dresdon Row are the only ones not impacted by viewplanes (literally a viewplane line goes down the middle of DR). So these two blocks are where taller buildings are emphasised by the planning documents - they tried and failed to have that thinking changed. Move on.

The 'midrise' blocks are the parking lots from DR to Queen - which are impacted by viewplanes and height limited.

Don't get me wrong - I love a lot of the buildings in the Schmidtville low rise area (below Clyde to Morris) - but tall/mid-rise and the smaller buildings can live quite fine together. Just make sure there are good separation distances; stepping the building back as it goes up to break up the massing and shadow studies to make sure that the street gets some light for a certain # of hours. Wow - it's not rocket science.

This also speaks to what is heritage and who determines it - I made a point of that in a post a few weeks ago. We really need a list of buildings that are Council (not the public not even staff; but Council decides on) that are of heritage value. Maybe let the public submit stuff for consideration but legislatively it should be council who decides.
The thing that makes me nuts is that this is being covered in the press, committees are being formed, politicians are responding, etc, despite the fact that it's basically a non-issue.

Meanwhile real heritage buildings are really being threatened with real demolition, literally just done the street, and no one even seems aware of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 2:12 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
The thing that makes me nuts is that this is being covered in the press, committees are being formed, politicians are responding, etc, despite the fact that it's basically a non-issue.
Municipal-level politics are hugely biased toward middle- and upper-class squeaky wheel homeowner type groups. You can do more or less whatever you want in commercial areas and poor neighbourhoods most of the time.

You can see a quantitative version of this with project funding. How much has HRM spent building ice surfaces during the past 10 years?
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 3:19 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
This argument about Schmidtville is getting old and frankly has been solved by Council. It's called HRM by Design - there is no conflict in planning at all. Council made a clear decision to allow taller buildings through HBD in the block between Spring Garden and Clyde from South Park all the way over to Queen - period. The building heights, rules etc. all reflect a desire to increase density; taller and greater intensity.

The two blocks that are between South Park Street and Dresdon Row are the only ones not impacted by viewplanes (literally a viewplane line goes down the middle of DR). So these two blocks are where taller buildings are emphasised by the planning documents - they tried and failed to have that thinking changed. Move on.

The 'midrise' blocks are the parking lots from DR to Queen - which are impacted by viewplanes and height limited.

Don't get me wrong - I love a lot of the buildings in the Schmidtville low rise area (below Clyde to Morris) - but tall/mid-rise and the smaller buildings can live quite fine together. Just make sure there are good separation distances; stepping the building back as it goes up to break up the massing and shadow studies to make sure that the street gets some light for a certain # of hours. Wow - it's not rocket science.

This also speaks to what is heritage and who determines it - I made a point of that in a post a few weeks ago. We really need a list of buildings that are Council (not the public not even staff; but Council decides on) that are of heritage value. Maybe let the public submit stuff for consideration but legislatively it should be council who decides.
I dunno, looking at the proposed boundaries posted by bluenoser on page one of this thread, it seems like the heritage conservation district boundaries haven't been settled yet:



Also, the article said:
Quote:
The proposed conservation area stretches from Brenton to Queen and from Morris to Clyde streets. The plan is slated to be presented to regional council in the spring, and if approved, would take affect in 2017.
I'm not intimately familiar with the whole Schmidtville situation, but this leaves me with the impression that the developer is trying to get in there and mow these down before it becomes a heritage conservation district, an situation that has been discussed on this forum in other threads.

Who is right and who is wrong? Frankly, I don't really know, but I'm kinda surprised by the ire that this situation brings on this board, between Keith's attempt to make Schmidtville supporters appear to all be some group that people like to make fun of and despise (which confounds me, really) and the general attitude of 'let's get this over with already'.

Is there not some kind of due process that has to happen here or am I mistaken on this?

Also, is it right that people should have no say in this? I know the whole NIMBY mystique, but really, should people have no say about what goes on in their neighborhoods?

Regardless, despite all the nay-sayers I feel this is reasonable process. The city makes a decision, a citizen's group doesn't agree and rallies to make some sort of protest, people of the city are made aware and whatever decision results hopefully has at least had the due process of a second look. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 3:31 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
The thing that makes me nuts is that this is being covered in the press, committees are being formed, politicians are responding, etc, despite the fact that it's basically a non-issue.

Meanwhile real heritage buildings are really being threatened with real demolition, literally just done the street, and no one even seems aware of it.
I think these days any press about heritage conservation is a good thing (including your recent article - thank you!).

In reality, I highly doubt that any of these Schmidtville Victorians will be saved, but at least as the stories get out there the general public will be more aware, and maybe we will finally make the first steps to be on par with other places in this regard. It's long been agreed here that our heritage regulations are weak, so maybe stories like this will contribute to raising the level of awareness.

So, let politicians know that people care about our city's heritage structures, even if they don't 'deserve' to be saved, or if they 'obstruct' another condo building. If awareness is increased maybe it will lead to better conservation laws and situations like the BMO/Maritime Life building won't happen so easily in the future...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 4:05 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Municipal-level politics are hugely biased toward middle- and upper-class squeaky wheel homeowner type groups. You can do more or less whatever you want in commercial areas and poor neighbourhoods most of the time.

You can see a quantitative version of this with project funding. How much has HRM spent building ice surfaces during the past 10 years?
And we're about to spend another mint on another stupid "four pad" stadium, this one in Dartmouth.

Meanwhile, there isn't a single modern sports facility for recreational use on the peninsula.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 4:06 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
This argument about Schmidtville is getting old and frankly has been solved by Council. It's called HRM by Design - there is no conflict in planning at all. Council made a clear decision to allow taller buildings through HBD in the block between Spring Garden and Clyde from South Park all the way over to Queen - period. The building heights, rules etc. all reflect a desire to increase density; taller and greater intensity.

The two blocks that are between South Park Street and Dresdon Row are the only ones not impacted by viewplanes (literally a viewplane line goes down the middle of DR). So these two blocks are where taller buildings are emphasised by the planning documents - they tried and failed to have that thinking changed. Move on.

The 'midrise' blocks are the parking lots from DR to Queen - which are impacted by viewplanes and height limited.

Don't get me wrong - I love a lot of the buildings in the Schmidtville low rise area (below Clyde to Morris) - but tall/mid-rise and the smaller buildings can live quite fine together. Just make sure there are good separation distances; stepping the building back as it goes up to break up the massing and shadow studies to make sure that the street gets some light for a certain # of hours. Wow - it's not rocket science.

This also speaks to what is heritage and who determines it - I made a point of that in a post a few weeks ago. We really need a list of buildings that are Council (not the public not even staff; but Council decides on) that are of heritage value. Maybe let the public submit stuff for consideration but legislatively it should be council who decides.
Amen.

Even Waye's response was muted in the news. It's already decided.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 4:08 PM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
The thing that makes me nuts is that this is being covered in the press, committees are being formed, politicians are responding, etc, despite the fact that it's basically a non-issue.

Meanwhile real heritage buildings are really being threatened with real demolition, literally just done the street, and no one even seems aware of it.
Very true.

Keep in mind, these complaints have nothing to do with heritage. And this "heritage conservation" proposal also has nothing to do with heritage.

They're just trying to stop development near their properties.

Doyle block would get coverage if there were single unit home owners nearby, because they would be bitching and morning to local media, which seems to love to run these lazy stories.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 4:26 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Very true.

Keep in mind, these complaints have nothing to do with heritage. And this "heritage conservation" proposal also has nothing to do with heritage.

They're just trying to stop development near their properties.

Doyle block would get coverage if there were single unit home owners nearby, because they would be bitching and morning to local media, which seems to love to run these lazy stories.
Well, if that's really the truth, then I'm disappointed.

I guess I should leave this subject up to the experts on the board anyway, and "just walk away" from my keyboard, on skyscraper anyhow.

This shit takes too much of my energy and is becoming less "worth it" to me these days.

Carry on...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 4:39 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
This argument about Schmidtville is getting old and frankly has been solved by Council. It's called HRM by Design - there is no conflict in planning at all. Council made a clear decision to allow taller buildings through HBD in the block between Spring Garden and Clyde from South Park all the way over to Queen - period. The building heights, rules etc. all reflect a desire to increase density; taller and greater intensity.

The two blocks that are between South Park Street and Dresdon Row are the only ones not impacted by viewplanes (literally a viewplane line goes down the middle of DR). So these two blocks are where taller buildings are emphasised by the planning documents - they tried and failed to have that thinking changed. Move on.

The 'midrise' blocks are the parking lots from DR to Queen - which are impacted by viewplanes and height limited....
Thanks for that clarity. When you put it that way, I think this is much clearer than the fuss in the press.

Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
... This also speaks to what is heritage and who determines it - I made a point of that in a post a few weeks ago. We really need a list of buildings that are Council (not the public not even staff; but Council decides on) that are of heritage value. Maybe let the public submit stuff for consideration but legislatively it should be council who decides.
Council does decide.
Staff makes recommendations - it does not decide.
Heritage Advisory Committee considers Staff/Public input and advises council - it does not decide.
Public makes nominations - it does not decide either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 7:14 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
Council does decide.
Staff makes recommendations - it does not decide.
Heritage Advisory Committee considers Staff/Public input and advises council - it does not decide.
Public makes nominations - it does not decide either.
Yes, I'm sure we all understand that council decides. What I was trying to emphasis is that HRM doesn't have a list of heritage 'resources' or potential heritage buildings (which aren't designated) that need to be monitored. Right now it's very piecemeal and ad hoc; giving no one any certainty about anything. For example: I own a building and want to blow it away and building something new. Under the current system - I have no idea if the building has an 'heritage' value so KeithP or OldDartmouthMark could come out of the woodwork and scream it has heritage value because 50 years ago some historic speech occured there or some other obscure reason (example).

So my suggested list and method of developing that list gives everyone (administration and the public (ie the Heritage Trust)) the opportunity to submit sites for consideration. All the list would do is be a site by site list of sites that should be considered for heritage designation and simply monitored. It has no meaning beyond that. That's how we do it in Calgary and in the permit system sites are flagged with this so that when applications come in that may impact the heritage nature of the building - the application can be circulated to the heritage staff for comment.

Whether the buildings would be 'saved' or designated is all part of the discussion that occurs as part of evaluating any changes to the building. If say an application came in for a change of use to a commercial space on the groundfloor - that shouldn't trigger any major issues. But if a demolition permit came in - that would trigger some discussions. Whether those discussions would 'save' the building or lead anywhere is all a matter of how the discussion with the owner/applicant would unfold.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 7:19 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Under the current system - I have no idea if the building has an 'heritage' value so KeithP or OldDartmouthMark could come out of the woodwork and scream it has heritage value because 50 years ago some historic speech occured there or some other obscure reason (example).
Trust me, that's not going to happen.

And thanks for the notoriety.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 9:47 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Yes, I'm sure we all understand that council decides. What I was trying to emphasis is that HRM doesn't have a list of heritage 'resources' or potential heritage buildings (which aren't designated) that need to be monitored. ...
Apparantly, a list was drafted some time ago by staff (and MAYBE with the input of Heritage Trust. I can't remember the specifics of the rumour)... I don't think it's been made public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
...For example: I own a building and want to blow it away and building something new. Under the current system - I have no idea if the building has an 'heritage' value so KeithP or OldDartmouthMark could come out of the woodwork and scream it has heritage value because 50 years ago some historic speech occured there or some other obscure reason (example)....
Under the current system, there is no heritage value unless municipally, provincially or federally registered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
...
So my suggested list and method of developing that list gives everyone (administration and the public (ie the Heritage Trust)) the opportunity to submit sites for consideration. ...
Anyone can submit a site for consideration. The Heritage Trust knows this well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
...All the list would do is be a site by site list of sites that should be considered for heritage designation and simply monitored. It has no meaning beyond that. That's how we do it in Calgary and in the permit system sites are flagged with this so that when applications come in that may impact the heritage nature of the building - the application can be circulated to the heritage staff for comment....
Comment can't really do much if there is no legislation that protects buildings that have not been registered. In the current situation in Halifax, the only way to protect a heritage building that is not registered is if it is within a heritage district. Heritage districts protect ALL the buildings within the boundaries no matter the ages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
...Whether the buildings would be 'saved' or designated is all part of the discussion that occurs as part of evaluating any changes to the building. If say an application came in for a change of use to a commercial space on the groundfloor - that shouldn't trigger any major issues. But if a demolition permit came in - that would trigger some discussions. Whether those discussions would 'save' the building or lead anywhere is all a matter of how the discussion with the owner/applicant would unfold.
I can't imagine a situation where someone would save a building they didn't have to. By the time a demolition permit is granted, I would expect the owner's paid enough in consulting and other fees that a major change in direction would be a huge deal. Out of curiousity, what has the experience been like in Calgary in this regard? I'd love to know if a list of "Buildings of Interest" results in much saving of buildings... If so, it might be a good use of tax dollars to create such a thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 9:53 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
Under the current system - I have no idea if the building has an 'heritage' value so KeithP or OldDartmouthMark could come out of the woodwork and scream it has heritage value because 50 years ago some historic speech occured there or some other obscure reason (example).
Not a chance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2015, 11:02 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
I can't imagine a situation where someone would save a building they didn't have to. By the time a demolition permit is granted, I would expect the owner's paid enough in consulting and other fees that a major change in direction would be a huge deal. Out of curiousity, what has the experience been like in Calgary in this regard? I'd love to know if a list of "Buildings of Interest" results in much saving of buildings... If so, it might be a good use of tax dollars to create such a thing.
If you follow development in other cities, you'll see loads of examples of developers restoring and incorporating non-registered just because that's what the market responds to.

Doyle Block is probably different because it's already been conceived and planned with demolition in mind, but developers don't always--or these, even typically--need to be forces into conservation. It's just good business. Not so much here though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2015, 2:42 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Well, if that's really the truth, then I'm disappointed.

I guess I should leave this subject up to the experts on the board anyway, and "just walk away" from my keyboard, on skyscraper anyhow.

This shit takes too much of my energy and is becoming less "worth it" to me these days.

Carry on...
Mark, my comments were not at all directed at you. I know, and trust, your concerns are sincere. That when you speak of heritage, you really do mean that. If it was you quoted in the Herald story I read on this, I wouldn't include you in my generalization.

My comments were directed toward others opposing the development, which I don't think are sincerely about heritage. I don't think the "Schmidtville Conservation Proposal" is at all about heritage. It's about conservation, but mostly property values.

I get your concerns about the Victorian houses that may be lost in this development. But I guess my thought on this, is there are a very limited number of areas in the city where the overall planning objective is higher levels of density, with taller buildings *and* where viewplanes are not also hindering things.

This is one of the areas, where there are already huge towers nearby. If there is anywhere in the city for another tower, it's a location like this, even if a few heritage-valued homes were lost. I think they were actually lost in 2009, when HRMxD was put in place.

On the other hand, I think the value of the BMO at the Doyle block is much greater, and could be such a great feature of a bigger development that preserves/incorporates...

But to be clear, just because I'm critical of the NIMBY property owners quoted in newspapers, don't take that as suggesting *you* should "move along" and leave concerns to "experts". You concerns are reasonable, but I think that this is just an area where we should have this kind of development.
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 > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.