HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2015, 5:59 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
I'm sure that other developers in other cities do incorporate non-registered buildings. I guess what I'd like to know is: do they do it because the city asks pretty please, or because they decide themselves that they can market what's already going on in the building or that keeping heritage features fits with their corporate image and values?
I think it's generally a bit of both.

Certainly in Toronto, which I'm most familiar with, developers just tend to default to restoration. Some old buildings are thoroughly restored, inside and out, and form the streetwall/retail space at the bottom of towers, like this and this.

Some are standalone restorations, like this.

And sometimes developers plan to demolish, but the city steps in and says "uh-uh." Here`s an instructive example similar to the Doyle Block situation--non-registered buildings nonetheless worth saving. (The difference is that in the case of the Doyle Block, the Halifax buildings to be demolished are more worthwhile than the Toronto buildings being saved.)

The exception is in the old entertainment district/warehouse area, where a huge number of new condo towers has been springing up in the past decade. But even there, I'd say projects are split between 50% full (or mostly full) preservation, 50% facadectomies, and almost zero full demolitions.

This is what I`ve been used to, so to see a bunch of two-bit developers mowing down buildings in a city with far fewer historical resources is confusing, to say the least.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2015, 6:17 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
I think it's generally a bit of both.

Certainly in Toronto, which I'm most familiar with, developers just tend to default to restoration. Some old buildings are thoroughly restored, inside and out, and form the streetwall/retail space at the bottom of towers, like this and this.

Some are standalone restorations, like this.

And sometimes developers plan to demolish, but the city steps in and says "uh-uh." Here`s an instructive example similar to the Doyle Block situation--non-registered buildings nonetheless worth saving. (The difference is that in the case of the Doyle Block, the Halifax buildings to be demolished are more worthwhile than the Toronto buildings being saved.)

The exception is in the old entertainment district/warehouse area, where a huge number of new condo towers has been springing up in the past decade. But even there, I'd say projects are split between 50% full (or mostly full) preservation, 50% facadectomies, and almost zero full demolitions.

This is what I`ve been used to, so to see a bunch of two-bit developers mowing down buildings in a city with far fewer historical resources is confusing, to say the least.
Well said. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2015, 10:24 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
I think it's generally a bit of both.

Certainly in Toronto, which I'm most familiar with, developers just tend to default to restoration. Some old buildings are thoroughly restored, inside and out, and form the streetwall/retail space at the bottom of towers, like this and this.

Some are standalone restorations, like this.
The first example is pretty questionable - it probably looked fairly ordinary the day it was built, but the other two are obviously worth saving.

Quote:
And sometimes developers plan to demolish, but the city steps in and says "uh-uh." Here`s an instructive example similar to the Doyle Block situation--non-registered buildings nonetheless worth saving. (The difference is that in the case of the Doyle Block, the Halifax buildings to be demolished are more worthwhile than the Toronto buildings being saved.)

Uh, yeah. I mean, come on. That thing is just begging to be knocked down. I would fight this strenuously if I was the developer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2015, 10:26 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Are you suggesting we save a wooden Victorian structure, Keith? Or did your account get hacked?

What's this building like inside? It sure looks nice from the exterior.

No, it's masonry/stone. An old girlfriend lived there 20 years ago. It is nice inside if you like creaky floors, drafty windows and bad plumbing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2015, 10:44 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Uh, yeah. I mean, come on. That thing is just begging to be knocked down. I would fight this strenuously if I was the developer.
Despite all the glass and glitz, Torontonians really still see the Victorian neighbourhood main streets as a big element of the city's identity, so it's not surprising people got up in arms about (not that city council got involved.)

I admit that row of buildings is pretty rough-looking, but I'm curious to see what it looks like in a couple of years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2015, 10:53 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
No, it's masonry/stone. An old girlfriend lived there 20 years ago. It is nice inside if you like creaky floors, drafty windows and bad plumbing.
Oops so it is. Looked at it on my stupid phone so the pic wasn't so clear.

So you're saying it had character?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2015, 1:26 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Hey CF,

No, I didn't feel your comments were directed at me. In fact, your posts are always well thought out and presented, and always respectful. I, personally, really appreciate that. In retrospect, I should not have responded directly to your post, and I apologize for that.

Recently, I have disobeyed one of my cardinal rules, and that's not to take anything I read on an internet forum too seriously. Time to dial back on that.

Regarding your points, I guess in a fit of naivete, I felt that the Schmidtville people were being genuine, and didn't consider that they might have motives other than to preserve those Victorians, which are disappearing bit by bit in our city. Although I'm not personally involved, I didn't feel that the group deserved the condescension they were receiving in some of the posts, as though they didn't have a right to express their concerns. Regardless, I'm still looking at it from the outside in, so perhaps I should not get involved in something that's not my fight.

Also, I don't disagree that this type of development should happen here, I just wish that there were some more thought towards treating 100+ year old buildings with more respect. Ideally, as mentioned, if there were some incentives for the developer to move them, or even be really creative and build around them or somehow find a way to incorporate them into the structure (though I recognize the level of difficulty in doing this) - I would applaud that. Alas, I know that none of these options will occur, but I personally think that at least, discussions like this need to happen.

And, I don't live in a vacuum. The BMO building issue is affecting my opinions on this case, along with other issues like the 'application to demolish' signs on those Barrington heritage buildings (discussed in another thread in which I also expressed frustration). There are other cases as well, too numerous to mention here.

The lack of effectiveness by the seemingly misdirected HT combined with apparent lack of concern by our municipal politicians and local developers, wears away at anybody who values heritage structures. I realize that they can't all be saved, and that doesn't bother me - it's the attitude that hasn't changed in 50 years that bothers me, especially when I travel to other places that have ventured to save interesting old structures, or have combined them with new construction to create interesting, viable structures that are respectful to history. This is not some dark art, it's actually happening elsewhere, and is often commented upon by several posters here.

While I generally post from the heart, I don't work in the planning or building fields, and really just have an interest in our city in general. There are many here who bring a lot more expertise to the table and I defer to their knowledge and experience. While I have a vision on how I'd like to see things go, I am only one person who comes here purely out of interest and really probably shouldn't be adding my 2¢ or responding to some chronically-negative posters as much as I do - I can step back and see how this only dilutes the conversation or even worse, knocks it off track.

So to be clear, I don't oppose this development. I'm not crazy about the architecture, but I don't feel it shouldn't happen. I would like to see something positive done about the Victorian structures, but I don't expect to see it.

...and I'm not PO'ed at anybody, just genuinely frustrated about certain aspects of our city's developments.

CF, thanks for taking the time to consider my writings, and responding to my thoughts. I appreciate the discussion.
Thoughtful response as usual, Mark. And really, neither I, nor I think anyone, would want you to either stop posting here, nor even change how you post (from the heart). You're one of my favorite posters on here, so please do stick around, and please don't change anything (not that my opinion matters all that much-- I don't presume self-importance here-- but I do enjoy this community ).

You're probably more right than me about the Schmidtville group; my generalization about the lack of sincerity is probably too much of precisely that-- a generalization.

Hali has a nice breakdown of the different elements/factions in the group. I think he's optimistic about the breakdown, but it's fair to say there are likely a good deal of members of the group who are sincere in their conservation aims.

I think there are absolutely legitimate issues to raise here about the loss of Victorian structures involved in this development; I guess where my frustration comes in this case, is that where I think there are truly more substantial architectural heritage issues (Doyle block) there amount of media attention was nihil. But here, for some reason there was nearly a full page section in Herald to the concerns of this group-- and this perplexes me. I just see unfairness is the treatment, and think it's likely because you have wealthy south end property owners among the voices opposing Brenton Place, while nothing of the sort concerning Doyle. So, we hear about Brenton in the news, but Doyle flies under the radar.

In fairness to the Herald, they *did* publish Dry's very good op-ed.

Overall, I do wish we were overall much, much, better at preserving/maintaining our heritage architecture while allowing for nice developments/changes.... and there are often so many opportunities-- like Doyle-- but yeah, instead the issue ends up being an all-or-nothing discussion. Either we oppose Brentwood and stop the development, or not. Either Doyle is leveled and rebuilt 100%, or the development doesn't happen.

Again, I blame HT for this problem, but it's also a wider attitudinal issue as you point out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2015, 9:00 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Thoughtful response as usual, Mark. And really, neither I, nor I think anyone, would want you to either stop posting here, nor even change how you post (from the heart). You're one of my favorite posters on here, so please do stick around, and please don't change anything (not that my opinion matters all that much-- I don't presume self-importance here-- but I do enjoy this community ).

You're probably more right than me about the Schmidtville group; my generalization about the lack of sincerity is probably too much of precisely that-- a generalization.

Hali has a nice breakdown of the different elements/factions in the group. I think he's optimistic about the breakdown, but it's fair to say there are likely a good deal of members of the group who are sincere in their conservation aims.

I think there are absolutely legitimate issues to raise here about the loss of Victorian structures involved in this development; I guess where my frustration comes in this case, is that where I think there are truly more substantial architectural heritage issues (Doyle block) there amount of media attention was nihil. But here, for some reason there was nearly a full page section in Herald to the concerns of this group-- and this perplexes me. I just see unfairness is the treatment, and think it's likely because you have wealthy south end property owners among the voices opposing Brenton Place, while nothing of the sort concerning Doyle. So, we hear about Brenton in the news, but Doyle flies under the radar.

In fairness to the Herald, they *did* publish Dry's very good op-ed.

Overall, I do wish we were overall much, much, better at preserving/maintaining our heritage architecture while allowing for nice developments/changes.... and there are often so many opportunities-- like Doyle-- but yeah, instead the issue ends up being an all-or-nothing discussion. Either we oppose Brentwood and stop the development, or not. Either Doyle is leveled and rebuilt 100%, or the development doesn't happen.

Again, I blame HT for this problem, but it's also a wider attitudinal issue as you point out.
Thanks for the post, CF. I appreciate your words.

I can certainly understand your frustration regarding this vs Doyle block. And I pretty much concur. If I had to choose between one or the other, I would have to select the BMO building and the structures on the corner of Brunswick/SGR. I think with imagination it could really be something special.

That said, in my perfect world, both projects would have preservation in mind. In the real world, neither does, and that's sad.

Oh well, everybody knows where I stand on this by now, so I'll shut up...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2015, 6:09 AM
pblaauw pblaauw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 388
Joel Plaskett's first apartment was in one of those old houses. Surely that's enough to save it.

source
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2015, 8:18 AM
Hali87's Avatar
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,803
Was it the nice one?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2016, 2:39 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Brenton Place is going before the Design Review Committee on July 7th. Here is a link to the presentation - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/documents/811.pdf. The design looks great, but what are the chances of it being approved?

The design hasn't really changed since October 2015 that I can see:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2016, 3:33 AM
hockey157 hockey157 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3
I think that it looks great!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2016, 11:16 AM
portapetey portapetey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 509
I really like this. It's outside the boxy. Hope it goes forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2016, 6:31 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by portapetey View Post
I really like this. It's outside the boxy. Hope it goes forward.
I agree it's very dynamic and a great mid-rise. If you don't take the design, I want another Canadian city to steal it from you .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2016, 12:52 AM
hoser111's Avatar
hoser111 hoser111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 258
I'm pretty sure I heard on CBC radio at suppertime that the Design Review Committee approved this. I wasn't paying attention to the lead in but then they were interviewing a few neighbors about the looming apocalypse. I haven't seen anything in print yet though......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2016, 11:46 AM
IanWatson IanWatson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoser111 View Post
I'm pretty sure I heard on CBC radio at suppertime that the Design Review Committee approved this. I wasn't paying attention to the lead in but then they were interviewing a few neighbors about the looming apocalypse. I haven't seen anything in print yet though......
Yes, it's been approved. Apparently construction to start next spring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 2:26 AM
Halifaxns Halifaxns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4
Is there any update on when construction begins? I certainly hope it turns out as good as the renderings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2017, 9:50 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,265
Demo has started on the corner apartment building.

20171118_143817 by Jonovision23, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 5:07 PM
Jstaleness's Avatar
Jstaleness Jstaleness is offline
Jelly Bean Sandwich
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmouth
Posts: 1,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Brenton Place is going before the Design Review Committee on July 7th. Here is a link to the presentation - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/drc/documents/811.pdf. The design looks great, but what are the chances of it being approved?

The design hasn't really changed since October 2015 that I can see:

Is the bordering color a red or an orange similar to the Library?
__________________
I can't hear you with my eyes closed
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 2:47 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.