Morse's Tea Building Signage

[ILoveHalifax]

So beige vinyl siding is a no no?

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here's the report: http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/hac/...1877Hollis.pdf

Thanks for posting the link.

This image was in the report. I think it looks good - certainly better than a blank white strip.

[Keith P.]

While I think the way the Morse's signage was painted over was very underhanded, I do see the rationale in wanting to replace it. Morse's is still a living brand (just barely) and they no longer have any connection to or pay any money for the promotion of their brand on that building. If it was painted over the week after they moved out decades ago would anyone have complained? I doubt it. I think the proposal addresses the heritage component of the building adequately - perhaps a bit Disneyfied, but I have no issue with it in this instance.

Ironically, if Morse's was a defunct brand, this may not have been an issue.

[q12]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thanks for posting the link.

This image was in the report. I think it looks good - certainly better than a blank white strip.

I like it. I wonder if there are any pictures of it when it was the Jerusalem Warehouse?

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

While I think the way the Morse's signage was painted over was very underhanded, I do see the rationale in wanting to replace it. Morse's is still a living brand (just barely) and they no longer have any connection to or pay any money for the promotion of their brand on that building. If it was painted over the week after they moved out decades ago would anyone have complained? I doubt it. I think the proposal addresses the heritage component of the building adequately - perhaps a bit Disneyfied, but I have no issue with it in this instance.

Ironically, if Morse's was a defunct brand, this may not have been an issue.

I agree. They could have handled this MUCH better from a communications perspective. Had they been up front about why they did it, and stated clearly what the plan was and what their rationale was for doing so, then the backlash wouldn't have been as bad. They still would have had backlash from the usual suspects, but not the generalized backlash that they did receive. It could have been avoided.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by q12

I like it. I wonder if there are any pictures of it when it was the Jerusalem Warehouse?

Here is the NS Archives link that shows the Jerusalem Warehouse - http://gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/Rogers/album.asp?ID=74. Based on the picture description it is the building on the left, with the horse carriage in front. It was a couple of stories lower at the time. Here is a recent Google Street View image - https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifa...,0.74,,0,-8.07. It is too bad that the building to the right of it was torn down a few decades ago (it had fairly tall floor levels so it would have been suitable for restoration)

(source: Nova Scotia Archives and Records Management, Halifax, NS)

[q12]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Here is the NS Archives link that shows the Jerusalem Warehouse - http://gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/Rogers/album.asp?ID=74. Based on the picture description it is the building on the left, with the horse carriage in front. It was a couple of stories lower at the time. Here is a recent Google Street View image - https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifa...,0.74,,0,-8.07

(source: Nova Scotia Archives and Records Management, Halifax, NS)

^Thanks

Photos from Duff: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...144928&page=81




So the part where the Morse tea sign was is actually a relatively newer addition. The only way to make the building authentic to the original would be to chop off the top 2 floors, then do a Waterside style addition with glass. Then the sign would be a non-issue.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by q12

^Thanks

Photos from Duff: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...144928&page=81



So the part where the Morse tea sign was is actually a relatively newer addition. The only way to make the building authentic to the original would be to chop off the top 2 floors, then do a Waterside style addition with glass. Then the sign would be a non-issue.

I like what Armour Group did to replace the building that was torn down a few decades ago. They didn't do a faux-heritage rebuild but instead they copied the massing and general style in a slightly more modern, functional design (as compared to how it originally looked below). PS: I really like the NS Gov Archives.

[spaustin]

Starfish's proposed Jerusalem Warehouse is a good solution. That said, we should never have needed a solution in the first place. The sign was part of the heritage defining character of the building. It was written right into the description, a description that was in place when Starfish bought the building. Starfish, with their many years of experience in dealing with heritage buildings in Halifax, obviously knew it and chose to ignore the city and the rules. My guess is they figured that removing the Morses Tea sign wouldn't be approved so they went the route of doing it anyway and then asking forgiveness. Jerusalem Warehouse is the forgiveness part of the equation. I think that stinks.

What the staff report leaves out is that HRM could actually take Starfish to court and force the return of Morses Teas (at Starfish's expense) or seek a fine of up $10,000. I think the city forcing the restoration would take things too far considering that Jerusalem Warehouse is a good substitution, but they should be fined. If they get away with this without any consequences, what does that say to everyone else in town who owns a designated heritage building? How can the city turn around and go after the lady on Brunswick who built a fence that's a little too tall in front her 12 Apostles condo while Starfish gets a pass? Starfish has done a great job of respecting and preserving heritage Downtown, but their conduct here was pretty flagrant and, if our bylaws are to mean anything, it shouldn't go without some kind of sanction.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I like what Armour Group did to replace the building that was torn down a few decades ago. They didn't do a faux-heritage rebuild but instead they copied the massing and general style in a slightly more modern, functional design (as compared to how it originally looked below).

It's nice that they reproduced a building of similar scale to fit in well on the street but I think the style of the new building is mediocre. The storefronts are lower than the old building in the original photo, for example, and the detailing is much rougher. If rebuilding the original (in stone) was not feasible then I would have preferred a completely modern style instead of a compromise like this.

Historic reconstruction isn't necessary bad. In the old part of Quebec City, some of the buildings people like are recreations and many required substantial renovations to return them to their colonial-era appearance. Louisbourg is all reconstructions. The same sort of thing could theoretically be done in Halifax in a bunch of places. Unfortunately, heritage buildings in Halifax don't tend to be respected to an extent that reflects their level of national significance. Province House's grounds for example have mostly been converted to a parking lot.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by spaustin

Starfish's proposed Jerusalem Warehouse is a good solution. That said, we should never have needed a solution in the first place. The sign was part of the heritage defining character of the building. It was written right into the description, a description that was in place when Starfish bought the building. Starfish, with their many years of experience in dealing with heritage buildings in Halifax, obviously knew it and chose to ignore the city and the rules. My guess is they figured that removing the Morses Tea sign wouldn't be approved so they went the route of doing it anyway and then asking forgiveness. Jerusalem Warehouse is the forgiveness part of the equation. I think that stinks.

What the staff report leaves out is that HRM could actually take Starfish to court and force the return of Morses Teas (at Starfish's expense) or seek a fine of up $10,000. I think the city forcing the restoration would take things too far considering that Jerusalem Warehouse is a good substitution, but they should be fined. If they get away with this without any consequences, what does that say to everyone else in town who owns a designated heritage building? How can the city turn around and go after the lady on Brunswick who built a fence that's a little too tall in front her 12 Apostles condo while Starfish gets a pass? Starfish has done a great job of respecting and preserving heritage Downtown, but their conduct here was pretty flagrant and, if our bylaws are to mean anything, it shouldn't go without some kind of sanction.

This!

It was underhanded to sneak in there and paint it over. They should be made to return the sign to its original text and pay a fine. It sets bad precedent that they could deface a heritage building with no consequences and STILL get their way after the outrage has died down. The sign should have been restored then the debate could take place on what future text should be there.

Jerusalem Warehouse by itself isnt that bad, but that sign never read that, its faux heritage. It's not the Jerusalem Warehouse to 99% of the city's residents, but the Morse's Tea building. Id argue that Morse's Tea is more culturally significant that Jerusalem Warehouse ever was, even back in JW's time. MT has a long history in Canada, and was the first Tea in Canada. What is JW's claim to fame?

You guys know that the other two visible sides (Hollis and Cogswell) are going to be branded with the building "tenant" names? Hollis and Cogswell are the most visible sides and as such they should retain the JW signage. The argument that JW is "more" historic than MT and therefore is the more appropriate signage falls flat when they slather some new companies name on the other, more visible sides of the building.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Historic reconstruction isn't necessary bad. In the old part of Quebec City, some of the buildings people like are recreations and many required substantial renovations to return them to their colonial-era appearance. Louisbourg is all reconstructions. The same sort of thing could theoretically be done in Halifax in a bunch of places.

Indeed. It would've been nice to see a real reconstruction done here, but agreed, if they couldn't do it for reasons relating to expenses or whatever else, they should've just done a better job with the contemporary addition.

Re: the sign.

Funnily, since I seem to be one of the big pro-heritage folks around here, I don't really care that much about the sign (the building is the main thing to me, and hey, adaptive re-use) but I agree it'll be pretty lame if they put Baton Rouge up there. If they were replacing Morse's with something of equal local significance that'd be one thing, but to put up the name of a continent-wide chain of steakhouses, with no connection to Halifax at all, is deeply silly. It'll be the equivalent of a a fake old-timey sign on a fake old-timey business.

Absolutely it was done under cover of night, without permission, because they knew if they asked it would be denied. Much as I appreciate much of Starfish's work, that's skeezy.

[fenwick16]

Starfish bought the property and spent money to restore it with the hope of making a profit. Allowing a change in signage seems like a small sacrifice in return for having a historic property being put to a practical and profitable use.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by scooby074

You guys know that the other two visible sides (Hollis and Cogswell) are going to be branded with the building "tenant" names? Hollis and Cogswell are the most visible sides and as such they should retain the JW signage. The argument that JW is "more" historic than MT and therefore is the more appropriate signage falls flat when they slather some new companies name on the other, more visible sides of the building.

I missed this bit when I read through it yesterday. As a minimum, Jerusalem Warehouse should go all the way around.

[Keith P.]

When Morses painted their name on it 100 years ago did anyone complain they were defacing a historic building? When they covered that up with neon in the 1960s did anyone complain then? If someone had moved a business in there in the 1980s after they left and painted their name on it would anyone complain? I think the answer in all cases is no. I have no problem with whatever gets painted on it now.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

When Morses painted their name on it 100 years ago did anyone complain they were defacing a historic building? When they covered that up with neon in the 1960s did anyone complain then? If someone had moved a business in there in the 1980s after they left and painted their name on it would anyone complain? I think the answer in all cases is no. I have no problem with whatever gets painted on it now.

If someone had painted over the sign in the 1980s people would have complained. By the 1980s the heritage movement had been awakened and the building had been just recently saved from possible demolition to build Harbour Drive. Buildings do change with time, but heritage also develops with time. No one would have cared 100 years ago because it wasn't significant then. It is now. What people identify as worth preserving 100 years from now will also differ. You might be able to lease space in historic 1801 Hollis in 2113.

[Drybrain]

Apropos of nothing, are there any pics of it covered with neon in the 60s? That sounds horrible/amazing.

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Apropos of nothing, are there any pics of it covered with neon in the 60s? That sounds horrible/amazing.

You can see a small corner in this shot and the fading paint of the sign that was on the harbourside above Lower Water. Just a thought, but the sign that faced the harbour may not have actually been removed. There is a remarkable difference in exposure for the south and east side of building's in the Downtown. It may have just worn away!

[Ziobrop]

Generally I'm ok with re-branding it as the Jerusalem Warehouse - Reznick has a point about Morris teas being an existing brand - However the proposed font is all wrong, its too kitschy western. They should have used the same font as the Morris banner.

Also when the city approves this (with font change), they should also levy the maximum fine for altering the structure without approval. failing to do so will make a mockery of our heritage protection, given the strength of their prosecution of the woman with the fence at the 12 apostles.

[spaustin]

In case you missed it, I actually did a piece on this for Spacing Atlantic. We've been over a lot of it in the thread, but I thought I would share.

http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2013/11/2...-tea-building/