Downtown Facade Restorations

[RyeJay]

Which downtown buildings are in most need of exterior renovations?
With Fenwick off this list, since its makeover shall be in progress come next year, there are other terrible towers out there...

My list of obviousness: Maritime Centre/BellAliant Tower, Scotia Square Towers, Park Victoria--just to name a few...

However, what materials should be utilised?
Attention should be given to heritage concerns, of course, but beyond this issue of history I am curious as to how Haligonians wish for these aging buildings to look. It is important because even a single tower can drastically change the downtown's aesthetics.

If a building, let's say...Park Victoria, is not deemed as holding much heritage value, does it stand to reason of renovating the facade to appear much more modern?

Should we consider potential new developments, in terms of their closeness to these old buildings? An exterior reno of the Maritime Centre is something I've wanted for a long time: but what kind of materials should we use, if say, the Alexander was to be built virtually next door?

What should the Scotia Square Complex, with immediate regard to Barrington and Duke towers, look like given the fact that these buildings also serve as a backdrop for Grand Parade--for City Hall?

[Empire]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Which downtown buildings are in most need of exterior renovations?
With Fenwick off this list, since its makeover shall be in progress come next year, there are other terrible towers out there...

My list of obviousness: Maritime Centre/BellAliant Tower, Scotia Square Towers, Park Victoria--just to name a few...

However, what materials should be utilised?
Attention should be given to heritage concerns, of course, but beyond this issue of history I am curious as to how Haligonians wish for these aging buildings to look. It is important because even a single tower can drastically change the downtown's aesthetics.

If a building, let's say...Park Victoria, is not deemed as holding much heritage value, does it stand to reason of renovating the facade to appear much more modern?

Should we consider potential new developments, in terms of their closeness to these old buildings? An exterior reno of the Maritime Centre is something I've wanted for a long time: but what kind of materials should we use, if say, the Alexander was to be built virtually next door?

What should the Scotia Square Complex, with immediate regard to Barrington and Duke towers, look like given the fact that these buildings also serve as a backdrop for Grand Parade--for City Hall?

Some of the smaller buildings are a disaster in Halifax and need attention ASAP. There is nothing wrong with Maritime Ctr. or Fenwick.

This one in particular is a grave eyesore:

Churchill Apts Morris and Church

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax...12,131.88,,0,0


Also quality Nova Scotia building materials should be mandated for some projects. Polished Nova Scotia granite will last forever and has a quality look.
http://www.langesrockfarm.com/include/projects.htm

[Waye Mason]

As far as Scotia Square and the Maritime Centre sites go, I don't know that heritage inspired designs are required or necessary. Just bringing the buildings out to the sidewalk, maybe 3 stories tall, giving the buildings a more human scale (and in the case of teh Maritime Centre, maybe keeping it from assaulting people with crazy winds).

I would be happy with a completely modern atrium with glass and titanium sticking out the front of the Maritime Centre. I feel like Scotia Square is an easier fix, extending right out to the sidewalk on Duke would give them more square feet to sell and make the buildings more inviting to walk into/shop in.

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by Empire

This one in particular is a grave eyesore:

Churchill Apts Morris and Church

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=halifax...12,131.88,,0,0


Also quality Nova Scotia building materials should be mandated for some projects. Polished Nova Scotia granite will last forever and has a quality look.
http://www.langesrockfarm.com/include/projects.htm

This one would be improved with some glass balconies and a paint job over that ugly brown. I think that's what hurts the look.

[someone123]

The facades that bother me the most are the buildings along Barrington that remain in poor condition despite so much talk over the years of fixing them up. Apparently many have received tax incentives but aside from a couple of examples, like the Freemasons building, not much has changed. The white building next door is still in bad shape, as is the Green Lantern Building, NFB is still a shell, etc.

The building with Idealbikes is another example: http://g.co/maps/6nnpp

All the buildings nearby are interesting with great brickwork in apparent good condition but this single building is run-down. I therefore believe that this situation has more to do with neglect than shortcomings of the street. Barrington could be amazing looking with a modest amount of renovation to the current "duds" and the city should pressure owners to improve their buildings, while also extending tax incentives and investing in new streetscaping and better lighting. The streetscape plans for Barrington appear to have been shelved but now is a great time to redo the whole street with new lighting, sidewalks, and street furniture.

I agree completely about the Maritime Centre atrium. That could be great if well-executed. Similarly Scotia Square should be overhauled. I always hear complaints that it would be too expensive but, well, of course it will be expensive -- it's a large development. The payout of having it work properly would also be large.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

I always hear complaints that it would be too expensive but, well, of course it will be expensive -- it's a large development. The payout of having it work properly would also be large.

There is a renewed focus on our downtown. Very soon, more people will reside there, bringing a burst of permanent consumers who shall wish to use the downtown's infrastructure. A renovation of Scotia Square Mall, though very expensive, needs to happen. The payout, as you've mentioned, is exactly what we're getting at; this is an investment on which we will see a complete return.

[someone123]

I wish we'd see more of a focus on residential near the old office core. It is sad that the triangle lot by Granville Mall for example is sitting empty because the owner is focused solely on building office in a market that wants more residential. Similarly, is there any good reason why Waterside can't be converted? If one day we have the happy problem of tons of downtown office demand it won't be difficult to come up with new sites.

Unfortunately there's also a tendency to propose elaborate developments like United Gulf or Salter downtown instead of trying to build the kind of simple residential infill that's beeing going up everywhere else around the core. A nice 15 storey condo on the UG site would have been perfectly fine and is preferable to having an empty lot for a decade.

[Empire]

It's time for this town to get some backbone. The triangle lot north of the Delta should have a compounding 3% per year surcharge levied on assessment until it is developed. The Ideal bike shop should have a compound 3% per year surcharge levied on assessment until it looks equal to the Marble building beside it. Downtown is a mix of shoddy shop fronts and vacant lots. There is an easy fix......(SURCHARGE) the money goes into a development fund. Once ideal bikes conforms with the guidelines they will get a tax break partially funded from the development fund.

Ideal Bikes get a facade
http://maps.google.it/maps?q=halifax...42.73,,0,-22.5

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wish we'd see more of a focus on residential near the old office core. It is sad that the triangle lot by Granville Mall for example is sitting empty because the owner is focused solely on building office in a market that wants more residential. Similarly, is there any good reason why Waterside can't be converted? If one day we have the happy problem of tons of downtown office demand it won't be difficult to come up with new sites.

Unfortunately there's also a tendency to propose elaborate developments like United Gulf or Salter downtown instead of trying to build the kind of simple residential infill that's beeing going up everywhere else around the core. A nice 15 storey condo on the UG site would have been perfectly fine and is preferable to having an empty lot for a decade.

You're dead on.

Buildings get converted and modified all the time. It makes no sense to leave sites empty. Our goal needs to be the construction of whatever the market is demanding. If anything commerical wants the downtown in the future there will already be a market of established infrastructure in which they can now invest.

Halifax needs to change gears on this.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Empire

The Ideal bike shop should have a compound 3% per year surcharge levied on assessment until it looks equal to the Marble building beside it. Downtown is a mix of shoddy shop fronts and vacant lots. There is an easy fix......(SURCHARGE) the money goes into a development fund. Once ideal bikes conforms with the guidelines they will get a tax break partially funded from the development fund.

Ideal Bikes get a facade
http://maps.google.it/maps?q=halifax...42.73,,0,-22.5

This is an insane idea. Would you rather have ideal bikes there or just another vacant store front? The condition of the building is related to the price per square foot that the property owner can get and potential tenants can pay. You can't just start taxing businesses because of the risks they take in opening businesses in areas that are otherwise dead.

Vacant sites are a different story, but you can't penalize businesses based on arbitrary aesthetic qualities. If lease rates on Barrington increase, the problem will fix itself - Ideal Bikes won't have their lease renewed.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is an insane idea. Would you rather have ideal bikes there or just another vacant store front? The condition of the building is related to the price per square foot that the property owner can get and potential tenants can pay. You can't just start taxing businesses because of the risks they take in opening businesses in areas that are otherwise dead.

The relationship between building conditions and market rates can be tenuous. There is an empty house on Spring Garden Road for example right next to buildings that charge very high rents. That building could have tenants but for whatever reason the owners are not interested.

Many bad properties are actually the result of abstentee owners who are just waiting to cash in when a big developer wants to use their lot to build a highrise. Unfortunately the current tax structure encourages this because run-down properties are cheaper to hold. If you want a windfall payout but do not want to spend effort on your property, your best bet is to neglect it as much as possible to save on maintenance and taxes.

Other landlords are just clueless and bad managers. This is unavoidable but the public should not have to pay for their incompetence or put up with unsightly buildings so the owner can cash in later. The owners should be made to pay to keep their properties in reasonable condition.

The correct way to approach this I think is to go after owners of unsightly properties downtown and slowly raise standards while at the same time offering incentives to renovate. The tax structure should be changed so that heritage buildings get discounts to reflect the extra expense their owners must take on that benefits the whole city. Furthermore surface lots should be taxed at a higher rate than buildings, because they undesirable. Giving tax discounts for tearing down heritage buildings is exactly backward.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is an insane idea. Would you rather have ideal bikes there or just another vacant store front? The condition of the building is related to the price per square foot that the property owner can get and potential tenants can pay. You can't just start taxing businesses because of the risks they take in opening businesses in areas that are otherwise dead.

Vacant sites are a different story, but you can't penalize businesses based on arbitrary aesthetic qualities. If lease rates on Barrington increase, the problem will fix itself - Ideal Bikes won't have their lease renewed.

If Ideal Bikes improves their property they would get a tax break. If they don't they get a (surcharge). There is nothing arbitrary about saying you cannot have a plywood storefront.

You do realize this is a heritage district?

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by someone123

The owners should be made to pay to keep their properties in reasonable condition.
...
Furthermore surface lots should be taxed at a higher rate than buildings, because they undesirable. Giving tax discounts for tearing down heritage buildings is exactly backward.

Perhaps, but reasonable condition is what? I think Ideal Bikes is fine for Barrington Street, for example, considering what the condition of the rest of the street. This is the difference between real urban conditions and Disney Land or some sort of New Urbanist approach to cities.

I completely agree that vacant lots should be the top priority. I'd rather see a focus on dealing with this, than worrying about what will generally improve over time. The house on Spring Garden is a not a common problem. One of a only a few "problem" property owners on the peninsula.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Empire

You do realize this is a heritage district?

I do, but so? It could be a complete plywood storefront if it was vacant. At least here there are windows and window displays, etc.

[Waye Mason]

Ideal does not own the building... I imagine the guy who owned the old candy shop still owns the building. What I recall from talking to him about renting office space (a long time ago) is he was Lebanese and he had bought the build a few decades ago, so that would be 1970s? Anyway, so we are balancing private property rights vs bylaw. The building is not pretty, but he paints it every couple of years. He has a lot of tenants. Ideal and Just Us have been there for years.

Looks to me like it is simply an unremarkable building... and always has been - http://trampolinebranding.com/news/w...Barrington.jpg

[someone123]

Individually unremarkable buildings:


Source

Why is it that when it's in Halifax it's just an unremarkable building that's painted over or, worse, torn down (RIP half of Barrington and most recently the Kelly building), but when it's in Quebec City it's cared for and part of a busy and successful commercial area?

[Empire]

The Ideal Bike shop should have a compound 3% per year surcharge levied on assessment until it looks equal to the Marble building beside it. Downtown is a mix of shoddy shop fronts and vacant lots. There is an easy fix......(SURCHARGE) the money goes into a development fund. Once Ideal Bikes conforms with the guidelines they will get a tax break partially funded from the development fund.

Originally Posted by planarchy

This is an insane idea. Would you rather have ideal bikes there or just another vacant store front? The condition of the building is related to the price per square foot that the property owner can get and potential tenants can pay. You can't just start taxing businesses because of the risks they take in opening businesses in areas that are otherwise dead.

Vacant sites are a different story, but you can't penalize businesses based on arbitrary aesthetic qualities. If lease rates on Barrington increase, the problem will fix itself - Ideal Bikes won't have their lease renewed.

I shouldn't have to spell it out for you but here it is spelled out. A couple of blocks away is an example of what Barrington should look like. Having these buildings at Granville Mall kept in great condition didn't drive tenants out of downtown.


Source
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beesquare/985096478/

Barrington St.

Source Google Maps

[planarchy]

[QUOTE=Empire;5432478]The Ideal Bike shop should have a compound 3% per year surcharge levied on assessment until it looks equal to the Marble building beside it. Downtown is a mix of shoddy shop fronts and vacant lots. There is an easy fix......(SURCHARGE) the money goes into a development fund. Once Ideal Bikes conforms with the guidelines they will get a tax break partially funded from the development fund.



I shouldn't have to spell it out for you but here it is spelled out. A couple of blocks away is an example of what Barrington should look like. Having these buildings at Granville Mall kept in great condition didn't drive tenants out of downtown.


Source
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beesquare/985096478/

Do you ever spend any time in Granville Mall area - vacant store fronts, almost completely dead most times of the day except for the drunken fools at the Split Crow. And its been this way for years. The entire northend of Granville right now is empty. I'd rather see a showdy bike shop than crombie banners covering the windows for years.

[Waye Mason]

Yep, Granville Mall is pretty, and dead. I support turning this back into a street when Cogswell comes down. I think the main reason it is in good shape is that it has two main owners, NSCAD on the east side, Halifax Developments on the west.

Anyway, I don't think you can and should go to someone who owns a building and say "you bought an ugly building and didn't make it beautiful and now you are getting a fine." That does not seem just. You can give him incentives to make the building better, but you can't punish him for owning a building that, when it was built, when he maintained it, he made a good faith effort to comply with building codes and zoning requirements of that time.

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Yep, Granville Mall is pretty, and dead. I support turning this back into a street when Cogswell comes down. I think the main reason it is in good shape is that it has two main owners, NSCAD on the east side, Halifax Developments on the west.

Anyway, I don't think you can and should go to someone who owns a building and say "you bought an ugly building and didn't make it beautiful and now you are getting a fine." That does not seem just. You can give him incentives to make the building better, but you can't punish him for owning a building that, when it was built, when he maintained it, he made a good faith effort to comply with building codes and zoning requirements of that time.

So the unsightly property fine is unjust? Perhaps the Unsightly Property Act could be modified for heritage properties and heritage districts so that fines would be levied for issues that wouldn't apply in a surburbn neighbourhood?