General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by alps

I am concerned that such large-footprint redevelopments will make the street lose some of its texture and variety. I liked the modest size of the other two Westwood developments at the corner of Birmingham and SGR (TD and BMO).

Good odds it will mean that. Birmingham Street as well has several attractive houses converted to a mix of commercial uses, with facade variety and lots of storefronts.That’ll probably just become one long wall or pane of glass. Chedrawe has proven that he has no ability to consider context or history when developing anything; his MO is to raze and rebuild whole blocks. That’s not how good development happens in a 250-year-old city core, but that seems to be all he knows.

MacDonald made a comment to the Herald along the lines that since all these buildings have been renovated over the years and are all knitted together in a mosh-mad, there’s “no history” here. What he doesn’t get is that kind of ad-hoc repurposing, that layering of eras and uses and styles, is what enlivens neighbourhoods. Whatever “iconic” monolith they have planned for this site will almost certainly be worse from an urban perspective, just as the Doyle is. If we had better developers, able to work without context while adding density, SGR would be a lot better off. But Chedrawe and MacDonald are small-time, small-town, unsophisticated developers. They wouldn’t last a second in most larger cities pulling this shit.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Good odds it will mean that. Birmingham Street as well has several attractive houses converted to a mix of commercial uses, with facade variety and lots of storefronts.That’ll probably just become one long wall or pane of glass. Chedrawe has proven that he has no ability to consider context or history when developing anything; his MO is to raze and rebuild whole blocks. That’s not how good development happens in a 250-year-old city core, but that seems to be all he knows.

MacDonald made a comment to the Herald along the lines that since all these buildings have been renovated over the years and are all knitted together in a mosh-mad, there’s “no history” here. What he doesn’t get is that kind of ad-hoc repurposing, that layering of eras and uses and styles, is what enlivens neighbourhoods. Whatever “iconic” monolith they have planned for this site will almost certainly be worse from an urban perspective, just as the Doyle is. If we had better developers, able to work without context while adding density, SGR would be a lot better off. But Chedrawe and MacDonald are small-time, small-town, unsophisticated developers. They wouldn’t last a second in most larger cities pulling this shit.

I agree with everything in this post. Sadly, recent history has shown that there is no point in hoping for better development in this case, so we may as well get used to sub-par development because there is no expectation (or incentive) for it to improve.

Luckily, a bad development here will be more than balanced out by some good developments that have happened in other parts of the downtown (that's the optimist in me speaking out), so I think overall development has been a net positive. It's too bad, however, that Spring Garden Road has become the target for these blockbusters lately, as IMHO it is one of those streets that would benefit from more fine-grained development rather than single buildings taking up an entire block, with little visual interest.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

MacDonald made a comment to the Herald along the lines that since all these buildings have been renovated over the years and are all knitted together in a mosh-mad, there’s “no history” here. What he doesn’t get is that kind of ad-hoc repurposing, that layering of eras and uses and styles, is what enlivens neighbourhoods. Whatever “iconic” monolith they have planned for this site will almost certainly be worse from an urban perspective, just as the Doyle is. If we had better developers, able to work without context while adding density, SGR would be a lot better off. But Chedrawe and MacDonald are small-time, small-town, unsophisticated developers. They wouldn’t last a second in most larger cities pulling this shit.

The buildings as-is are largely unrentable for the reasons MacDonald stated. He could have had them under long-term lease agreements otherwise - I know, because I am aware of several big retailers that looked into them and found them functionally deficient. This is prime real estate on the #1 shopping street in the region. The kind of tenants who are willing to pay top dollar to be on that street want modern, usable space. What he has is suitable mostly for small boutiquey-type operations that may not last a year. Once again, what is published in planning textbooks often is at odds with economic reality.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The buildings as-is are largely unrentable for the reasons MacDonald stated. He could have had them under long-term lease agreements otherwise - I know, because I am aware of several big retailers that looked into them and found them functionally deficient. This is prime real estate on the #1 shopping street in the region. The kind of tenants who are willing to pay top dollar to be on that street want modern, usable space. What he has is suitable mostly for small boutiquey-type operations that may not last a year. Once again, what is published in planning textbooks often is at odds with economic reality.

I think the salient point is what kind of development they will put in the place of these buildings. While removing the existing buildings will change the character of the street, you want a net improvement rather than just something new. A monolithic blockbuster will fulfill the 'new' requirement, but would change the character of the street in a negative way if not done properly (IMHO). Following the example of the Doyle doesn't seem like a net improvement (again IMHO) over current in terms of street character and how it meets pedestrian level.

Of course opinions are like bellybuttons, so let's see what they are proposing. Hopefully it will be better than the Doyle or the MaryAnne, or whatever it's called.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Following the example of the Doyle doesn't seem like a net improvement (again IMHO) over current in terms of street character and how it meets pedestrian level.

Of course opinions are like bellybuttons, so let's see what they are proposing. Hopefully it will be better than the Doyle or the MaryAnne, or whatever it's called.

The Doyle seems to be a whipping boy for a lot of people on here and frankly I don't understand why considering it is not even fully opened yet. I get that people liked the look of the old BMO building but as space it was pretty awful and the tenants hated being in there. Plus the upper floors were inaccessible for the disabled and could not easily be altered to allow that. Several of the other buildings were only accessible from street level via a flight of stairs so they had the same problem. And the Doyle St side was virtually completely blank and not street-friendly at all except for the old Tom's cubbyhole. Nostalgia is fine but let's not get carried away.

As for the MaryAnn, that was dreamed up and designed by an army of the best minds in the planning profession locally, and look what we ended up with.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The Doyle seems to be a whipping boy for a lot of people on here and frankly I don't understand why considering it is not even fully opened yet. I get that people liked the look of the old BMO building but as space it was pretty awful and the tenants hated being in there. Plus the upper floors were inaccessible for the disabled and could not easily be altered to allow that. Several of the other buildings were only accessible from street level via a flight of stairs so they had the same problem. And the Doyle St side was virtually completely blank and not street-friendly at all except for the old Tom's cubbyhole. Nostalgia is fine but let's not get carried away.

As for the MaryAnn, that was dreamed up and designed by an army of the best minds in the planning profession locally, and look what we ended up with.

I can't speak for others, but the reason I used the Doyle is that I personally think it's a bad design. My opinion of it has nothing to do with nostalgia - it is that it takes up an entire block and is somewhat unattractive to the eye. I would not be enthused with an entire street full of those.

The building that was removed for it was a loss, for sure, and something could have been done to preserve its character while making it functional and accessible, but that's not the point. Likewise for the masonry Victorians that were removed at the other corner. As I mentioned in the post you are responding to, it's all about what you replace it with. I think someone123 said it best a while back, that people wouldn't be as bothered by old architecture being removed if it were being replaced with better architecture - the Doyle is not 'better architecture' IMHO, but of course I realize my opinion will not be shared by everybody.

As with the MaryAnn, I agree with you, but I don't care who planned it or what methods were used, just that the end result is the same - a bland, unattractive building that takes up a good part of the block and offers little interest to passers-by aside from a few shops.

But, at least it adds density, I suppose, so it does have its positive points. Can't completely shoot it down because it is a functional improvement over what was there (a surface parking lot).

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The buildings as-is are largely unrentable for the reasons MacDonald stated. He could have had them under long-term lease agreements otherwise - I know, because I am aware of several big retailers that looked into them and found them functionally deficient. This is prime real estate on the #1 shopping street in the region. The kind of tenants who are willing to pay top dollar to be on that street want modern, usable space. What he has is suitable mostly for small boutiquey-type operations that may not last a year. Once again, what is published in planning textbooks often is at odds with economic reality.

I would suspect that they're not rentable for what MacDonald is charging, not "not rentable." In any case, the SGR and Birmingham sides have been consistently 100 percent occupied for years.

The Doyle Block was the same thing. The previous version contributed an awful lot more to the neighbourhood in its eclecticism and the well-loved businesses it houses than the extremely bland new-build does, or ever will in all likelihood.

Anyway, I'm not against redevelopment of this site. What I would like to see is a development that utilizes the large interior portion of the block while maintaining some of the unique architectural features of the facades and the history of the Mills site (which MacDonald already vandalized a few years ago with his horrible renovation).

Most importantly, I'd like to see anything new pay close attention to street interaction, replicating with varying materials, facades, etc. the liveliness of the existing streetscape. I think the chances of that are fairly low. (Probably whatever is built now is at least likely to be much better than if this had happened 10 or 20 years ago, though.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Most importantly, I'd like to see anything new pay close attention to street interaction, replicating with varying materials, facades, etc. the liveliness of the existing streetscape. I think the chances of that are fairly low. (Probably whatever is built now is at least likely to be much better than if this had happened 10 or 20 years ago, though.)

I think the biggest issue is that most buildings still have way too little pedestrian-oriented detailing or it's just too cheap.

It's important to separate out concerns about the city's character from the profit-maximizing incentives of landlords. The Town Clock is a 100% loss on paper. It would be very profitable to replace it with a condo building. But it is kept because it is a part of the city's cultural fabric and has public value. A lot of privately owned buildings have public value too and that should factor into planning decisions. Private property ownership rights aren't absolute and there's a lot that can be done to constructively balance all of the interests involved.

I don't hate the Doyle but imagine how much better that area would be if the old buildings were preserved and the Doyle were built behind the library or next to St. Mary's Basilica or on any one of the dozens of dreary underused sites to be found around the downtown area.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think the biggest issue is that most buildings still have way too little pedestrian-oriented detailing or it's just too cheap.

Yes, this.

[Keith P.]

Already there are people on social media calling for HRM to protect the Mills Bros building(s) as a "heritage property" and prevent the redevelopment of the site. Criminy.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Yes, this.

Another problem I see is that there are a lot of bad streetscapes from the 1960's-90's that the city doesn't seem to be doing anything about.

It would be possible to convert the ground floor of say Park Vic or the half block with Smitty's to create something as good as or better than the Mills block. If that process were happening Mills wouldn't seem like such a loss, and maybe there would even be some opportunity to reuse old facades and the like.

In the North End things seem to be going a little better because of the prevalence of smaller lots and because some blocks were so far gone that almost anything is an improvement. Gottingen and Agricola are improving and expanding over time.

The Inglis and southern Barrington area seems like a bit of a disaster too. Lots of strange developments but not much improvement to the streetscape. It should have a nice commercial village feel and be the main street for that part of the South End.

Maybe the Centre Plan will help?

[Querce]

2050 Gottingen has been issued a development permit for a 40 unit, 6 story building

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another problem I see is that there are a lot of bad streetscapes from the 1960's-90's that the city doesn't seem to be doing anything about.

It would be possible to convert the ground floor of say Park Vic or the half block with Smitty's to create something as good as or better than the Mills block. If that process were happening Mills wouldn't seem like such a loss, and maybe there would even be some opportunity to reuse old facades and the like.

In the North End things seem to be going a little better because of the prevalence of smaller lots and because some blocks were so far gone that almost anything is an improvement. Gottingen and Agricola are improving and expanding over time.

The Inglis and southern Barrington area seems like a bit of a disaster too. Lots of strange developments but not much improvement to the streetscape. It should have a nice commercial village feel and be the main street for that part of the South End.

Maybe the Centre Plan will help?

I don't understand what you are talking about. Park Vic is set back well from the street with a landscaped lawn meeting the sidewalk. Smitty's is a restaurant next to the entrance to an apartment block. What would you see these doing to be improved, particularly since they are private property? Neither is located on a particularly commercial street.

Gottingen remains largely a disaster. Agricola is hipster central but we'll see how long that lasts. Unless you live near there most of those businesses are not particular draws.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Querce

2050 Gottingen has been issued a development permit for a 40 unit, 6 story building

I'll be keeping a close eye on this project;



And other nearby projects like 2165 Gottingen and 2172 Gottingen.



All photos are my own and taken this week. See my signature for the blog

[ns_kid]

From the now you see it, now you don't department...

Late last week a sign appeared on the northeast corner of Montebello Avenue and Waverley Road in Dartmouth touting what looked to be a new townhouse development. I believe it identified 20 units and the sign featured a rendering of the property. It was located on the site of the former Bench Automotive garage (originally an Irving service station IIRC), now vacant. It's across the street from the proposed development at 246 Waverley Road/2-4 Montebello and the rendering did not seem to be consistent with that project which is, I believe, still with planning staff.

Anyway, the sign was there as late as 10:30 last (Sunday) night but by 8 this morning it had disappeared without a trace. A case of premature disclosure or mistaken location? With an online search I didn't find any pending development that seemed to fit but maybe this means something to someone else.

[KnoxfordGuy]

Has construction on the Margaretta stalled?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I don't understand what you are talking about. Park Vic is set back well from the street with a landscaped lawn meeting the sidewalk. Smitty's is a restaurant next to the entrance to an apartment block. What would you see these doing to be improved, particularly since they are private property? Neither is located on a particularly commercial street.

As the city grows the pedestrian-oriented commercial areas should expand, but it's easy for pedestrian-unfriendly buildings to frustrate this process along entire blocks. There are lots of these developments that date back to the 70's and 80's, and the municipality should be pushing for them to be rehabilitated. 5770 Spring Garden Road is a prime example. Yes, they are privately owned, but there is still a lot the city could do through zoning and incentives. This has happened in other cities. The solution is to build small 2-4 storey podiums out to the street and to make sure they have a decent amount of architectural interest and variety along with a mix of different sizes of storefront spaces.

New development ties in with this as well. Fine-grained commercial areas are valuable. If new ones aren't being built it hurts more for the old ones to be torn down and replaced with larger scale new development. A lot of people enjoy "urban village" type streetscapes. Spring Garden Road had this sort of feel around 2000 and earlier but it's disappearing. A new Spring Garden Road analogue could emerge along Queen Street or Inglis or South Park. And one is emerging along Agricola, while Gottingen is coming back to life. But I'm not sure that Halifax has seen a net increase in these streetscapes over the past 10 years even though the metropolitan area has grown significantly.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

All photos are my own and taken this week. See my signature for the blog

Thanks for the updates.

The smaller projects along Gottingen may add up to create a pretty vibrant and varied fine-grained streetscape that can't happen with "block-busting" style development with longer street frontages.

I had a look at a satellite photo of this area from Google Earth (taken this past summer):



One interesting little feature you can see here is how packed in the Glubes Lofts and townhouses are. That end of that block achieves a decent FAR without having very tall buildings. But about half of the block across the street is devoted to parking. FAR of probably 1 or so.

Velo 1/2 and the projects near Cogswell and Brunswick are bound to have a significant impact on the total number of people living in the area.

Too bad the Housing Trust of NS developments have been stalled.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Thanks for the updates.

The smaller projects along Gottingen may add up to create a pretty vibrant and varied fine-grained streetscape that can't happen with "block-busting" style development with longer street frontages.

Gottingen is a pretty big mess right now with a lot of construction projects happening all at once, but it's true that all of them manage to densify the street, typically up to six-eight storeys, while maintaining the fine-grained pedestrian experience. I have no complaints about the development happening there so far. It's sort of the opposite of the slow bland-fication I fear maybe happening in and around SGR. (Which may be somewhat arrested if council pushes through the heritage designations in the area it's debating as I post this. Of course, almost all the property owners are opposed.)

EDIT: Yeah, led by Whitman and a few others, council chose not to designate a single building or streetscape, including a lot of complete no-brainers. A surprisingly disappointing and thick-headed discussion about it too.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It's sort of the opposite of the slow bland-fication I fear maybe happening in and around SGR. (Which may be somewhat arrested if council pushes through the heritage designations in the area it's debating as I post this. Of course, almost all the property owners are opposed.)

Over the years I've heard stories about property owners contemplating demolition of just about every major non-registered commercial building in the city. The Lord Nelson was almost demolished at one point and there was a story about a possible redevelopment of the Sovereign Building. Those two are good examples of character buildings that aren't that old but deserve to be preserved. Collectively the maintenance of these character buildings doesn't represent a significant burden on the city. Again this cavalier attitude toward demolishing character blocks is something that I see more in Halifax than in other cities, including much less historic cities. Halifax is in a pretty unique spot in terms of having a lot of heritage and not caring about it much.

I've mentioned it before but I think there's another process happening. Halifax is becoming bigger, wealthier, and more urban, and this means that there's more demand for bland high-end areas of the urban core that didn't exist back in the 1990's when peak urban commercial activity was aging mid-range chains and mom and pops. In 2020's Halifax I think the hipstery stuff will mostly be in the North End while downtown becomes more mainstream commercial (exemplified by stores like Lululemon and restaurants like Moxie's). This is not necessarily a bad thing; I think there will be a lot more variety in the urban core as a whole.