HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 1:09 AM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinMacD View Post
That building isn't THAT bad.
I think it will look better as it ages.

Have the houses started to be demoed yet?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 12:04 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
I think it will look better as it ages.

Have the houses started to be demoed yet?
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2010, 6:33 PM
JustinMacD JustinMacD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 310
Everything is demolished now. The whole block looks completely different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2010, 7:34 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinMacD View Post
Everything is demolished now. The whole block looks completely different.
and we still don't know what the replacement will look like
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2010, 12:10 AM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
and we still don't know what the replacement will look like
I know... I'm just scared it will have stupid faux heritage accents and low quality cladding materials.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 1:26 AM
DigitalNinja DigitalNinja is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 804
Now they are demolishing the stone building behind the houses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 1:55 AM
spaustin's Avatar
spaustin spaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Dartmouth
Posts: 621
Really sad to lose those old houses. Too much focus has been put on heritage battles Downtown and not enough attention is paid to the dwindling number of old wooden houses elsewhere on the Peninsula.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 11:56 AM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin View Post
Really sad to lose those old houses. Too much focus has been put on heritage battles Downtown and not enough attention is paid to the dwindling number of old wooden houses elsewhere on the Peninsula.
I couldn't agree more; it is terrible to lose those houses., and for what gain? It's getting hard to find houses that are 100 plus years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 3:17 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,670
One area that I'd like to see a blanket protection of the older homes in the residential streets between Cogswell and Cornwalls; North Park and GOttingen. That area has undergone a lot of rejuvenation over the years and is a very lovely area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 4:46 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,614
Although I can understand the concern for losing older homes, a blanket protection of older homes seems extreme - who will maintain these homes? Maybe the architecturally significant homes could receive subsidies to help maintain them but will residents be willing to pay higher taxes to do so? If not, then some of these protected homes will become derelict.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 5:29 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
If not, then some of these protected homes will become derelict.
Not necessarily. In the area mentioned there were a lot of very derelict buildings that were painstakingly restored. If people don't want old houses sell them to someone who wants to care for them. If we only had bylaws where upkeep is expected/required we wouldn't have situations where owners let a property decline and then put in for demolition, wait a year, and then tear it down. The lack of bylaws means that the only incentive is to let properties decline, so that someting can replace it. For example that duplex eyesore on North near Agricola.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 6:34 PM
halifaxboyns halifaxboyns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,670
I need to kick myself to not type before I have coffee, this is really becoming a problem lol.

Protection is the wrong word. Let's face it; if a home isn't registered and someone wants to gut it or tear it down - then bye bye house. I think you could do a number of things:
  1. Encourage registration of the homes and provide tax incentives and grants to help keep the homes in good repair.
  2. Create Bylaw rules or policy that would goven any new infill houses or additional to keep them in character in terms of design (cornaces, woodwork, etc), materials...etc.
  3. Register the entire streetscape (it's been done on Tower Road and another which I can't think of).

Or any combination of these. I think I mentioned in the Trillium thread in terms of the NSLC in Schmidtville, that one way to try to compromise with the residents is to enact rules and policy to kept the predominantly low rise residential in that area in the same character, while allowing the Trillium block to fill out - that could be a good compromise.

One other thing that could also be an option is to identify in the various secondary planning stategies an inventory of existing and potential heritage assets (or do it as a stand alone project). Then have council accept the list and update it from time to time.

One last note about your comment JET: most cities have a bylaw about upkeep of the property in terms of keeping lawns mowed, the property clean, the building in a good state of repair. Most places call them community standards bylaws and I believe HRM actually already has one. It's just that the only way to get anything to occur is that there would have to be a complaint and there are typically resource issues with most bylaw enforcement departments Canada wide (although I don't know about HRM).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2010, 6:51 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns View Post
I need to kick myself to not type before I have coffee, this is really becoming a problem lol.

Protection is the wrong word. Let's face it; if a home isn't registered and someone wants to gut it or tear it down - then bye bye house. I think you could do a number of things:
  1. Encourage registration of the homes and provide tax incentives and grants to help keep the homes in good repair.
  2. Create Bylaw rules or policy that would goven any new infill houses or additional to keep them in character in terms of design (cornaces, woodwork, etc), materials...etc.
  3. Register the entire streetscape (it's been done on Tower Road and another which I can't think of).

Or any combination of these. I think I mentioned in the Trillium thread in terms of the NSLC in Schmidtville, that one way to try to compromise with the residents is to enact rules and policy to kept the predominantly low rise residential in that area in the same character, while allowing the Trillium block to fill out - that could be a good compromise.

One other thing that could also be an option is to identify in the various secondary planning stategies an inventory of existing and potential heritage assets (or do it as a stand alone project). Then have council accept the list and update it from time to time.

One last note about your comment JET: most cities have a bylaw about upkeep of the property in terms of keeping lawns mowed, the property clean, the building in a good state of repair. Most places call them community standards bylaws and I believe HRM actually already has one. It's just that the only way to get anything to occur is that there would have to be a complaint and there are typically resource issues with most bylaw enforcement departments Canada wide (although I don't know about HRM).
I agree with your comments, and i wish that HRM would go in that direction. For your item #3: Carlton and Smith St are both registered streetscapes.
Re bylaws, HRM has them, and officers to enforce them, but they are minimal, properties have to be fairly derelict. Bylaws with teeth, and incentives to maintain properties would be great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 12:35 AM
hfxtradesman hfxtradesman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 84
Being someone that has been inside working on these places I do know that it would cost more to get these houses up to code then the actual value that the property is worth. Plus each house had two to three rental units and that would increase the price to fix them. What would you do? Invest into something that you're not going to get your money back on or build something that you will!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 12:08 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfxtradesman View Post
Being someone that has been inside working on these places I do know that it would cost more to get these houses up to code then the actual value that the property is worth. Plus each house had two to three rental units and that would increase the price to fix them. What would you do? Invest into something that you're not going to get your money back on or build something that you will!
With all due respect, I've maintained my 100 years plus hosue for twenty years, and I have no trades background, did most of the work myself.
Restoration is often a labour of love, but doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg; it can, but doesn't have to. Most old houses are structurally sound, and most don't have to be brought up to code. Present day building methods seem to result in houses that don't last as long as they used to.
My old house is the only one on our block with the original exterior detail. Lots of work to maintain, but at least it's not covered in vinyl and devoid of any character.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2010, 7:02 PM
pchipman pchipman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 47
Where is the HT outrage at this?? Wasn't there some hoopla about the houses across the street on South park being torn down for the Trillium to go up? I haven't heard anything about the demolition of these houses which were substantially more attractive. Could it have something to do with the church being involved?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2010, 2:13 AM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pchipman View Post
Where is the HT outrage at this?? Wasn't there some hoopla about the houses across the street on South park being torn down for the Trillium to go up? I haven't heard anything about the demolition of these houses which were substantially more attractive. Could it have something to do with the church being involved?
In short, yes.

Every single church project has faced zero or very little obstructionism.

I don't think that anybody is willing to take on the church projects because they would look pretty bad.

Its all well and good to take on "evil businesses that aren't feasible", but I don't think the heritage folks could justify taking on churches that are in financial trouble and need other revenue sources.

I wouldn't be surpised to hear something regarding that recent proposal though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2010, 12:39 PM
beyeas beyeas is offline
Fizzix geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South End, Hali
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian View Post
In short, yes.

Every single church project has faced zero or very little obstructionism.

I don't think that anybody is willing to take on the church projects because they would look pretty bad.

Its all well and good to take on "evil businesses that aren't feasible", but I don't think the heritage folks could justify taking on churches that are in financial trouble and need other revenue sources.

I wouldn't be surpised to hear something regarding that recent proposal though.
Which proves the point that it is not about saving heritage, it is about "saving" halifax from the evil corporate greed of filthy rich developers.
(note sarcasm)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2010, 7:36 PM
worldlyhaligonian's Avatar
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,103
Hahaha, if only we had these fictional evil developers like that... we would already have more resdential towers if they actually had deep pockets!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2010, 11:44 PM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 7,417
From the weekend;



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 > SSP: Local Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:29 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.