In case you were afraid the falling-apart boarded-up wooden box across from the Public Gardens was going to be torn down and some developer put something else there, fear not! Meet the Halifax Heritage Committee’s newest Heritage Property! According to Phil Pacey, the shack will bring $50,000,000 dollars a year in tourist revenue to the Halifax economy, as visitors flock to marvel at the circa 1945 square box architecture.
I’m not sure what this building was used for. I think maybe the City used to store some tools in it. Or maybe the lawn bowling club kept their wickets there (or whatever one uses for lawn bowling). Or perhaps it’s where the City housed the ducks who were too lazy to fly south in the winter. Whatever, at any rate I hope you like this building because it’s never going away. (at least not until the Sun become a Red Giant and swallows the Earth)
—Chairman Mars
This article appears in Jun 18-24, 2009.
I. HATE. HERITAGE. TRUST.
Chairman– two anti-heritage rants in a row is enough. Haven’t read your third one yet, but I’m holding it back for a while to let other people get a word in edgewise.
As for the building– I have no opinion one way or the other on it, but I do have information. It’s the “dry canteen” from WWI– the navy had a “wet canteen” for R&R for military men, which I guess included lots of booze, and this was built as the teetotalling alternative.
From what I gather at from a staff report about the building, its age isn’t particularly noteworthy, but the architectural style and building construction is.
The building was slated to be torn down, but the Rugby group stepped up and said, “hey, we’ll turn that into out clubhouse.” There is exactly zero chance that the rugby players will maintain the “dry” tradition, but the idea was that they would quickly raise funds to restore the building, if the city held off from tearing it down. Council said, “sure, no problem.” The heritage people were barely involved.
What’s happened, though, is that the rugby people haven’t been as quick on the uptake as they had suggested, and so the building is continuing to deteriorate. The heritage people are stepping up and saying if the city is going to save this thing, maybe they can go ahead and pay for the reconstruction, and let the rugby people pay them back.
It’s not an unreasonable argument. Although, of course, you don’t have to agree with it.
BP–why?
This is a totally ridiculous heritage designation. It dates from WWII, not WWI, and was thrown up in a hurry as most buildings built for the military were. There is nothing at all remarkable about is architecture and it has no redeeming qualities. It should have been torn down years ago. This is exactly why heritage in Halifax gets such a bad name, namely, the abuse of the term to apply to anything more than 20 years old.
You’re right– 1942.
Like I said, I don’t have much of an opinion on the issue, but your anger should be directed at the Rugby club, not the heritage people.
Tim,
I guess this wasn’t the right post to express my general feelings about HT. After reading your post, I am inclined to agree with HT on this one.
However, I am one of those crazy people that want to see development in the downtown core. That being said, I do not want to see our heritage properties torn down and destroyed. I would like to see them being preserved, combined with development. The downtown core of Halifax has not changed much in the last 20 or so years. Last week, as I was mourning the loss of Jim Nunn on CBC, I was watching a report (online) he did back in 1984 or 85. There was a shot from the harbour looking to Halifax. The only major change was the absence of Purdy’s Tower two and the casino.
I have two beefs with HT: Sight lines and funding.
One of their arguments is that tourists go up to Citadel Hill to get a view of the harbour. This is secondary to the main reason why anyone goes up there. And, as it is, there are a few places where you can get a good view. I am not advocating 40 and 50 story buildings here, just the 15 – 25ish story buildings that have been proposed.
(As an aside, when I was watching the public hearings over the Alexander Keith’s property, I almost fell off my couch laughing when an opponent to the project claimed that they would not be able to see the pirates coming in the harbour from the upstairs window of the building that houses the Norwegian consulate on Hollis St. This was not HT, but I felt the need to mention it).
As for the funding aspect, whenever HT opposes a project and wins they have no funding to fix, or even maintain the properties. (Armour Group’s Oceanside project, for example).
It seems to me that every time a project is proposed in Halifax, HT comes out against it for one reason or another. This may or may not be true, but it has been my perception.
That being said, I would like to see a medium between council’s crazy approval of building permits of late and HT’s opposition to almost everything that comes forward.
P.S. Thank you, Tim (and The Coast) for being the only local reporter (media outlet) that I can rely on to get my municipal affairs news. Although, I may not always agree with you, I like to hear what you have to say.
OK, BP. Good enough.
I think, though, that Heritage Trust gets blamed for stuff they have nothing to do with, or only tangentially have anything to do with. There are a handful of instances when they’ve delayed approval of a project, it’s true. But by and large, the lack of significant development has much, much more to do with broader economic and geographic realities. Simply put: Halifax will never be a major city.
And, imo, it speaks of a certain provincial mindset that people think we won’t be worthy until we’re Calgary East, or Singapore Atlantic. Being the small-ish regional centre that we are now is a worthy, respectable thing. Rather than peg our identity on mega-development at all costs, we should instead work to make this a better place for educational institutions, those who graduate from them, improve the quality of life, better parks, and yes, find ways to protect heritage properties, and a thousand other things that don’t require turning city government over to whichever development corporation has the deepest pockets. And sure, being supportive of business is part of that package. It’s just not the only thing.
I’ve offered this before: If the Heritage Trust geezers are looking for a theme song, they should use the old Marx Brothers classic “Whatever it is, we’re against it”.
Good points both BP and Tim. Though I have absolutely no opinion on this particular building – or what the Rugby Club wants to do with it – I do think that the Heritage Trust often delays projects and in general creates an atmosphere in Halifax where people who want to embark upon major projects are hesitant to do so, or, at the very least, have to incur much larger than average legal costs in order to move ahead.
I agree with Tim in that there is respect in being the small regional centre – but all things grow and change. What I think the majority of Halifax wants out of the Trust is a watchdog to ensure that the old is preserved while the new is encouraged. A group that will preserve the historical atmosphere while allowing this generation to create its own history. IMO, the Trust is not representing that ideal – which is perhaps the reason for the public opinions regarding the organization.
One thing I, for some reason, do not have an issue with is the sight lines. I know that there are quite a few of them and I don’t know if they all have to be preserved – but the basic idea of being able to see the mouth of the harbour from the top of citadel hill is something I do agree with. I just don’t see any reason to fight taller buildings that are even 1 inch outside of those sight lines, which the Trust has done.
I like the idea of Halifax being similar to Old Quebec City. Nice older buildings, character, and still a great place to be at any age, but they don’t strive to be Montreal or Toronto. Although it’d be nice to have a stadium big enough to get bands like Sir Paul, but indoors so we don’t have to wreck the commons and brave the weather everytime.
Tim, there’s a difference between aspiring to be “Singapore East” and simply wanting to see healthy, regular growth in the core to avoid stagnation, as well as urban sprawl. The population on the peninsula is much lower than it was in the 1950s, and as a result we have situations like terminally ill Gottingen Street (slowly improving, but you get my point).
Halifax really doesn’t even have any real “mega-development” proposed. It’s not about becoming the next Toronto, but simply increasing density on the peninsula as we grow to maintain lively streetscapes, a healthy economy, and a diverse culture…
The city will continue to grow, and I would much rather see people settle on the peninsula or in Dartmouth within the Circ over Sackville, Cole Harbour, or whatever.
Population density not only makes for healthy communities but it makes economic sense too, in terms of making more efficient the delivery of municipal services and such. I’m all for an HT that protects historic structures, but I don’t think it should be within their mandate to suppress development on nonhistoric sites like the one in the OP, or the old Texpark lot.
Kagurazaka — what you’re talking about is simple zoning. If city officials don’t want people living in the suburbs, all they’ve got to do is stop rezoning properties for suburban development.
…and at the same time, encourage development on the peninsula rather than make developers jump through hoops to get anything approved. I wish the viewplanes were less restrictive. HRMbyDesign should simplify the process, at the very least.
Q: How many Haligonians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Hey you can’t change that light bulb, it’s a heritage light bulb!