[Image-1]
Development in Halifax has claimed another victim and outraged citizens, after city council voted against a motion to expedite heritage status for the historic Fram House on Young Avenue.
The decision comes after the Cleveland Estate, also known as the wedding cake house, was demolished earlier this year. Both houses were bought by the same developer, Steve Tsimiklis.
“Steve Tsimiklis went in there without notifying those tenants, started work on the house, and damaged the tenants’ property,” says Peggy Cunningham, a professor at Dalhousie’s school of business and member of Save Young Avenue, a citizen group that believes HRM isn’t doing enough to protect the south end neighbourhood’s unofficial heritage properties from future development.
“They can get control over the demolition permits so that there is a mandatory heritage review on properties over X age, for example,” says Cunningham. “You could declare a conservation district. You could put meaningful heritage legislation in place. Council could do those things instead of sitting there and saying ‘Woe is me.’”
Peninsula South Downtown councillor Waye Mason doesn’t agree, and says council is doing the best it can under difficult conditions.
“Some of the residents down there are very frustrated. They want me to solve the problem, and some of them think I haven’t been active enough but…we’re investigating heritage conservation districts, we’re doing land use bylaw changes, and we’re trying. I’m trying,” he says.
In April, members of Save Young Avenue attempted to stop demolition of the Cleveland Estate by trying to expedite a heritage status application. City council voted down that motion because the demolition work had already begun and there was nothing much left to save. Now all that’s left of the estate is an empty lot.
A similar story is happening with the Fram House.
“He’s trying to do as much work as he can so that it won’t be considered a heritage property,” Cunningham says about Tsimiklis. Mission accomplished.
Council decided to not expedite heritage status for the property two weeks ago due to the fact that demolition work had already started by the time the vote came to city hall.
Mason believes that even if the vote had passed, it wouldn’t have made a difference. As the rules stand, if you own a house, you have the right to demolish it. While he believes more should be done to protect heritage properties, he also sees value in the rules as they are.
“Changing land rights is a long process for a reason. It’s hard to expedite taking away the rights that somebody has without an extended process. So if we had been able to snap our fingers and make the Fram House a registered heritage building before [the owners] sold it to Steve Tsimiklis, that probably would have significantly lowered the amount of money they would have got.”
The developer was out of the country and unable to be reached for comment.
Even if the application had been expedited, it probably wouldn’t have precluded the lawful demolition permit acquired by Tsimiklis, according to the city. The situation hasn’t ever come up before, and HRM’s legal team would have needed to be consulted, had the vote passed.
Futile as those efforts before council may have been, Cunningham and the Young Avenue residents she’s spoken with are still angry with the outcome.
“I can’t think of a single decision where this council has sided with the wishes of the citizens,” she says.
The Fram House is over 100 years old. It was built by renowned Canadian architect Edmund Burke, and is one of his last remaining structures in the country.
Related Stories
Council couldn’t have stopped Honda expansion says information report
Lacking the tools to stop bad development
This article appears in Sep 22-28, 2016.
Oddly, none of the tenants have made any formal complaints to any authority; or if they have, those complaints are unfounded and the property owner is working with in the full limits of the law.
The heritage argument is simply a cover up for fear around loss of property values. It’s a shame that they are disguising their argument; outside of the little bit of media coverage, they are getting no attention nor very little sympathy.
The city has a responsibility to garner economic growth and financially protect all of its citizens, not just a select few.
It would appear that the wealth of the neighborhood has somehow clouded the judgment of its residents. Perhaps they need to spend a week at a homeless shelter as a resident there so they can better appreciate their situations in life…
These are not heritage properties in any legal sense. They have not been designated as such and until they are, the owner is free to do whatever they choose to do to them that is legal.
Man, is she pissed…
If she has a beef, she should talk to her rich neighbours before they sell their houses to developers. If anyone is to blame, it is them. They are going for the cash.
The statement that the tenants of the Fram house did not complain is completely false. The 79 year old tenant did complain to two City departments after the Labour Day weekend when he returned to his home to find his windows smashed.
Those who think Heritage Preservation is less economically viable than new builds need to do their research. Other cities throughout the world who protect their heritage structures find heritage protection creates more jobs, attracts tourists, and creates a more liveable and rich culture.
Why shouldn’t people care about their housing values as well as heritage? People everywhere put their life savings into buying a house believing it will hold its value. When a developer comes in and totally changes the nature of a street and causes others property values to decline, people care — big surprise! What was once a beautiful heritage home surrounded by large 100-year old trees on Young Avenue is now a clear-cut, weed filled mud lot and an eyesore to all who pass – Halifax residents as well as tourists.
“Those who think Heritage Preservation is less economically viable than new builds need to do their research. Other cities throughout the world who protect their heritage structures find heritage protection creates more jobs, attracts tourists, and creates a more liveable and rich culture.”
I could say the same thing to the other effect and tell you to do your research. You offered up nothing to prove your point, good work. How the hell are you a professor? Do you really believe a 100 year old building requires less capital to maintain and heat than a new construction… good lord.
“Why shouldn’t people care about their housing values as well as heritage? People everywhere put their life savings into buying a house believing it will hold its value”
Wow, just wow. A home is an investment and all investments are subject to chance for both growth or decline. There is no magic investment that could never go down (especially a piece of real-estate), get real.
Ingrid has it spot on, talk to your rich cronies and tell them to stop selling to developers if you really give a shit.
/worldssmallestviolin
So the article starts off with this “Council’s lack of action in saving south end heritage properties leaves some residents frustrated” but then the article goes on to say “a citizen group that believes HRM isn’t doing enough to protect the south end neighbourhood’s unofficial heritage properties from future development”.
Obviously they’re not heritage properties, hahahahahahah.
Of all the hypocritical points I could focus on I’ll just say one more thing. Of all the empty eye sore sites in this city the only one Professor Peggy seems to care about is on her street, cough cough.
PS- I can’t help myself, its just too easy on this one. The article ends with “It was built by renowned Canadian architect Edmund Burke, and is one of his last remaining structures in the country.” Excellent point, however, did Professor Peggy stand up for any of Mr Burkes other structures? Nope, they weren’t in her backyard so she didn’t care, lol.
She has a knot in her face even a boy scout could not untie!!
Does this professional protester even live on the street?
She has even pushed her nose into the Purcell’s Cove rd. proposed development.
Ironic that the three homes on Young Ave that have signs up would not ever have been built if a couple of so called historic homes had not been torn down.