History...

[Quest4Less]

Should history be allowed to stand in the way of progress?

What I'm referring to is when they 'designate' a historical building or area - meaning it can't be changed, torn down or anything.

I heard on the news today that it will cost more than $500 million to repair parliment in Ottawa. Would it not make more sense to tear it down and build something 'new' and more modern?

What is the big deal about losing the 'last' building of a particular kind - be it a house or whatever...?

 

[The Bandit]

Case in point, there was a building just this weekend in Toronto that was starting to fall apart(walls were collapsing), and had to be demolished. This building was deemed to be historical because it was the first row of townhouses in Toronto.

I've always questioned how something that is dilapidated can be deemed historical, even if it's falling apart, and the owner is obligated to preserve it. Why is the owner financially responsible for saving it, at any cost, and obligated by the historical board?

I've seen a few new subdivisions with an old house stuck in the middle of it because it had to be preserved.

Yes a building has architectural significance, but not if it's unsafe and falling apart. There's another dump at the corner of Dixie and Derry which I pass every weekday, that has had a fire, and is falling apart...but no...it can't be torn down.

 

[xarir]

If historical buildings were not protected, places like Rome and Athens would all be gleaming metropolis's now instead of the cultural museums they are. Closer to home, we've seen very successful integrations of new and old - BCE Place is a great example where architecturally they were able to cleanly integrate old buildings into stunning new architectural wonders.

Within reason, if a developer has the $$$ to pull down and rebuild, then said developer probably has the $$$ to fix and integrate as they did in BCE Place. For corporate commercial ventures then, I see nothing wrong with slapping on a historical moniker and forcing some protection.

At an individual level it's somewhat different because most individuals don't have the financial wherewithal to maintain a historical building, much less fix it up.

In the specific case of Parliament, I suspect that it would cost much more than $500 million to replace it. Keep in mind that there's a lot to Parliament besides the office of the Prime Minister - there's the actual House of Commons, the Senate Chamber and the Parliamentary Library as well as all the various offices and Commons Committee Rooms etc. Parliament is basically a skyscraper that's horizontal instead of vertical. Perhpas my perspective is skewed, I can't see building something like that for only $500 million so fixing it is probably the way to go. Besides which, it is actually a pretty nice looking building.

 

[Moraff]

My objection is that the preservation societies can decree a historical site, but have no financial obligation to aid in it's preservation.

Case in point, the Lister building in Hamilton. Has been vacant as long as I have been in Hamilton to the best of my knowledge (1987). Has had several fires/vandalism done by tresspassers. While it has an interesting facade architecturally, the actual structure is in very poor condition and is not well-laid out with respect to modern day desires.

In an attempt to come to a happy medium, the owners said that they would recreate the facade in order to preserve the exterior appearance of the building while creating a new building in behind.

Sounded good to me. It'll look like the old building in it's heyday, but it'll actually have (paying) tenants. Apparently that wasn't good enough for the preservationists who wanted them to dismantle the facade piece by piece, send the pieces away to be rehabilitated and then reconstructed. Can't remember if they were willing to let them build the rest of the building new or not. The difference in cost between the two ideas was significant.

So the end result, the Lister Building is still a vacant, boarded-up eyesore, hindering instead of spear-heading the revitalization of the core.

So, in my opinion, if the preservationists feel that only the original will do then they should be required to find the capital to cover the difference between what the owner wants and what they want, or they should shut up.

 

[papasmerf]

The preservationists have filed papers in court to stop a BASS PRO from going in near a slip from the early ERIE CANNEL. Their logic is that BASS PRO does not belong on the waterway. If you haven't guessed this is in Buffalo.