News   Sep 12, 2024
 504     0 
News   Sep 12, 2024
 403     0 
News   Sep 12, 2024
 560     1 

Globe: An ounce of preservation is worth a ton of history

wyliepoon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
3
Link to article


An ounce of preservation is worth a ton of history
With heritage sites across Canada increasingly at risk of being torn down, advocates call for a national trust of endangered buildings


JOSH WINGROVE

From Monday's Globe and Mail

August 18, 2008 at 3:57 AM EDT

It was in Fort Langley about 150 years ago that British Columbia was first claimed for Britain.

The fort was the first of its kind on the West Coast. It's still standing, a prized piece of Canada's past sitting just east of Vancouver.

There are about 7,200 such heritage sites across the country. They're finicky old dames requiring complex maintenance and upkeep, and while Britain and the United States have broad-based programs for preserving "built heritage" - a national trust and tax credits, respectively - Canada has none.

But a solution may soon come from, fittingly, Fort Langley. The region's MP, Mark Warawa, is spending the next few months speaking with people across the country in an effort to develop Canada's own National Heritage Trust.

"We're looking at what models work, and what's positive with the models in, for example, England, the United States," Mr. Warawa says.

Mr. Warawa is parliamentary secretary to Minister of Environment John Baird, who oversees Parks Canada and the portfolio for heritage preservation.

A national heritage trust system, advocates say, is badly needed. Heritage buildings are "endangered" in Canada, says Natalie Bull, executive director of the Heritage Canada Foundation, because developers often prefer to knock them down and start new.

It's easier, Ms. Bull says, to throw up a cookie-cutter development - such as a new condo - than to take time to work within an existing, antiquated heritage site with its own "quirks," or "problems."

"Oh, it's much more difficult," says Tom Payne, founding partner of Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg, a Toronto architecture firm that has worked on the city's highest-profile heritage sites, including the new National Ballet School and the Young Centre for the Performing Arts. "But I think the results are much richer and more interesting."

Restoring a medium-sized heritage residential building costs $169 a square foot, according to a 2006 University of Waterloo report. A similarly sized new residential building costs $155 a square foot. And the upkeep of a heritage site is sporadic and unpredictable, while new buildings have set maintenance schedules.

"It's just a different approach," says Catherine Nasmith, president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, which advocates for the preservation of heritage sites. "There always seems to be money for capital budgets, but maintenance is just not so sexy."

There's a green element to saving heritage buildings, too. Canada has lost 20 per cent of its pre-1920 buildings in the past 30 years, Ms. Bull of Heritage Canada Foundation says. Such demolished buildings account for a full third of the garbage in landfills, the foundation says.

"I think that we have a responsibility, especially in the context of a greener world, to use things effectively that are here now, and to try and minimize demolition and landfill," says Mr. Payne, the architect.

But to compensate for the inconveniences and extra costs of heritage properties, developers look for incentives - such as those that would be offered by a national heritage trust.

Canada once had such a program: the Canadian Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund. Founded in 2003 with $30-million from the Liberal government, it offered funds for revitalizing buildings, ultimately helping preserve 52 buildings totalling $181-million in nine provinces. The Conservatives didn't renew it, but are considering incorporating it in the new national trust, for which they've so far pledged $5-million.

Currently, it falls to cities and provinces to fight for heritage sites. Victoria offers a 10-year tax exemption for heritage buildings to be turned into housing. It has prompted $137-million in investment so far, but the city is looking for help bearing the cost.

"The municipalities really are struggling on their own all across Canada to try and make heritage conservation work," says Steve Barber, Victoria's heritage planner. "It is a huge problem all across the country."

The cost of such programs proved too high in some cities. In Vancouver, developers who saved heritage sites once got a tax exemption and a density bonus, which could be sold off to other developers. The initiative sparked $400-million in investment, but paved the way for condo towers of unmitigated, undesired heights. The city cancelled the program in 2007.

Volunteers often play a crucial role. That's the case in Bonavista, a small town in eastern Newfoundland. Near the heart of the town is Alexander House, known by the locals as Bridge House, a classic home built around 1812 - the oldest known building in the province.

Gordon Bradley, the 78-year-old president of the Bonavista Historical Society, bought the house for $7,500 a few years ago. Volunteers put on a temporary roof and covered up the shattered windows. Right now, they're digging a ditch to divert water from the foundation. Eventually, piece by piece, they say they'll restore it to its original state.

"We never have enough money, of course," Mr. Bradley says. "But you expect that."

In search of a national success model for heritage preservation, Ms. Bull points to the United States, where two important incentives are used to entice developers to work with heritage sites. First, "rehabilitation tax credits" cut the taxes of developers who restore heritage sites. Second, the U.S. government has a "heritage first" policy - when looking for office space: it looks first at available heritage sites, creating a rental market for them."It really revolutionized the way developers in the U.S. look at heritage buildings," Ms. Bull says. "We have to treat them like resources that are worth maintaining and investing in."

***

TOP 10 MOST ENDANGERED BUILDINGS: COMPILED BY THE HERITAGE CANADA FOUNDATION

Church of the Holy Cross

Skatin, B.C.

Between the mid-1890s and 1905, the people of the Stl'al'imx Nation built this Gothic Revival "cathedral in the wilderness" out of local cedar. Since none of them had formal carpentry training, they relied on photographs of Gothic cathedrals in France to craft features such as three delicate steeples as well as a hand-carved altar and pews.

Old St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church

Calgary

Built in 1904, in the Carpenter Gothic style, the oldest surviving Catholic church in Calgary features wood siding and a pyramidal wooden steeple. The building remains the property of the Roman Catholic Diocese. However, the land is owned by a funeral home that hopes to erect a mausoleum on the site.

The Grand Trunk

Pacific Railway Roundhouse

Biggar, Sask.

Built in 1909, the massive circular building was designed to service and store 21 locomotives at a time. Its construction included 12-metre fir beams and more than one million bricks. Tunnels have recently been discovered, presumably leading to the nearby railway station.

James Armstrong

Richardson

International Airport

Winnipeg

Built between 1961 and 1964, it is widely recognized as one of the finest examples of mid-century modern architecture in Canada. It includes two massive murals: Eli Bornstein's Structuralist Relief in Fifteen Parts and John Graham's Northern Lights.

Riverdale Hospital

Toronto

Built in 1963, this example of mid-century Canadian Modernist architecture includes a Japanese terrace garden, steel mushroom-shaped canopies and a 600,000-piece Saico glass mosaic. The City of Toronto owns the land, but Bridgepoint Health, which owns the building, has determined it is no longer suitable for hospital uses.

The Old Grand Trunk

Railway Station

Kingston

Built of solid grey limestone in 1856, Kingston's first train station has a distinctive mansard roof, its own water tower and a turntable. The station closed to rail service in 1974. The Pig & Whistle operated a restaurant there from 1987 to 1992. It has remained vacant and abandoned since then. A fire damaged it in 1996.

Bens Deli

Montreal

This Art Deco landmark, with its famous wrap-around illuminated corner sign, retains most of its original interior finishes such as stainless-steel coat racks, a sleek deli counter and stools. Situated on prime real estate, the building has been sold to a developer who has plans for a new 14-storey hotel.

Winter Street Prison

Sherbrooke

Built in 1865, the stone building is a Palladian-type structure constructed in a complex that also consists of a unique stone penitentiary wall, green space and the jailor's house. It continued its original function until 1990, when the prison was moved to more modern facilities.

St. Patrick's Church

Halifax

Located in downtown Halifax, this richly decorated Victorian Gothic church was built between 1883 and 1885 with the volunteer labour of Irish immigrants. It houses an 1898 Casavant organ - one of only two remaining from the firm's first 100 instruments. Four panels of its stained glass withstood the Halifax explosion of 1917.

Alexander House

Bonavista, Nfld.

Built between 1811 and 1814, the oldest documented residential property in the province is known locally as Bridge House. Accented by a natural stone foundation, it features gable-end chimneys, a central hallway and a highly symmetrical design.
 
Our government has really neglected the issue of heritage building preservation and maintenance. Even Parliament Hill is not in a proud state of repair. It needs over a billion dollars in maintenance.

I hope the program is set up. It might be too late to save some of the mentioned buildings due to development plans already approved, but there's so much worth saving.
 
Parliament is undergoing a massive restoration right now, at a cost of a billion dollars. Not without controversy, I might add. Some Conservative MPs said that the parliament buildings should be abandoned and the House and Senate should move to a new office building to be built across the street.
 
The restoration of Parliament is well underway and has been ongoing for years. The conservative MPs who suggested that offices be moved are pretty much cranks.
 
I can't believe that there's any controversy about that at all. What a disgrace that anybody in our parliament would even think that. Our parliament buildings need to be restored and maintained at any price. It's a decades-long process though.
 
I'm not so enamored by many of the buildings the GM article presents. Except for the Riverdale Hospital & Winnipeg Airport (what can I say, I love modernism) most of these don't strike me as worth preservation. Heritage preservation is great and all, but we should only preserve things that are actually impressive. I don't understand why the roundhouse or the Hamilton railway station are worthy of preservation.

That said, I can't believe that we have let our parliament slide into disrepair. I would use a bunch of adjectives to describe it, but suffice to say I think it is a travesty.
 
I'm not so enamored by many of the buildings the GM article presents. Except for the Riverdale Hospital & Winnipeg Airport (what can I say, I love modernism) most of these don't strike me as worth preservation. Heritage preservation is great and all, but we should only preserve things that are actually impressive. I don't understand why the roundhouse or the Hamilton railway station are worthy of preservation.

Kingston, not Hamilton. And you just earned yourself a solid "F" grade in heritage awareness and historical sensitivity.

Besides, re the "actually impressive" qualifier, if the roundhouse and station don't qualify, then why should Riverdale Hospital or Winnipeg Airport qualify, either? Other than the fact that "you love modernism"--but in both cases, if I may play devil's advocate, there's the potential of an even more "impressive" (and less inefficient or obsolete) replacement, right?
 
Kingston, not Hamilton. And you just earned yourself a solid "F" grade in heritage awareness and historical sensitivity.

Besides, re the "actually impressive" qualifier, if the roundhouse and station don't qualify, then why should Riverdale Hospital or Winnipeg Airport qualify, either? Other than the fact that "you love modernism"--but in both cases, if I may play devil's advocate, there's the potential of an even more "impressive" (and less inefficient or obsolete) replacement, right?

Yea, i get confused by Kingston & Hamilton. It doesn't change the fact that the roundhouse is, to be frank, bland and unimpressive and the train station looks like a shack. Something being old isn't a sufficient justification for heritage status. The Hospital & Airport deserve to be preserved because they are impressive reminders of a time when Canada, Toronto in particular in the case of the hostpital, saw massive growth and became a modern country. The modernist styling shows the futuristic optimism of the era and actually conveys a sense of heritage. A dilapidated rail shed does not.

They don't have to be preserved as a hospital/airport either. I'm no architect, but I am sure other uses could be found for them. Considering Germany actually made a quite pretty tourist attraction out of an abandoned coal mine, I figure we could do something with a modernist hospital.
 
I have to say, I understand not being sympathetic to all old buildings, but your arguments are a bit underwhelming. Simply stating that something is indicative of its era and something else is not doesn't make it true, and you've already admitted a bias in favour of modernism anyways. The 1950's saw less "massive growth" than earlier eras in our history, which also might show that your historical analysis is a bit off.

I certainly have no problem with a preference for modernism, it could be considered refreshing in light of some heritage advocacy that sees only the good in pre-WWII stuff, but you'd have to have some stronger reasoning.

I would actually argue (in a devil's advocate way) that hospitals and airports have always suffered greatly as heritage buildings, not because they didn't reflect their era or weren't magnificent in their own ways, but the arguments around the need for utility in favour of the destruction of obsolete buildings are generally most strongly made with buildings like these. It's why we have nothing left of the six or seven modernist buildings at Pearson Airport that won Massey Awards in the 1960's, being pretty or "of its era" isn't enough when a building must process thousands of travellers in a changing technological environment.
 
I can't believe that there's any controversy about that at all. What a disgrace that anybody in our parliament would even think that. Our parliament buildings need to be restored and maintained at any price. It's a decades-long process though.

A BILLION DOLLARS? Do you have any idea what else that money (our money) could have done?

I'm all for preserving the Parliament buildings, but it sickens me the amount of cost over runs associated with anything do do with government projects.
 
I have to say, I understand not being sympathetic to all old buildings, but your arguments are a bit underwhelming. Simply stating that something is indicative of its era and something else is not doesn't make it true, and you've already admitted a bias in favour of modernism anyways. The 1950's saw less "massive growth" than earlier eras in our history, which also might show that your historical analysis is a bit off.

Toronto grew by 1m people during the period 1951-1971 (the period best coinciding with "modernism") from 1-2m people. In absolute growth, that is the largest jump we have seen (in 1971-1991, we grew by ~100k). That is a major expansion any way you want to look at it. This is subjective I realize, but I feel that this is also the time when Toronto became a bona fide "city" as opposed to a kind of provincial backwater.

Obviously I have architectural biases, everyone does. I also realize that whether something is "significant" is highly subjective with no universally acceptable answer. Personally, I feel that the Riverdale Hostpital is a worthwhile example of modernist architecture that merits preservation, not because it is old (it isn't) but because it is representative of a broader era. By contrast, a dilapidated rail shed in Biggar, Sask. has no particular architectural merits and no overall representative value. Beyond their age, I don't see the value of many of the items included on the list. If someone disagrees and thinks they are significant heritage wise, fine. I am okay with debating that, but not preservation of old things for the sake of preservation. Heritage and age are different.


I would actually argue (in a devil's advocate way) that hospitals and airports have always suffered greatly as heritage buildings, not because they didn't reflect their era or weren't magnificent in their own ways, but the arguments around the need for utility in favour of the destruction of obsolete buildings are generally most strongly made with buildings like these. It's why we have nothing left of the six or seven modernist buildings at Pearson Airport that won Massey Awards in the 1960's, being pretty or "of its era" isn't enough when a building must process thousands of travellers in a changing technological environment.

If we were to preserve the Riverdale hospital, it should not be kept as an active hospital. I agree with the utility argument, and given the serious nature of hospitals, adequate facilities should not be begrudged due to sentiments. Ideally, if this was to be preserved, we would turn it into some kind of museum (or something) and build and more adequate facility elsewhere.


EDIT: The only reason the Parliament renovation is 1b is because we keep deferring the bill. If we had just bit the bullet in the 1980-90s, this would have been significantly less. Now that we wait until the building is, literally, disintegrating in parts the bill obviously rises. There are cost overruns because we were to cheap to step up when it was needed.
 
You are inconsistent in your criteria. On the hand, buildings in Toronto should be kept to reflect eras of great growth in the city, while a building in Kingston can be demolished looks like a shack. From that point of view, your choice of the Winnipeg airport is a dead loss, since Winnipeg became a bona fide "city" in the first decades of the 20th century, and the airport from the 1960's, when Winnipeg was already in a serious decline. Therefore, using your own criteria, the airport can go.
 
You are inconsistent in your criteria. On the hand, buildings in Toronto should be kept to reflect eras of great growth in the city, while a building in Kingston can be demolished looks like a shack. From that point of view, your choice of the Winnipeg airport is a dead loss, since Winnipeg became a bona fide "city" in the first decades of the 20th century, and the airport from the 1960's, when Winnipeg was already in a serious decline. Therefore, using your own criteria, the airport can go.

Ok, scrap the airport. My point was that I want heritage buildings to be judged less on their age and more on a combination of aesthetics and cultural significance. I have my own personal views on what should and shouldn't be preserved, like everyone, which would likely chafe against any attempt to objectively deal with this issue. Often though, many people simply use the old age of a building to justify it's status. If something was ugly or unimportant in the 1920s, it shouldn't become more important as time passes.
 
"Heritage" can be a particularly irritating value. It sometimes seems to be applied to structures that aren't architecturally or historically important, just there.
 
A BILLION DOLLARS? Do you have any idea what else that money (our money) could have done?

I'm all for preserving the Parliament buildings, but it sickens me the amount of cost over runs associated with anything do do with government projects.

In a previous article which wyliepoon posted, it was noted that because of funding delays in the 1990s, the restoration costs have soared. It's incredibly expensive of course, but it shows that neglect in maintenance is costlier in the long run.
 

Back
Top