Hallmark Society
#1
Posted 29 May 2009 - 01:09 AM
#2
Posted 29 May 2009 - 08:07 AM
#3
Posted 31 May 2009 - 10:13 PM
As far as I know, the Hallmark Society is still active - the president is Nick Russell who lives on Toronto St. He's probably in the phone book.
#4
Posted 01 June 2009 - 06:44 AM
My thought is that they don't want to show the hypocrisy of Coun Madoff on the matter.
#5
Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:32 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#6
Posted 01 June 2009 - 08:32 AM
Did it occur to you that they might not have a position on the blue bridge? They are a society formed for the preservation of heritage buildings, not bridges.
Wrong.
http://www.hallmarksociety.ca/We advocate the preservation, conservation, and restoration of heritage assets and work towards a greater public awareness and understanding of heritage.
Note they don't even say structures, they say "assets" which could include anything, even stuff not nailed down. I agree with G-Man; they're caught in an awkward position where it's best for them to lay low.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#7
Posted 01 June 2009 - 09:29 AM
Even if they think it's a lost cause they should still be going through the motions. From where I'm standing their concerns seem to be very selective and political, which is very disappointing. This should have been their finest hour.
#8
Posted 01 June 2009 - 09:35 AM
Why is their position awkward? If they're sincerely interested in heritage preservation then they should be all over the bridge issue.
Even if they think it's a lost cause they should still be going through the motions. From where I'm standing their concerns seem to be very selective and political, which is very disappointing. This should have been their finest hour.
Agreed - and it is not just the Hallmark Society, but other advocates of heritage, preservation and growth which respects the history of the city and region; its culture.
That may seem an odd thing to say from someone who believes a new JSB is the way forward - but even if the most outspoken groups are silent, or in agreement, on the question of new bridge vs renovation, they should at least be thinking of what to do with the old structure. Simply melting it for scrap would be a shame.
There have been some interesting suggestions on VV - use it as a foot/cycle bridge in a new location, integrate part of the old structure into a new project or why not donate it to a developing country?
#9
Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:20 AM
Also where's the homeless advocates slamming this new bridge proposal for not addressing homelessness or affordable housing? Clearly a new bridge only benefits rich car owners.
I really don't understand it. Not even the most progressive and tasteful development can go forward without people screaming and fighting tooth and nail, yet one of the most dominant historic landmarks on the habour vanishes without a fight?
#10
Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:28 AM
Clearly a new bridge only benefits rich car owners.
I've been pondering this angle quite a bit lately. I wonder, do people oppose new construction on parking lots because they don't want new apartments and offices and retail stores, or do they oppose construction on parking lots because they like the parking lots?
I'm wondering if we're still concerned about automobiles first and everything else as a distant second?
A new bridge and straightened approaches might save us a few seconds on our trips to View Royal or wherever else, and thus all other considerations should be damned?
#11
Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:58 AM
#12
Posted 01 June 2009 - 11:05 AM
#13
Posted 01 June 2009 - 11:18 AM
The car angle is interesting as is the homeless angle. I mean how many affordable housing units are included in this bridge proposal?
#14
Posted 01 June 2009 - 01:31 PM
And in reference to the post about the Hallmark Society not needing to care about the Johnson Street Bridge, I couldn't disagree more. It is just as much of an iconic heritage structure as any of the historic buildings in downtown Victoria.
#15
Posted 01 June 2009 - 09:07 PM
the president is Nick Russell
Nick Russell was on C-FAX last year talking about heritage buildings at risk. He said that there was a website where a group of Victorian "young people" advocate skyscrapers.
I have no idea which website he's talking about since I estimate that probably less than a dozen active Vibrant Victoria members would support Vancouver-style condo heights (40+ storeys) in Victoria's downtown core. I know a couple of people like davek and Phil McCavity think there should be no height limit--let the market sort it out. However, I suspect the vast majority of Vibrant Victoria's 1,000 members are quite comfortable with the existing Victoria maximum heights of 23 storeys and below.
As for the "young people" comment it's true that some are below the age of 30. But as Alan Lowe said in the Times-Colonist,
Although by the number of posts by members who have memories of Victoria in the 70s, 60s and 50s, I'd hardly stereotype VibrantVictoria as a bunch of "young people" is inaccurate and subtly dismissive, as if young people don't have what it takes to love their city."I think it is good (Vibrant Victoria members are involved) because they are a demographic who needs a voice as well. Look at our council. Only one member is under 35. The rest of us are between 44 and 72."
When host Joe Easingwood pressed Russell to name a new building that might be considered heritage of the future, he sidestepped it, and refused to name a single new building worthy of note saying he was "an old fart" that prefers the architecture of the past.
I can't imagine anyone who truly loves architecture sidestepping a question like that.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#16
Posted 01 June 2009 - 09:07 PM
PS I too want to add my 2-cents of support to those who are calling bullshit on the Hallmark Society's silence.
PPS: Holden, you were posting at the same time I was - just want to add: well said! I guess the (self-described) "old farts" really are full of hot air.
#17
Posted 02 June 2009 - 12:12 AM
I've read that the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition doesn't like grated nature of the bridge decking. Personally I've never been bothered by it
I like the structure & appreciate its heritage value...and agree that this should be an issue.
But if fixing the awkward approaches (esp. to the Goose) can only be fixed with a new structure, tis fine by me. Try and make the new one look nice, eh?
#18
Posted 02 June 2009 - 08:21 AM
...as if young people don't have what it takes to love their city.
It's true. If you're under 70 and not originally from the prairies or Ontario then you're biologically incapable of appreciating Victoria.
#19
Posted 02 June 2009 - 08:32 AM
re blue bridge and cycling.
I've read that the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition doesn't like grated nature of the bridge decking. Personally I've never been bothered by it
I like the structure & appreciate its heritage value...and agree that this should be an issue.
It's probably no problem for mountain bike or even hybrid commuter bikes - but have you ever ridden on it in the wet on a road bike (with road tires)?
I'll bet that's what GVCC is talking about.
#20
Posted 02 June 2009 - 08:42 AM
It does feel odd, but I'm not sure how slippery it really is. I've never taken the time to test!
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users