51 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

I have not yet watched the instructional video that Ken Johnson posted earlier but I see the magazine that hosts it is dedicated solely to replicating and restoring heritage architecture--in that world, if it is new, it must look like it was built a century ago, no modernism allowed. Based on that warped idea I doubt his link will illuminate the issue.

[phx]

That's a really odd way to preserve a facade.

Apparently, the facade was moved to a different location on the site. It would have been better to stick it off in a corner of the site not attached to a building.

[Sparky]

^No, the entire previous building ended up in a dumpster in one day.

No saving of storefront.

No soup for the developer.

[Bob Fugger]

Ran across this while scanning the G&M website. Of particular interest is photo #4, which is of the original Royal Bank of Canada headquarters circa, 1907. It has been perferted with this disgusting use of steel and glass into a 43-unit residential condo.

http://www.theglobea...article2357076/

Clearly, personne n'est pas penser des enfents.

[aastra]

Didn't somebody make the point in another thread that they don't do rooftop additions in old Montreal?

[VicHockeyFan]

Didn't somebody make the point in another thread that they don't do rooftop additions in old Montreal?

Good catch.

Victoria Coun. Pam Madoff, long considered council's heritage conscience, has recently found herself on the losing side of council approvals of additional storeys.

Madoff maintains other jurisdictions have managed to encourage heritage restoration without additional floors.

"If you look at other cities that have old towns that are regarded in the same way that ours are - if you go to Montreal, if you go to Quebec City - they don't do this. So what are we doing? Are we actually degrading an asset that is regarded internationally as having importance?" Madoff said.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz1oINqmKPb

[Nparker]

Well there goes Tourism in Montreal. I guess that means more visits to Victoria for the much beloved "Waterfront Parking and Abandoned Lot Tour".

[Ms. B. Havin]

^^ Proof once again that Madoff doesn't know what she's talking about and is a bad influence on the city's development...

[Dimitrios]

Another example of how a 'real' heritage city behaves, respecting the style of classic architecture:

"Well golly, Marge, it's a darn shame we had to visit while that dang scaffolding is littering the front of the museum..."

[Bingo]

Heritage is something you whittle away at until it's gone.

[Mike K.]

Like I said in another thread, the so-called protectors of heritage use a variety of tactics to downplay modern architecture as a means of preserving the power they hold over development in this city. They control the heritage, as we see now with the Northern Junk proposal, and they also control new development by denying it to be built or ensuring it conforms arbitrarily to what was built many decades ago (think Cosmopolitan on Fort, which ultimately was rejected).

Most of the people in power, including those on heritage committees, are there for the power. Conservation of heritage comes as a job with the title.

[aastra]

Heritage is something you whittle away at until it's gone.

This could be the motto for Victoria, couldn't it? In Victoria, restoring/repurposing a historic property is always more controversial than leaving the historic property to rot, or even destroying it outright.

Anyone who genuinely appreciates the old properties would never be pleased about seeing them sitting abandoned, or seeing them getting demolished.