Jump to content

      



























Photo

Rogers' Chocolates interior expansion


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

Poll: Should Rogers' renovation be allowed? (1 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Rogers' renovation be allowed?

  1. Yes, they have a right to change to maintain their viability (25 votes [67.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.57%

  2. No, the original heritage value is far too important (12 votes [32.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.43%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 06:38 PM

HERITAGE SITE
Sweet B.C. history at risk, heritage groups say

SHANNON MONEO
Special to The Globe and Mail
January 2, 2008

VICTORIA -- Renovations scheduled to begin today at Rogers' Chocolates, one of Victoria's 36 sites of National Historic Significance, are leaving a foul taste in the mouth of local heritage protectors.



"I'm apoplectic," [apparently, his usual state] said Nick Russell , president of Victoria's Hallmark Society. "It's one of the most significant interiors in Western Canada. It's like a time capsule from 1917. It doesn't need to be changed."

The need, company officials say, arises because the two-storey structure, built in 1903, is located on a stretch of Government Street in downtown Victoria that draws hordes of tourists. During the busy summer season, Rogers' 88-square-metre premises can't comfortably accommodate swells of sweet-toothed customers, so the store will grow to almost 150 square metres, achieved by removing a wall to expand into the store's back area, said Rogers' marketing manager Tracey Robertson.

"It will be a bigger version of what they [customers] see now. They won't know the difference," she said of the renovations due to take two months and cost at least $250,000.

A second nearby location was considered, but Ms. Robertson said a suitable spot couldn't be found.
"We're pretty strategic about where we're placed," she said. Rogers' has stores in the B.C. towns of Sidney, Oak Bay, and Whistler, in Vancouver's Gastown and on Granville Island.

Mr. Russell, whose 200-member, 35-year-old society advocates for heritage in the Victoria area and surrounding islands - and which in 1981 honoured the Rogers' building for maintaining its historic interior - understands that safety upgrades must be done, but the planned renovation could destroy the famed ambience, he says.

He argues that by moving woodwork, lighting or tile, Rogers' will no longer qualify for historic designation.

"The showroom itself is almost sacred," Mr. Russell said. "There's almost nothing else like it anywhere."

Inside Rogers', art nouveau light fixtures, leaded glass, mosaic-tiled floor, oak, cherry and walnut panelling, marble detailing and display cases remain as they were when installed in 1917, Mr. Russell said.

The only thing that would jar a customer back into 2008 would be the clothing worn by the staff, he added.

When City of Victoria Councillor Pamela Madoff heard about Rogers' renovations, red lights went off, she said.

"I don't think they [Rogers'] fully understand the significance of the interior," said Ms. Madoff, who is B.C.'s governor on the Heritage Canada Foundation, sits on the B.C. Heritage board and owns an 1893 house in Victoria. "Twenty years ago, if the work was done, it wouldn't be a heritage site today. They need to take a step back."

In light of Ms. Madoff's concerns, the architect in charge of the project, Alan Lowe, who is also Victoria's mayor, met with Rogers' staff on Dec. 31, Ms. Robertson said.

Mr. Lowe could not be reached for comment.

The City of Victoria has two staff who deal with heritage properties and they can supply advice for Rogers', Ms. Madoff said.

If Rogers' doesn't want to halt the retail renovation, which Ms. Madoff said will jeopardize its historic status, the mayor or councillors can call an extraordinary meeting where a 30-day order for temporary protection would be issued.

The City of Victoria could also designate Rogers' interior as a municipal historic site, which would permanently freeze any renovations, Ms. Madoff said.

Rogers', one of British Columbia's oldest businesses (Charles "Candy" Rogers began making chocolates in 1885 in Victoria) is owned predominantly by Victoria- and Vancouver-based shareholders.

Mr. Russell of the Hallmark Society said it is ironic that the dismantling of Rogers' Chocolates iconic store begins in 2008 - British Columbia's 150th birthday - when history will be featured front and centre.

"Don't change this little gem," he pleaded.

•••••••••

Rogers can get pretty jammed during summer and holidays. I'm reminded of Eatons and Murchies--long-time downtown Victoria institutions that failed to adapt to the times. I think they should be allowed to renovate.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#2 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:10 PM

It should stay the same IMO that place is actual BC history Why can't they just open a second spot next door.

#3 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:29 PM

It should stay the same IMO that place is actual BC history Why can't they just open a second spot next door.


How about bugger off. A private company can do whatever they want with property they own. Maybe Mr. Russell can raise some private cash to pay for their lease next door.

#4 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:35 PM

They can't if it is a heritage building. Which it should be. Think that they can do whatever they want to the Empress? Doubt it.

#5 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:38 PM

...in the B.C. towns of Sidney, Oak Bay...

As coincidence would have it, I was in the town of Oak Bay just today.

Actually, I was in and out of it about twenty times.

#6 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:40 PM

The only thing that would jar a customer back into 2008 would be the clothing worn by the staff, he added.


The ice cream freezer and the cash registers might also do it.

#7 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 10:20 PM

as would the prices....

I am all for preserving heritage, but it seems to me that Rogers should be able to do what they need to do to run their business. Ideally opening a second location would be best, but if that is not an option, then it should be their right to amend the premises that presumably, they have owned LONG before it became designated as "heritage". I loathe the idea of the "state" telling me what I can and cannot do with what is mine.

#8 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 03 January 2008 - 12:35 AM

Rodgers can get very tight, so I can see why they would need to open up that area. But I also understand why it would be such a shame to see it altered. I wonder if there is a possibility of helping them do the renovation and keeping things not as they were back then, but as they might have been.

#9 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 03 January 2008 - 01:28 PM

Heritage concerns postpone upgrades at Rogers' downtown chocolate shop
City to look over chocolatier's plan

Jeff Bell, Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, January 03, 2008


Rogers' Chocolates postponed the start of a two-month, $250,000 renovation at its landmark Government Street store yesterday over concerns the changes would ruin the heritage value of the early 1900s building.

Conscious of the "significance of our wonderful building and its connection to the history of Victoria," the company said in a statement yesterday it has agreed to attend a Jan. 10 meeting of Victoria city council to explain its plans, which weren't subject to previous council scrutiny.

"We intend at [the meeting] to demonstrate that from the outset of this project, we have been committed to the preservation and retention of all the heritage and historic elements of the building."

The plans, which will see the size of the store's interior increase to 1,600 square feet from 950 square feet by removing a wall to expand into the store's rear area, had been set to begin yesterday.

The Rogers' building at 913 Government St. was built in 1903 in the Queen Anne revival style and has been designated as a national historic site. The store's rich interior features oak, cherry and walnut panelling, a mosaic-tiled floor, leaded glass, antique light fixtures and the original wooden display cases.

The company has been in the store since 1917, and won an award in 1981 for its preservation of the interior from the city's Hallmark Society -- the same group that is now raising the alarm over the renovation.

In addition to increasing space in the store, the renovation will include structural and safety upgrades. Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe is the project's architect, so he will not be part of any council debate on the plans. Rogers' marketing manager Tracey Robertson said the company recognizes the concern coming from heritage proponents.

"We didn't necessarily foresee it in the way that it's happened, but we absolutely understand and it's been our intention all along, of course, to preserve all of the historic elements."

Victoria city Coun. Pam Madoff, who has a lengthy background in heritage issues and previously served on the Hallmark Society, said her hope is that council and Rogers' can work together to iron out any issues.

If not, the city could issue a temporary 30-day protection order to stop the work, and then designate the interior a municipal heritage site, which would permanently stop the work.

"If these changes had occurred prior to the national historic site designation, they would never have been declared a national historic site. The value, obviously, is in the intact nature of that interior," Madoff said.

jwbell@tc.canwest.com


© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008

Yo Mike or Dylan. I can't simply input something with quotes around it and no other text. The software tells me my message is too short. Is there a way to fix that?

#10 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 03 January 2008 - 01:35 PM

I think the forum software requires that a quote has accompanying text. You can get around it by including a "period" before or after the post.


Rogers ought to have the right to do what it needs to do. For those who enjoy the nostalgic feeling of entering a building with preserved interiors, be sure to check out the displays at the Royal BC Museum.

#11 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 02:50 PM

I was thinking again about the issue, and it occured to me that there is a question we haven't been asking which is this... What benefits have Rodgers received from having national historic designation? Have they received funding? Free publicity? Other perks? If so, there may be an obligation here, and certainly the loss of that designation makes sense.

#12 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 03:11 PM

I don't believe that should matter because the heritage status is for the exterior of the building, not the interior. Rogers has no intention on modifying the exterior.

Victoria city Coun. Pam Madoff, who has a lengthy background in heritage issues and previously served on the Hallmark Society, said her hope is that council and Rogers' can work together to iron out any issues.

If not, the city could issue a temporary 30-day protection order to stop the work, and then designate the interior a municipal heritage site, which would permanently stop the work.

"If these changes had occurred prior to the national historic site designation, they would never have been declared a national historic site. The value, obviously, is in the intact nature of that interior," Madoff said.


Right, IF the designation had been given prior to Rogers' plans to change the interior we'd have an issue. Since not even the heritage organizations seemed to have cared until now (the building's been designated for almost 30 years, hasn't it?) it doesn't give them the right to stop what the owner is legally allowed to do.

#13 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 04:52 PM

I don't think that is quite right Mike. You are thinking of when a building gets designated as a Heritage Building. This designation is of a "National Historic Site" which is a bit more amorphous, might include interpretive measures, interiors, exteriors and even parks, and doesn't necessarily automatically make it protected. The national and municipal designations are two quite separate things. Losing the National Historic Site status may be an acceptable consequence for Rodgers, depending on what perks go with it - there are only 900 such sites in all of Canada. It certainly isn't out of line to expect all "time capsule" features to be preserved if that is the designation it has.

At any rate, it is common for buildings to be designated as the result of a controversy, or "fight to save" something that is in private hands but that has a public value. Much of Old Town is the result of such a battle, and I think that for Victoria, that has been a very good thing. I'm not convinced the renovations would destroy all the features that are important, and I haven't voted on the poll until I understand more.

From Wikkipedia:

A national historic site is a designation that an area possesses national historical significance. It may confer protected area status on the site, but not necessarily. Such sites can range in size from small to complex, and may include physical evidence of the subject related to the history being commemorated. Designations are an acknowledgment that what happened in a particular place is worthy of remembrance by people of an entire nation, if not beyond, and sites are often conserved by national authorities.


I've done a bit more reading, it seems that there is and has been a fair amount of public money available for National Historic Sites to help with renovations and upkeep. If Rodgers has been dipping into the federal public pot (I have no idea if they have) then I would say that blurs the lines quite a bit as far as the argument that a private property owner should have total control - because in that case Heritage Canada does have a stake.

Another interesting tidbit was this, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/...plp-hpp2a_e.asp :

To address gaps in federal legislation, the Government of Canada is considering legislation to establish a new Canada Historic Places Act.
Such a bill would offer legal protection for all historic places on federal lands and protection for archaeological resources on or under federal lands or waters. The proposed legislation would also formally recognize the Canadian Register of Historic Places and commit the Government of Canada to the agreed-upon Conservation Standards and Guidelines.


It seems like the national sites get the perks but not the protection as it stands, and that might be about to change (if I am reading it right, will need to back it up with someone who knows more about such things) But if that is true, then the timing of the renovations make sense.

#14 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 05:20 PM

Thanks for the explanation! The certainly cleared a few things up.

#15 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 05:54 PM

I've been re-reading that site. Never mind the above quote about legislation, as it suggests, that protection would only stretch to sites ON federal land.

#16 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 05:56 PM

Ok, I deleted what I wrote, as Caramia & I were simulposting and I was responding to what she just disproved... Go back to your regular programming!
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#17 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 07:17 PM

Still more soulless development junkies bent on ruining Victoria forever with their lack of appreciation for the local character.

Go back to Vancouver, the lot of you!

- the Sisters of St. Ann
- The Art Gallery of Greater Victoria
- Rogers' Chocolates

#18 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 07:24 PM

I think it should be preserved. That's one old store.
Just open another location down the street and sell coffee and baked goods as well.

#19 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 07:24 PM

Maybe they can designate the interior as Federal land similar to Granville Island. :D

And much longer until the interior of Foo Hong's Chop Suey is designated original heritage?


"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#20 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 07:35 PM

I think it should be preserved. That's one old store.


I agree, but I also think the notion that any change whatsoever is unacceptable is ludicrous. we need to see what they have in mind.

The problem I have with this kind of backlash is that the folks who bother to preserve things are practically punished for their diligence. I think it was Holden West who made a point one time to the effect that society allows the masses to flagrantly destroy stuff, and then -- when everything is almost gone -- puts undue pressure on the few people left who took reasonably good care of things.

It seems backwards to me. If they've preserved the store for this long then it's a pretty safe bet they didn't come lightly to the decision to make modifications.

I only wish Victorians had handled the renovations of the old post office or the old Imperial Bank with a fraction of the sensitivity that (I'm fairly sure) Rogers' Chocolates will employ when they remodel their store.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

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