124 replies to this topic

[aastra]

Do their chocolates really qualify as handmade? I love them but they're made in a rather big assembly line facility out in Royal Oak.

[gumgum]

^They do have one there' Someone once told me that the public can buy chocolate from there discount.

[gumgum]

That is an option, and I'm not inside their heads either, but maybe they feel that opening another store downtown would dilute their brand, whereas enlarging the existing space would concentrate it?

Opening many outlets hasn't diluted Starbucks' brand -- in fact, it has intensified it. But it's a different product, it's global, etc. A Swatch store can open many outlets -- the interchangeability of swatches and coffee makes it possible to put outlets everywhere.

Does that work for handmade products, though? Rogers might be less hand-made than Chocolatier Victoria, but that is part of its image/ brand, isn't it?

Businesses that have outlets celebrate the factory-made or assembly line or machine-like aspects of their products (even Lululemon, which just hired away another Starbucks exec, does this: yoga as "yoke," as universal discipline that can be practiced anywhere anytime, and Lululemon makes the "uniforms" for it).

Handcrafted products might suffer with outlets.

Murchies didn't properly make that leap from "handicraft" store, art of steeping tea, etc. etc. to "outlet" (as Starbucks did).

Sorry, just thinking off the top of my head here. But Rogers is in a not so easy position, imo.

I think you're thinking too hard.

[Caramia]

After digging a little I don't see any evidence of Rogers getting any money or grant out of their designation as a national historic site ever. Unless you count free publicity.

Also, I am not sure that the original layout of the store is exactly as it is now.

[Rob Randall]

Thursday, Jan 10 at 8 a.m., an in-camera (non-public) meeting of the Committee of the Whole will discuss Rogers' Chocolate's controversial decision to expand the interior of their heritage-designated building. Because Mayor Lowe is the architect, he will not be in the Mayor's chair for this discussion.

[gumgum]

Heritage advocates walk a fine line in Victoria
Carolyn Heiman, Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, January 10, 2008

It's no secret Rogers' Chocolates planned to renovate its historic downtown store -- untouched since 1917. The company proudly posted a sign announcing to customers that it would soon have a larger space.

A one-time member of Victoria's heritage advisory committee noted the sign in passing and assumed due process had been followed.

She's right. There's nothing legally wrong with the planned interior renovation. The city issued a routine building permit and the mayor is named as lead architect, implying the gold seal of approval.
A renovation project at Rogers' Chocolates has sparked concern among heritage officials.

No public process was required despite the fact the building has a national designation of historic significance that specifically mentions the interior as well as the city's heritage designation on the exterior.

So how did we get to a place where, hours before work was to start, heritage advocates issued a call to arms to delay the renovation and the city is holding an in camera meeting this morning on the issue? Federal, provincial and city heritage officials have also been yarded into quickly scheduled meetings to discuss the $250,000 reno to a building that tugs at the heartstrings of almost anyone who enters it.

Before we go further, I'm betting Rogers', which closely ties its brand to its heritage, will take those concerns seriously. But the issue also makes it glaringly apparent that when it comes to protecting buildings that are woven into the community's social fabric, we're mostly dependent on an owner's whim.

The success of grant and tax-incentive programs has been justifiably trumpeted for saving many important buildings -- the Douglas Hotel, Leiser Buildings, the Bay building to name a few. Even as heritage buffs handwring about 913 Government St., four homeowners are voluntarily asking the council to confer heritage designation on their homes -- in some cases the interiors as well, although few members of the public will ever see the inside of them.

Impressive though that may be, Hallmark Society president Nick Russell says more heritage buildings are lost to demolition than are being saved.

If a property owner won't co-operate, there's not much the municipality can do that doesn't include giving up on the building or face being sued.

Rogers' Chocolates president Steve Parkhill is making soothing noises about the importance of the heritage interior to his business. While anxious to get the expanded retail area completed in time for the next candy-oriented holiday -- Easter -- he says his decision last week to stop the work was made so other perspectives could be voiced. "But we believe we have the ability to start work tomorrow because we have the building permit. But that's not what Rogers' is about. We've been a good corporate citizen."

He stopped short of saying that behind-the-scenes talks with various heritage officials were "negotiations" -- a term the city's heritage planner used to describe what's happening in the background.

One perspective Parkhill won't hear is that of the city's own heritage advisory committee that elected this week not to formally comment on the project. One wonders if not now, when? Time seems to be of the essence.

Members talked about it, but committee member Ken Johnson said that without seeing the plans, there wasn't anything to make a motion on.

Another member, Kerri Ward, said she believes the owner's full agreement is always necessary, and John Adams suggested the city consider the heritage importance of the entire block of lower Government Street. Another member was reminded that Old Morris Tobacconists also has an intact interior of historical importance.

A curious sidebar is the mayor's involvement.
Parkhill says Alan Lowe is still project architect although the mayor said yesterday he has advised the company to hire someone else because "I can't present before council." Lowe added he knew the city's heritage designation limited changes to the facade "but I wasn't aware that it was a national historic site until I was reminded ... the client didn't make us aware of it."

It's the national designation that makes note of the significance of the untouched interior and recommends the owner consult with federal officials before making changes.

Russell, whose society gave Rogers' Chocolates an award for its intact interior, scoffs at the idea the national designation "doesn't have any teeth," and offers only guidelines with no consequences.

It's consequences that city councillors will be weighing this morning when it hears legal advice on what authority it has in the area. One option will be to designate the interior as heritage without the owner's permission -- something municipalities have shown reluctance to do.

Russell said the reluctance comes from the notion that "a man's home is his castle" and his to do with as he pleases. It is a notion that Russell doesn't entirely dismiss, but adds the community also has a right to live with beautiful streetscapes and buildings.

If owners can't see the wisdom of saving important places, then the government has to step in, Russell says, adding grants and other supports have to be there for owners.

It's not as harsh as it sounds if one considers that even in the United States -- the home of capitalism -- there are states with tougher heritage legislation than B.C.'s. The key, of course, is picking places that deserve the attention.

Russell said the Hallmark Society "doesn't want to freeze-frame the city" but they do want to keep examples of periods of history. "I can think of very, very, very few -- that's three verys -- of examples where interiors are mentioned on the national historic website. It doesn't happen very often."

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008

[aastra]

So if Rogers' Chocolates were to move out of their Government Street store because they need more space, would the heritage preservationists consider it a victory?

John Adams suggested the city consider the heritage importance of the entire block of lower Government Street.

Harbour Square Mall included? (just kidding)

[G-Man]

^ Aastra that is a great point and it is something that I have been mulling over for the last few days. (I voted for keeping the interior the same)

And if there was no business then there would be no interior to save. Presumably if Roger's left and say Victoria Gift Emporium moved in the heritage value of the interior would decline.

So I am actually thinking that if a sound business case were presented that showed that the options were losing Roger's or letting them expand then we should let them expand but I will just be very sad about it.

[aastra]

Presumably if Rogers' left and say Victoria Gift Emporium moved in the heritage value of the interior would decline.

No kidding.

[amor de cosmos]

^They do have one there' Someone once told me that the public can buy chocolate from there discount.

if you go early in the morning they might give you the garbage that doesn't make the grade...

[Number Six]

I think it will be a real shame if Roger's messes with their "unique selling point". I love their chocolate but there are no shortages of places in town to get your fix. I choose to shop at their store because of their heritage and their respect for preserving it ... and I promote it to any visitors I happen to meet. I realize their shop is often crowded but it creates a buzz which I'm sure helps their sales ... and of course the throng only attracts more business from people walking by.

At the end of the day I can understand the argument for not getting in the way of a business wanting to expand but it would be a shame if there wasn't another way to solve the problem. Tomorrow is my last day at a company where 30% growth per annum is expected and is always achieved (and at about any cost). If Rogers can manage to grow their business and preserve what makes them unique I will have even more respect for them.

[Ms. B. Havin]

The Rogers reno is on (indefinite?) hold. See Rogers' sets aside renos for lucrative sweet season in today's T-C.

[Mike K.]

"For years our customers have been expressing concern about not being able to get into our store or, once they're in our store, not being able to get out," Steve Parkhill, Rogers' president, said yesterday.

Let's blame McDonald's for this one.

[Holden West]

I LOL'd!

[G-Man]

Strangely enough I had a dream about the Roger's Reno. I walked into the store and they had redone the entire inside in Ikea cabiniets. They were pleased as punch with how it turned out but I remember thinking it was awful.

I think I am spending too much time doing renos at home...

[Ms. B. Havin]

According to Carla Wilson in today's T-C, Rogers' Chocolates expands to new site, taking the spot being vacated "by the Sydney Reynolds store, but its main focus won't be chocolate."

Sound intriguing!

Lease details are being finalized but Rogers' will become a tenant on March 1, with the new business expected to open in early May, Parkhill said.

"As you can imagine, we have had our eye on the Sydney Reynolds location for years," he said. "Our intent is to be there for a long, long time."
Mohan Jawl said of Rogers', "They are an institution in town, just like Sydney Reynolds was. The space is a very sensitive location and we tried to be as careful as we could with who we put in there. I think Rogers' was a good choice."

[aastra]

Darn. So there won't be a Starbucks going in there?

Just kidding.

I presume this will be a coffee/ice cream/dessert place? Very interesting.

[VicHockeyFan]

They won't say what it is, eh? May opening. How about another pub - they could use the Steamers license.

.

[G-Man]

Oooh A chocolate nightclub! Sounds kinky.

[gumgum]

Rogers' Chocolates to open new soda shop
Former Sidney Reynolds store will offer drinks and floats from 1890s fountain
Darron Kloster, Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, April 19, 2008