32 replies to this topic

[Caramia]

Again, there is a difference between something going on the Heritage Registry - which is what they are wanting to do with these building, and is basically an acknowledgement that they are significant buildings historically, and something being Designated as a Heritage Building which protects the building. To put it on the Heritage Registry city council just agrees that it is significant. To Designate it Heritage in almost every case the owner does it, and it is then protected. Once something is Designated the owner has agreed to do even minor renovations in a way that is true to the building's history, and can apply for grants to the Heritage foundations to help defray the extra cost.

So we are talking about putting these buildings on a list of buildings that is considered to have heritage value. We are not talking about giving them full heritage designation.

As for the owners, I would imagine they don't want their buildings on that list because down the road if they have alterations, or demolition that they wish to do then it is possible people might oppose it.

[davek]

you seem to be suggesting that there is no public value in heritage preservation ...

I believe so strongly in the value of heritage preservation that I would voluntarily contribute my own money and time to private organizations that work to that end. I don't value it so strongly that I will join you or anybody else in ganging up on those who need their money for other, more important things.

...which you suggested involved mostly tax dollars...

Please review my posts. You will see I have done no such thing. Had anyone asked me, I would have said I suspect that the owner bears most of the burden, but that I don't know.

You have faith that they would have been accomplished without that public funding. I disagree.

I have faith that they would have been accomplished had they been sufficiently valued. As has been shown in the link I provided above (and with more available here), if you disagree, you disagree with history.

How do you decide who gets to dictate? IMO we make those choices at the polls, then let the elected officials allocate that money according to the values we voted in.

IMO, you and I debate the options. I win over most of the lurkers, and perhaps even you, with my incisive logic and rapier wit. You ask yourself, "How could I have been so blind?" Then we will make our position known to our elected officials through letters to the editors, emails to mayor and council, and standing up to speak at open houses. That is how we decide who gets to dictate.

In your model, when the daughter of that lower middle class working family who chose not to donate to heritage restoration gets her first job as a waitress in an Old Town restaurant, and puts the tip in her pocket from that table full of tourists who came to see charming Victoria, does she not somehow now "owe" the families who did choose to contribute to the change? Or perhaps we could restrict those jobs only for people who paid into that tax?

Caramia, you make my arguments for me. In this example, the most obvious flaw is the assumption that in the absence of government based heritage preservation, Victoria would not be charming, when in fact, it is entirely possible that it would be even more so.

Even if your scenario were correct, the fact that there may be externalities which are difficult to account for is a weak argument for declaring open season on the purses of our neighbours. Getting government out of heritage preservation is for the greater good of the community, and we should all encourage it.

[Caramia]

Heheh well that rapier wit hasn't won me over. Your history lesson seems revisionist to me, and I am wary of any argument that claims it is the only sensible one, or resorts to sensationalist phrases like "ganging up" to evoke images of a mugging in order to describe a democratic process and history. .

But our two arguments are there. Lurkers probably have their own points of view too and are unlikely to be swayed by either rhetorics. I don't really want to dominate this thread with what basically boils down to a discussion about political stances. Let's talk about these eleven buildings instead.

[jklymak]

I walked around today, and thought at least the Royal Bank building and the Centennial Square addition could be torn down w/o me shedding a tear.

Just because a building represent an architectural movement doesn't mean they or their movement have stood the test of time.

[G-Man]

^ Great point. I would argue that for the most part that early modernism in architecture has not stood the test of time.

Why do people like old town? Well some of the reasons are that the buildings embrace the pedestrian realm and were built for people walking by them or moving past at a horses pace.

While early modernism did everything to relate to the car and also was experimenting with new types of materials some of which thanks to their experiments we now know are not very good for the long haul.

In addition many of the materials used in early modernist buildings need to be kept up and for the most part this has not happened and in addition these pieces are not likely to be able to be replaced easily so even in such a short time many of the central elements to the building have been replaced or removed.

Some may argue this point but I would suggest that we are still within the modernist era and really 200 years from now only the most very astute historian will be able to tell if a building is from 1950 or 1970 or 1990, so I prefer to think of modernism just truly coming into its element in the last 10 years or so but again without the power of foresight perhaps we are not even there yet. Still building are moving back towards the human realm and I would point out new Victoria construction such as the Juliet, the Falls and Aria and some of Selkirk, as good examples and then I think we are still seeing transition buildings but these will become less common and some examples of these are Shutters, Bayview and perhaps best shown in the Wave which is so very clearly a transition building.

Anyways so what does this mean well I think that early modernism fails the test of the human so therefore for the most part can be discarded we have yet seen all the signature modernist buildings. That said for early modern that in my opinion does a great job I would put forward the TD Canada Trust Building, Central Junior School and the Uvic Library as outstanding examples.

[davek]

... resorts to sensationalist phrases like "ganging up" to evoke images of a mugging in order to describe a democratic process and history.

Since the democratic process has been used to validate slavery, the subjugation of women, the illegal invasion and occupation of other states, and the enslavement of men to the state through the military draft, I think "ganging up" works juuust fine.

Lurkers... are unlikely to be swayed by either rhetorics.

I think I'll keep posting my arguments. Y'know... just in case.

Let's talk about these eleven buildings instead.

Sure. Neither these eleven buildings nor any others should be added to the heritage registry until such time that the registry is entirely out of government control.

BTW, Caramia, I appreciate the relatively civil discourse. It is not always so.

[G-Man]

I am reposting mine and jlkymak's on-topic posts (hint-hint)

I walked around today, and thought at least the Royal Bank building and the Centennial Square addition could be torn down w/o me shedding a tear.

Just because a building represent an architectural movement doesn't mean they or their movement have stood the test of time.

^ Great point. I would argue that for the most part that early modernism in architecture has not stood the test of time.

Why do people like old town? Well some of the reasons are that the buildings embrace the pedestrian realm and were built for people walking by them or moving past at a horse's pace.

While early modernism did everything to relate to the car and also was experimenting with new types of materials some of which thanks to their experiments we now know are not very good for the long haul.

In addition many of the materials used in early modernist buildings need to be kept up and for the most part this has not happened and in addition these pieces are not likely to be able to be replaced easily so even in such a short time many of the central elements to the building have been replaced or removed.

Some may argue this point but I would suggest that we are still within the modernist era and really 200 years from now only the most very astute historian will be able to tell if a building is from 1950 or 1970 or 1990, so I prefer to think of modernism just truly coming into its element in the last 10 years or so but again without the power of foresight perhaps we are not even there yet. Still building are moving back towards the human realm and I would point out new Victoria construction such as the Juliet, the Falls and Aria and some of Selkirk, as good examples and then I think we are still seeing transition buildings but these will become less common and some examples of these are Shutters, Bayview and perhaps best shown in the Wave which is so very clearly a transition building.

Anyways so what does this mean well I think that early modernism fails the test of the human so therefore for the most part can be discarded we have not yet seen all the signature modernist buildings. That said for early modern that in my opinion does a great job I would put forward the TD Canada Trust Building, Central Junior School and the Uvic Library as outstanding examples.

[Caramia]

Out of the eleven there are only a couple that I feel very strongly about preserving... The Art Moderne Odeon Theatre is IMO worth considering part of our heritage. So is the Art Deco Bay Street Substation - complete with Egyptian symbolism inspired by the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun. For the CNIB building I do think that there is an argument that the remaining work of DiCastri (moreso residences) is worth preserving, although his non-residential stuff doesn't inspire me. But as part of our architectural history, it does represent the birth of a local style of West Coast Modernism, which has thrived, evolved and become a signature style for our region. (there is a great thread on that somewhere)

I was a bit more tepid concerning counting the Ballentynes building on Douglas but that did come up as a question, the planners had a good answer - that we might want to consider in those cases doing something creative that kept the significant elements but built something more functional. When it came to the City Hall Annex, I do believe the man sitting next to me actually growled. It leaves me flat too.

[jklymak]

That said for early modern that in my opinion does a great job I would put forward the TD Canada Trust Building, Central Junior School and the Uvic Library as outstanding examples.

Yeah, I like the library. Particularly because it is very functional. Its getting dated inside, but UVic is working to fix that, particularly with the new addition (which, with the new coffee shop, is now open btw). I spent many hours in there, and it was always airy and well lit, despite the abundance of linoleum and fluorescent lights. The third-floor carrels that looked east over the Strait were a favourite.

I think it exemplifies what I was trying to say. It'll probably still be there in another 50 years when it will properly be valid for heritage designation. Its well-built, functional, and not bad to look at. Ditto for the TD building. I know its older, but you wouldn't know that from looking at it, and it doesn't scream out anachronism like the Centennial Square architecture does.

I'm ambivalent about some of the other buildings. The Odeon? Sure, but is special designation necessary? The owners seem to like it that way. I guess I just think there is an advantage to letting time sort out the winners and losers in the architectural world. Is there any chance these buildings will be torn down in the near future?

[G-Man]

I hope the Odeon doesn't get torn down but perhaps with a bit of help from the heritage folks we could see the facade completely redone so we know it will be there in the future. As for City hall well I can dream that somethingruns done all the pillars underneath it (with no one in the car or the building of course) and it collapses. It just doesn't have any presence. I mena you look at the original building and you know that this is an important building in the city, there is no mistaking it. The backside could be a cafeteria from the outside.

[FunkyMunky]

I am reposting mine and jlkymak's on-topic posts (hint-hint)

...

Why do people like old town? Well some of the reasons are that the buildings embrace the pedestrian realm and were built for people walking by them or moving past at a horse's pace.
...

Anyways so what does this mean well I think that early modernism fails the test of the human so therefore for the most part can be discarded we have not yet seen all the signature modernist buildings. That said for early modern that in my opinion does a great job I would put forward the TD Canada Trust Building, Central Junior School and the Uvic Library as outstanding examples.

You seem to be doing some drifting off topic as well. There were some handouts provided at the open house and you will notice that it states specifically that we are discussing buildings representing the Modern Movement (1945 to 1975). Your discussion seems to confuse 'Big M' Modernism and The Modern Movement (labels identifying a design movement) with 'Little M' modern (as in, 'today'). Your inclusion of Shutters, the Juliet and other more recent buildings in town is not relevant because they represent something other than ideals of The Modern Movement.

If your only criteria for valuing a building is because you personally find it appealing or attractive, then a lot of significant but harder to love buildings are going to be lost.

[G-Man]

You seem to be doing some drifting off topic as well. There were some handouts provided at the open house and you will notice that it states specifically that we are discussing buildings representing the Modern Movement (1945 to 1975).

I am suggesting the the Modern Movement did not end in 1975 despite what a handout says.

Your discussion seems to confuse 'Big M' Modernism and The Modern Movement (labels identifying a design movement) with 'Little M' modern (as in, 'today').

Nope it doesn't confuse this I meant Big M Modernism the whole time if I meant "new" I would have said new.

Your inclusion of Shutters, the Juliet and other more recent buildings in town is not relevant because they represent something other than ideals of The Modern Movement.

I disagree I believe that each of these buildings is indicative of modernism though in different ways.

If your only criteria for valuing a building is because you personally find it appealing or attractive, then a lot of significant but harder to love buildings are going to be lost.

Nope I like the look of Shutters but think it fails in being a human building that does not mean that its design is any less a rejection of traditionalism.

My argument was that no matter how prevalent a style is if it fails to be of use why should it be preserved?

I would say that the majority of early modenism in architecture from 1945 - 1975 is a failure and that only now is it beginning to respond to the needs of the human.

What is the point of preserving failures unless perhaps one to be a lesson for the future.

[Holden West]

I attended a meeting of the City's Heritage Advisory Committee today. One of the projects they looked at was a 1947 house on May Street in Fairfield. The owners wanted heritage designation. It's a standard house of the era.