21 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

This is tonight--4 pm until 9 pm. upstairs at City Hall. It's an open house format so you can go at anytime. There will be presentations at 5 and 7 pm.

The subject is additions to the City Heritage list. If you are interested in heritage you should attend this informal session and give the City your feedback.

Sorry for the late notice. I hope you all can come.

[Lover Fighter]

Damn I missed this. How did it go?

[City Folk]

For those who missed this session, the City is still looking for input. Today is the last day to do so:

From

http://www.victoria....hrt_rgstr.shtml

The City of Victoria invites the public to participate in a community planning process to update Victoria's Heritage Register (previously known as the Heritage Registry). The Victoria Heritage Register, a list of sites determined to have heritage value, is being updated to reflect a set of major themes in our history, called a "city-wide thematic framework", and to include additional sites of heritage significance in the neighbourhoods of James Bay, Fernwood, Victoria West, Burnside, North Park and Harris Green. Other historic and character areas will be subject to review in future years.

Much of Victoria's lasting charm and character stems from its well-preserved historic places, many of which date back to the earliest days of settlement in British Columbia. Our historic landmarks, from the Victorian era to the Modern Movement, are a source of pride for owners and the community. These heritage buildings and precincts, such as Chinatown and Bastion Square, are reminders of our past and contribute to character and sense of place.

On December 3, the public was invited to an Open House to suggest historic places that matter in these neighbourhoods.

Listing on the Heritage Register enables the City of Victoria to consider the heritage value of buildings in development applications. Inclusion on the Heritage Register does not give any formal protection to a site and is not the same as heritage designation. Rather, the register provides a system that raises awareness of a site's heritage significance and an opportunity to monitor proposed changes to properties of heritage value.
The public is invited provide input on the historical themes and their significance in the evolution of Victoria and these neighbourhoods and to suggest additions to Heritage Register. Please take out a moment to fill out the questionnaire - [DOC 116KB] until Tuesday, December 23. The questionnaire can be downloaded and emailed to Heritage Planner Helen Cain at hcain@victoria.ca.

[Rob Randall]

I was looking forward to this but I left somewhat underwhelmed. I'm not sure I can explain my disappointment but I'll try.

Overall it was a decent presentation. It's just that they never seemed to get at the core of what heritage truly is. The definition they provided was so broad it was hard to think of anything that couldn't be called heritage. "Motherhood statements" someone beside me muttered.

You see, the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. All the truly significant heritage buildings have already been identified. If we want to preserve the heritage of the future we have to agree on what really has value. If everything has value, then nothing has value. This second wave of heritage identification is sweeping up some second-rate buildings. Cheap little structures whose only significance is that they've remained standing for over half a century are being considered. In some cases entire streets and neighbourhoods are being considered candidates for preservation.

But we have to balance that with the fact that our attitude towards buildings of value evolves over time. I wanted to hear how the heritage we value today was once considered garbage worthy only of the wrecking ball. Much of James Bay and Fernwood was once designated "urban blight" and was targeted for destruction a few decades ago. The Rose-Blanshard neighbourhood wasn't so lucky and was wiped off the map, something that would be unthinkable today.

Today, we respect heritage by researching the original design and recreating the building as it was when it was built. Yet a few years ago the fashion was to interpret the building using contemporary materials and structures. For instance, many of the Wharf St. buildings renovated in the 70s where the facade was stripped and internal courtyards built, bringing the outside in and the inside out.

That's what I think was missing. Heritage is context. It's a moving target. I think to get our heads around the next generation of heritage we have to dig a little deeper.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I agree with you, Rob.

There's a "design police" aspect that comes into it, too, especially if you start designating streets or entire neighbourhoods. For example, if you live in a neighbourhood whose older buildings you like, you'll look at every new design as if it were an affront. I've heard people talk about new SFHs that way, when in fact the new houses are of a really high design and quality. But they're modern, and people instead want to keep a traditional look. So they'll use an initiative that's vague & boilerplate to make it more difficult for anyone to introduce anything new into an area.

Also, I don't see/ recall any discussion of the financials underlying heritage preservation (as presented in the city's initiative). It is expensive to maintain heritage. If we're talking about commercial properties, we can hope that the retail/ commerce angle can make it worthwhile for property owners to preserve heritage.

But when we're talking about entire streets or neighbourhoods of SFHs, it's up to individuals who can dig into their own pockets. That works in areas where real estate in borderline slummy old areas is cheap, but in Victoria there isn't a single area that's cheap. So if you want individuals to come along and fix up nice old houses, they have to be relatively wealthy because it's practically impossible for anyone with limited means to go and buy a property in James Bay or Fairfield, for example - and still have money left over for the restoration. So that means that at some point you're going to get gentrification - and then people start complaining about "the yuppies" or "fauxhemians." But they're the ones who can (maybe) afford to restore and then maintain all that nice heritage - as an amenity (something pretty to look at) for everyone else.

But let's not pretend it's all a matter of political will or planning. There's economics and personal money involved, and that in turn changes the dynamics of the city's social fabric, too - more so than pretty architecture.

Like Rob said, "heritage is context."

[aastra]

This second wave of heritage identification is sweeping up some second-rate buildings.

I have to say, it really bothers me when people claim something like the Starbucks building at Government and Yates is heritage. Same thing for the little building on the southwest corner of Douglas and Yates. Do buildings like that really contribute anything to Victoria's uniqueness? The former in particular is a real stretch because the current exterior is the result of a rather brutal remodelling of the very fine original exterior. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was remodelled a second time(!) before the Starbucks went in there.

Forget expanding the heritage registry. I'd rather that the city concentrated its efforts on uncovering the various old facades, and also on making sure that the setbacks and the design of the ground floors of new buildings are consistent with the old city. The ground floors of the Wave & St. Vincent de Paul together serve as a glaring example of how NOT to do it (short windows and an inexplicable setback on the Wave and short windows and an incredibly low awning on SVDP). We can't afford another big miss like that. Fingers crossed that the Falls and the Atrium do it much better.

[Rob Randall]

I have to say, it really bothers me when people claim something like the Starbucks building at Government and Yates is heritage. Same thing for the little building on the southwest corner of Douglas and Yates. Do buildings like that really contribute anything to Victoria's uniqueness? The former in particular is a real stretch because the current exterior is the result of a rather brutal remodelling of the very fine original exterior. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was remodelled a second time(!) before the Starbucks went in there.

That's an excellent example. Victoria is guilty of creating our own false history. Look at these chronological photos of the same building and tell me what is "authentic" heritage. The present version is a modern amalgam of various styles:



Pointy bits removed:

[Baro]

Why did we have a period where not only did our buildings lose their looks, but they got SMALLER?? I can see changing styles, but why did they always lop a floor or two off?

[D.L.]

Aparently the false history of building facelifts is a part of Victoria's architectural heritage!

[Rob Randall]

Why did we have a period where not only did our buildings lose their looks, but they got SMALLER?? I can see changing styles, but why did they always lop a floor or two off?

My guess is that when CIBC opened new branches in Downtown they needed less administrative space in older buildings and were reluctant to lease them out because of security concerns.

As far as the other buildings we've talked about here, like the 600 block Yates building or the demolished Campbell building it's probably more like changing economic concerns meshed with dilapidated buildings caused by deferred maintenance.

The MEC/Vogue building is another example of a heritage building that never was while the Bay Centre is an extreme example containing several actual "heritage" structures that have only the barest connection to their original incarnation.

[Baro]

Wait wait wait, you're telling me the Bay Centre wasn't build as-is in the early 1900s? Have you not noticed the brick cladding and fabric awnings?? It was enough to fool me...

[FunkyMunky]

Aparently the false history of building facelifts is a part of Victoria's architectural heritage!

The Statement of Significance for 1450 Government Street (The Vogue Building , containing MEC) can be found at the bottom of Page 3 in this PDF document. If all that hot air was true, I would have expected the final result to look more like the 1892 Hooper & Waktins designed Victoria Hotel (The northern end of the building dates from only 1941) than the 1960's government office reno it currently resembles. I'm not sure the taxpayers got good value from the $100,000 and the 10 year tax holiday (PDF) that they chipped in to preserve this piece of 'heritage'. Wouldn't a new building have made more sense if it wasn't possible to return it more closely to it's original state?

[G-Man]

^ True but it is better than the dead space that was there before.

[Barra]

..."the Bay Centre is an extreme example containing several actual "heritage" structures that have only the barest connection to their original incarnation."

Ah, yes. This bring back memories of the "Save our City" coalition which was opposed to the proposed Eaton Centre. There were several reasons for people being concerned about the proposal. One thing that incensed me was the lack lustre poor quality architecture. The first plan was for a totally inward-looking suburban style mall with blank walls facing out. We were afraid that it could be an economic black hole for the retail businesses surrounding it, as well as concern about the loss of heritage buildings and the loss of a public street - Broad Street - which was a regular location for street musicians. I'll never forget our Saturday morning planning meetings in the upstairs back room at Emily Carr house. Or a small group of us trying to decide where to hold an education/fund raising session - reviewing all of the church basements that we were familiar with - when Eric Charman chimed in that only the Empress Ballroom would do for such an event. He disappeared in to the hallway to make a phone call, and returned a few minutes later to say that it had all been arranged. At the event we thought it would be cute to use tea pots to pass along the rows to collect donations - only to realize how little cash a tea pot can hold, and how often it needed to be emptied!

The work of the SOC resulted in re-working of the design and retention of heritage facades on Fort St. These were actually taken down brick by brick and rebuilt, as well as a re-building of the Driard hotel facade and tower on View Street . The Government Street facade is actually a sort-of replication of the Driard Hotel - the original design idea before they were forced to restore the actual Driard, which wasn't even located on Government. The fake Driard has the same window elements, but stretched out and the proportions are all wrong. Another thing that was saved were the fantastic art deco ceramic "fountain" motifs that were on the former Kresge building at the NW corner of Douglas and View - they were incorporated in to the new MacDonalds site, and actually look better there than they did on the original building.

So how about the diCastri designed "Ballantyne Flowers" storefronts next to St Andrews Presbyterian? I'd like to see this complex incorporated in to the development that they are proposing to the west. Why not keep it - much the way that the Sussex Hotel facade has been retained as a working component of the new Sussex Building????

[G-Man]

^ That would be cool if they just kept the bottom floor and built 10 - 12 storey office building above it.

I agree that they are also keeping some trash. I mean why is everyone so in love with the Maycock Optical building. It is boring and it is not oriignal it was re plastered in the last few years in a style that was not even around when it was built.

[D.L.]

There aren't many art deco buildings in Victoria, so I think that the Maycock optical building is something that would be nice to keep.

[Caramia]

I used to skip school to stand outside grocery stores with the Save Our City petition.

[Barra]

Hey, Caramia!
I'm glad that we contributed to your incipient activism!

[Caramia]

Haha, And my juvenile delinquency.

[G-Man]

Here are two modern buildings that I wouldn't mind seeing fixed up and preserved:



Especially this one, it is pretty unique in town IMO