51 replies to this topic

[Bernard]

Many aspects of city infrastructure can be heritage, that is what drives me nuts about the comments from Ken Johnson.

We have wood cobbles in Waddington Alley.

We have blue tile street names in sidewalks.

Ultimately most of heritage is about what you can see. If you can see it, there is a case for it a heritage designation.

Vancouver put a heritage designation on the Cambie Boulevard

[Rob Randall]

Here's an example of how much the bar has been lowered. It's an expanded version of the story I alluded to above.

In 2009, Council granted heritage status to 1267 May Street. It's a nice little house--I'd love to own it myself. But the efforts to give it heritage status stretched the definition of heritage to the point of ridicule.

The report attempts to portray this house as a transition between earlier architectural styles and "later modern expressions such as Art Deco and Art Moderne style dwellings." The funny thing is, when this house was built in 1947, Art Deco had long been out of style, and Art Moderne was on its last legs. How can a house be called a transition to a future era that is already passe?

The truth is, 1267 May is a nice little bungalow, built by a respected contractor (no architect) that features a mish-mash of various generic popular styles from the previous half-century. It's not "transitional" except in the sense of a transition from last gasp of old traditional styles to the new post-war modernist era.

In 1947, the year this house was built, the modern era was already well underway. Look at this house, also built in 1947 or this house built the year before. It was only a matter of months before Modernism hit Victoria full force, and Art Moderne was officially history.

The members who didn't think 1267 May deserved designation were outvoted. City Council went on to buy the story hook, line and sinker and the house easily got its heritage designation.

I'm strongly in favour of casting the net wide when it comes to heritage. I believe that many unusual things, including structures much newer than 1947 are genuine heritage and deserving of preservation. But sometimes average just doesn't cut it.

[Sparky]

^ Excellent post Rob, this is a little off topic because the house in the picture below is in Saanich, but my wife and her brother have kept this rascal in the condition that it was left to them.

It is a 1600 square foot circular house that rotates on it's axis.

This shot was taken by their uncle Basil (who built the house) from his airplane. Take a minute and focus on the concept. It resembles a spaceship.

[G-Man]

Don't worry Sparky our threads are not confined by arbitrary municipal boundaries!

Great post Rob! and yet sad...

[SamCB]

This is going to be my go to image for responding to those who claim we need to learn from Europe about how every building needs to fit in, and how we must respect the old by properly integrating the new with it.

This is in Graz, Austria.
http://static.urbara...iginal/3766.jpg

[Nparker]

This is going to be my go to image for responding to those who claim we need to learn from Europe about how every building needs to fit in...

Although I find that particular structure "grotty to the max" (I came of age in the 1980s), I'd love to see something like that get built here if for no other reason than to p*** certain people off.

[Rob Randall]

Paul Merrick gave a really good presentation [of the Northern Junk proposal]. And there was a good walk through of how the project meets the Old Town Guidelines.

The one member who did not like the project that I got to hear held up a copy of the guidelines and said the new building did not look like the buildings on the cover.

http://heritagebc.si...d_final2(1).pdf

Umm yeah this is a new building. I guess he wanted a disney building...

It's scary to think how an influential committee can have a member so confused about contemporary architecture. The photo on the cover in no way is supposed to serve as an example for architects. Clearly, he hadn't read the guidelines past the front cover because the book ends with examples of what the City deems worthy examples. Now, the guidelines are a bit dated and some of the examples (Conference Centre) might raise an eyebrow as exemplary design, but overall the vision is clear. It explicitly says not to mimic heritage. I say this over and over but for some, perfection means Disney-style replication and their minds will never change.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ I think the so-called pro-heritage crowd, particularly Pam Madoff & her ilk in the Hallmark camp, have conclusively proven that they have NO CLUE what heritage actually is. The Johnson Street Bridge is heritage, and Madoff & co. voted and schemed to destroy it. Their credibility is toast and they should just stfu already.

[HB]

Nobody schemed to destroy it.
It was destroyed by many years of neglect.
Rust is eating away at it.
If you parked your car next to the ocean for decades and didnt do anything to it ...yes your car would start to fall apart too.


Like Don Henley sings...................Get over it.

Whatever the new bridge looks like it will be admired by many and the old rusted one will be gone from our minds in short order.
Just like when a person dies. Others are hurt when the person dies abut after a few months they are only though about or talked about near the anniversary date except of course by the closest of friends or family.

The last time any work was done to get rid of rust was in the 70s when they painted the thing blue. That in itself was a mistake. The bridge looked better when it was black. Black hid the rust.

[jklymak]

^ Thats not true. The maintenance budget for the bridge was pretty substantial until 10 or so years ago when it dropped to nothing. Someone made a conscious decision to let it rust out.

Of course we will forget the bridge, just like we've forgotten all the old buildings that are now parking lots. Doesn't mean we are better for it.

[Mike K.]

The real kicker has been the Hallmark Society admitting it did not feel it should involve itself in protection of "infrastructure." This was stated by the president, Ken Johnson, in the Northern Junk discussion thread.

[Hotel Mike]

Like Don Henley sings...................Get over it.

One of my favourite Eagles songs. You are bang on HB.

[Bernard]

Protecting publicly owned heritage is easier because there is no need to have bottom line to make a profit

[Ms. B. Havin]

Nobody schemed to destroy it.
It was destroyed by many years of neglect.
Rust is eating away at it.
If you parked your car next to the ocean for decades and didnt do anything to it ...yes your car would start to fall apart too.


Like Don Henley sings...................Get over it.

Whatever the new bridge looks like it will be admired by many and the old rusted one will be gone from our minds in short order.
Just like when a person dies. Others are hurt when the person dies abut after a few months they are only though about or talked about near the anniversary date except of course by the closest of friends or family.

The last time any work was done to get rid of rust was in the 70s when they painted the thing blue. That in itself was a mistake. The bridge looked better when it was black. Black hid the rust.

^ Who said anything about "scheming"? You did.

There were plenty of opportunities to fix and/or maintain the bridge. As jklymak notes, there was instead a decision to neglect it.

Also, by your logic, we should just bulldoze all heritage buildings - 'cause, you know, they were neglected, too, and are falling apart and it doesn't make sense to renovate them.

Why are you called History Buff, anyway?

As for the importance of infrastructure, see my response on the JSB thread. But clearly most people don't understand that "heritage" or history (buffed or not) is about identity.

What is the Canadian identity, anyway? What is Victoria's identity? "Olde" Englishe? That's a white-washing (literally) of how Victoria got started. No wonder this place loves Disney-fication the way lab rats love crack.

[Sparky]

Here is how we take care of heritage in Saanich.

We take one of our more delightful early buildings (Beaver Lake Store), then we demolish it to makeway for new development. The commercial zoning of the land was the key to this venture.

When we are all done doing that, we glue on a copy of the early storefront so we won't miss the nostalgic days of yesteryear.

This looks like a Cadilac with a Model A front end.

Hideous.

[Rob Randall]

^Excellent example, Sparky. That's a horribly misguided attempt at heritage sympathy. It does a disservice to authentic heritage by mimicking the previous building, making it confusing for future generations to know where that building came from. They should either kept the original facade (impractical, I know) or an interesting new facade design that is true to its own era and has a chance at becoming heritage of the future.

[aastra]

That's a really odd way to preserve a facade. Why the gap back there?

[Rob Randall]

^I know, that's very weird and impractical. Is that truly all new construction or is some remnant of the old facade still there? Seems the architect has succeeded in bringing together the worst of the old and new.

[Sparky]

The gap is a sundeck, probably complete with an ashtray.

[Nparker]

...Seems the architect has succeeded in bringing together the worst of the old and new.

Which is exactly what some heritage "experts" are advocating for new construction in old town. (cough, Hallmark, cough)