Jump to content

      



























Photo

Oak Bay - The Tweed Curtain Remains


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,402 posts

Posted 12 April 2016 - 10:58 AM

Just when you think Oak Bay is not a hotbed of vibrancy and its Council has too much time on its hands along comes a compelling story like this (courtesy of CFAX)

 

The Mayor of Oak Bay has initiated a study to determine whether there are too many old houses being moved out of the municipality. Some Council members have suggested Oak Bay needs to look for a way to put the brakes on the practice of moving houses by barge out of Oak Bay to locations in the San Juan Islands, where some have been re-purposed to create affordable housing. The Mayor's Task Force has been given a mandate to study the issue; and recommend legislative action if necessary. 

 



#2 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 12 April 2016 - 11:34 AM

I actually think this sort of thing could be a real problem for a lot of older urban neighbourhoods. There are only so many old houses.

 

I wonder, how come nobody from the city ever tries to go to a small town and nab one of their historic commercial buildings? Can you imagine that? Filling in a small site in the old town with an actual building (or actual facade) from the appropriate historic era, but from another place?


  • todd likes this

#3 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,402 posts

Posted 12 April 2016 - 11:39 AM

...I wonder, how come nobody from the city ever tries to go to a small town and nab one of their historic commercial buildings...

I am not sure most vintage (100 or so years old) commercial buildings could withstand the moving process. Certainly any brick facades would have to be removed before transit, and then what do you have?

 

ps: I still think this a major non-issue even for sleepy Oak Bay.



#4 johnk

johnk
  • Member
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 12 April 2016 - 11:53 AM

I agree, a non issue.
Would they prefer the houses to go into the landfill?
I think it's great that some people are willing to undertake the effort and expense to re-purpose them, even better they will house lower income people or in one instance, a farming couple near Campbell River.
I dont get what Jensen is on about. Restrictions on selling? Its an owner's right to sell to whom he pleases, property rights are a fundamental of democracy.
  • Nparker and rjag like this

#5 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 12 April 2016 - 12:04 PM

I agree, a non issue.
Would they prefer the houses to go into the landfill?
I think it's great that some people are willing to undertake the effort and expense to re-purpose them, even better they will house lower income people or in one instance, a farming couple near Campbell River.
I dont get what Jensen is on about. Restrictions on selling? Its an owner's right to sell to whom he pleases, property rights are a fundamental of democracy.

You could have a restriction on moving real property.  Why not?



#6 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 12 April 2016 - 12:06 PM

I'd say the issue will become glaring when (for example) almost every house on a street has been moved or knocked down and now the last couple of owners want to do the same thing. Does the community suddenly get into a legal battle with them to prevent it? That's the typical pattern. We've talked about this before, how nobody cares about an obvious and ongoing process of destruction/replacement until the last few examples are left. Then suddenly it's a big deal to clamp down, because those last few examples are now rare and exceptional. Even at the very beginning of a trend we should be able to foresee the worst-case scenario and make plans to prevent it or otherwise manage it well in advance. You don't have to wait until the last moment.

 

 

I am not sure most vintage (100 or so years old) commercial buildings could withstand the moving process.

No doubt you're correct but I do see some interesting examples on YouTube where buildings were moved a short distance. The hotel move in Austin, TX makes me wonder what could have been done with some of Victoria's long lost buildings.



#7 johnk

johnk
  • Member
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 13 April 2016 - 10:32 AM

You could have a restriction on moving real property. Why not?

I think that could be easily challenged. To me, "real property"/"real estate" is land. Structures are impermanent, ie. not "real".
Land is the "real" component as it is immovable.

Edited by johnk, 13 April 2016 - 10:34 AM.

  • Nparker likes this

#8 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 14 April 2016 - 11:56 AM

Sorry. Restrictions on moving "improvements to real property". We aren't drafting the law right now lol.

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users