OldDartmouthMark |
Jan 23, 2017 5:09 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16
(Post 7685989)
It depends on the building being torn down. The one being torn down at 1363 Hollis Street doesn't get much appreciation because it is a rather unattractive building that isn't even that old. Replacing it with something attractive and new, as in the rendering below (originally posted by Jonovision), is easy to accept.
In my opinion, these are a couple of great re-purposed complexes - https://haligonia.ca/rbc-waterside-c...ater-st-82074/ and http://doorsopenhalifax.com/founders-square/ . Although some consider these complexes to be facadism, the streetscape was saved, and old, poorly functioning buildings were replaced with modern, useful buildings. There are many cities where the old buildings would have been demolished.
There are buildings that should be saved. The building that the Halifax AGNS is located in, is a beautiful, old building but even so, there are people who want a new, bigger, modern building which will leave a beautiful, historic building vacant. In my opinion, that is the type of building that people should be supporting.
Overall, in spite of some mistakes, Halifax in 2017 is a far more attractive city than Halifax in the early 1970's (which is the earliest that I can remember the city). I remember the old ferries, which were fun to take across the Harbour and while the old ferry terminals were somewhat decrepit, they were welcoming like an entrance gate to an old stadium with its turnstiles. Purdy's wharf was an actual wharf and warehouse, but it was nowhere near as impressive as the current Purdy's Wharf office complex. In the early 1970's Halifax didn't have its current boardwalk, which has made the harbour-front accessible and is enjoyed by locals and tourists. In short, Halifax has lost some old buildings, and made some mistakes such as the Scotia Square super-block and Cogswell Interchange, but even so, it is a far more attractive and interesting city than it was in the early 1970's. Let's give the city leaders credit for being progressively minded in its desire to tear down the Cogswell Interchange and restore the street grid, and for all the other great changes that the city has seen over the past 40 plus years. Cheers to Halifax, a great city that keeps becoming even better.
|
FWIW, I don't disagree with most of your points, but keep in mind that the city leaders thought they were being 'progressively minded' when the Cogswell Interchange and Scotia Square were conceived - and they were, in a 1950's/1960's mindset. Cities evolve, of course, and the future happens - we have no choice - but sometimes today's good ideas turn out to be tomorrow's bad ideas. The ferry terminal example you stated is a very good one - I remember those old terminals really well, and from a human standpoint they were much more welcoming and interesting than the 'industrial warehouse' style of the current ones, which I believe were built in the late 1970s. Perhaps if somebody at the time had the vision to restore and update them, or even build new, larger ones in the same style with similar materials at the human-interaction level, then today we'd be saying how much we like them...
Rather than regurgitate already-stated ideas, I'll just say that someone123's post up near the top of this page pretty much sums up how I feel about the situation, though he stated it much better and more completely than I ever could.
My post was more reactionary to the ideas expressed by some - that anybody who appreciates heritage buildings is 'resistant to change' or thinks that 'just because it's old it's good'. The point I was making is that Halifax's heritage buildings contain a value much greater than the simple collection of physical materials of which they are made - there is a history connected to each of them. There are construction methods used in building them that have not been practiced in many decades, there are peoples' lives and lineage associated with each and every one, not just the 'important' people, but also the everyday citizens who were the backbone and the life of this city over the past two-and-a-half centuries. What could be wrong with trying to preserve some of them in their original context? There are many empty lots and other more-appropriate spots to build new. Yet we continue to battle, and lose out to, those whose vision stops at the age of the structure, thinking that old is just old and therefore new must be better.
It's still surprising to me, given that most of the people I talk to in my travels tend to express the opinion that it's shameful to see century+ aged buildings torn down to build new glass and prefab-cladded structures. Yet it continues to happen, and nary a thought seems to be given to it by those who are in the position to do something about it.
That's all I was trying to say. :shrug:
|