View Single Post
  #70  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2013, 1:48 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
I would say that "as long as it's done right" then it's not truly "faux heritage". But what if it's done wrong/half-assed, as is often the case? THAT is what I would call faux-heritage. I'll see if I can find any good examples...

edit:
Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Here are some examples of "heritage based" buildings/streetscapes that look pretty good:

Example 5
Example 6 (debatable)

Then there are projects like Bishop's Landing and the Vic which combine traditional elements with modern ones, generally resulting in good design. Founder's Corner in Dartmouth would be another "debatable".
I like Founder's Corner, though it's definitely imperfect. But yeah, the first four on that list are all awful, no disagreement. New design should look new, absolutely--I'm only advocating for repairing damaged or destroyed buildings of a different era, rather than constructing entirely new structures with an old-timey look out of nostalgia or lack of imagination.

Take the old Victorian rowhouses that burned down at Hollis and South--they were such a landmark to that area, bordering Cornwallis Park, that I'd be thrilled to see them reconstructed so as to be indistinguishable from before. There are precedents for that kind of thing: I remember being shocked to discover a 19th-century fire hall around the corner from an old apartment of mine in Toronto had burned down in the 70s and been entirely rebuilt with savaged original materials, and some newly quarried brick.

BUT, barring something really ambitious like that, it should be a genuinely contemporary design. Nothing could be worse than some pointy-roofed monstrosity like that big grey thing on Dresden Row linked to above.
Reply With Quote