View Single Post
  #147  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2015, 1:26 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Hey CF,

No, I didn't feel your comments were directed at me. In fact, your posts are always well thought out and presented, and always respectful. I, personally, really appreciate that. In retrospect, I should not have responded directly to your post, and I apologize for that.

Recently, I have disobeyed one of my cardinal rules, and that's not to take anything I read on an internet forum too seriously. Time to dial back on that.

Regarding your points, I guess in a fit of naivete, I felt that the Schmidtville people were being genuine, and didn't consider that they might have motives other than to preserve those Victorians, which are disappearing bit by bit in our city. Although I'm not personally involved, I didn't feel that the group deserved the condescension they were receiving in some of the posts, as though they didn't have a right to express their concerns. Regardless, I'm still looking at it from the outside in, so perhaps I should not get involved in something that's not my fight.

Also, I don't disagree that this type of development should happen here, I just wish that there were some more thought towards treating 100+ year old buildings with more respect. Ideally, as mentioned, if there were some incentives for the developer to move them, or even be really creative and build around them or somehow find a way to incorporate them into the structure (though I recognize the level of difficulty in doing this) - I would applaud that. Alas, I know that none of these options will occur, but I personally think that at least, discussions like this need to happen.

And, I don't live in a vacuum. The BMO building issue is affecting my opinions on this case, along with other issues like the 'application to demolish' signs on those Barrington heritage buildings (discussed in another thread in which I also expressed frustration). There are other cases as well, too numerous to mention here.

The lack of effectiveness by the seemingly misdirected HT combined with apparent lack of concern by our municipal politicians and local developers, wears away at anybody who values heritage structures. I realize that they can't all be saved, and that doesn't bother me - it's the attitude that hasn't changed in 50 years that bothers me, especially when I travel to other places that have ventured to save interesting old structures, or have combined them with new construction to create interesting, viable structures that are respectful to history. This is not some dark art, it's actually happening elsewhere, and is often commented upon by several posters here.

While I generally post from the heart, I don't work in the planning or building fields, and really just have an interest in our city in general. There are many here who bring a lot more expertise to the table and I defer to their knowledge and experience. While I have a vision on how I'd like to see things go, I am only one person who comes here purely out of interest and really probably shouldn't be adding my 2ยข or responding to some chronically-negative posters as much as I do - I can step back and see how this only dilutes the conversation or even worse, knocks it off track.

So to be clear, I don't oppose this development. I'm not crazy about the architecture, but I don't feel it shouldn't happen. I would like to see something positive done about the Victorian structures, but I don't expect to see it.

...and I'm not PO'ed at anybody, just genuinely frustrated about certain aspects of our city's developments.

CF, thanks for taking the time to consider my writings, and responding to my thoughts. I appreciate the discussion.
Thoughtful response as usual, Mark. And really, neither I, nor I think anyone, would want you to either stop posting here, nor even change how you post (from the heart). You're one of my favorite posters on here, so please do stick around, and please don't change anything (not that my opinion matters all that much-- I don't presume self-importance here-- but I do enjoy this community ).

You're probably more right than me about the Schmidtville group; my generalization about the lack of sincerity is probably too much of precisely that-- a generalization.

Hali has a nice breakdown of the different elements/factions in the group. I think he's optimistic about the breakdown, but it's fair to say there are likely a good deal of members of the group who are sincere in their conservation aims.

I think there are absolutely legitimate issues to raise here about the loss of Victorian structures involved in this development; I guess where my frustration comes in this case, is that where I think there are truly more substantial architectural heritage issues (Doyle block) there amount of media attention was nihil. But here, for some reason there was nearly a full page section in Herald to the concerns of this group-- and this perplexes me. I just see unfairness is the treatment, and think it's likely because you have wealthy south end property owners among the voices opposing Brenton Place, while nothing of the sort concerning Doyle. So, we hear about Brenton in the news, but Doyle flies under the radar.

In fairness to the Herald, they *did* publish Dry's very good op-ed.

Overall, I do wish we were overall much, much, better at preserving/maintaining our heritage architecture while allowing for nice developments/changes.... and there are often so many opportunities-- like Doyle-- but yeah, instead the issue ends up being an all-or-nothing discussion. Either we oppose Brentwood and stop the development, or not. Either Doyle is leveled and rebuilt 100%, or the development doesn't happen.

Again, I blame HT for this problem, but it's also a wider attitudinal issue as you point out.
Reply With Quote