Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
I agree that there's some concern over this, but I can't really see the government letting them--especially 1723 Hollis--fall into a state of very bad repair. It's a provincially designated heritage building, unlike the Dennis, and a true landmark downtown. My concern would be more that they'd just be put to some boring use like government offices.
|
I would like to believe this as well, however I believe that a lot of people (especially those in power who control cash flow) think a lot like Keith's post above. "Oh well, the interior has been changed from original, so it makes more sense to gut them out and leave the facades stuck on the outside of this new building so people can see what used to be there".
To me, whether there is public access to the interior has less importance than the original structure remaining intact. So if the interior has lost its original elements, but the exterior still retains most of its originality (i.e. intricate stonework still remains, structure in good condition, etc.), then I don't see anything wrong with upgrading interior elements to current standards while keeping the exterior original while retaining the original structure. IMHO, buildings like these enhance the public realm and keep the streetscape interesting. Facading is a second-best choice, as some elements are kept in the public realm, but everybody knows the only thing remaining of the building are the walls - it's like keeping a full-size snapshot so people remember what was there, but the building is, in effect, gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
Honestly, I think the design is fantastic. I recall in 2020 when the Globe's architecture critic lauded the design contest as having produced proposals that would be (any of them) among the most imaginative public buildings in Canada in a generation.
I think there's a real risk we lose that now, and end up with either A: nothing, or B: Some bargain version that contributes little to the city's architectural legacy.
|
Yeah, that's fine, it comes down to an esthetic. You really like it, and I'm kind of "meh" about it. Neither is wrong, really, it's just an opinion on the esthetic that one prefers.
For me, the woodiness of it looks a little out of place for the location, and I'm also thinking that the final built structure never looks as good as the renderings (I've seen it time and time again on this forum). My fear is that it will age like the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic, which isn't great IMHO.
Source.
I too worry that it will be lost to the bare-bones practical people who think that all you need is a box in which to contain the artwork (or, perhaps not have any art at all because it "doesn't perform any practical function"), and that anything over and above a box with steel siding is too expensive and a waste of money. IMHO, the waterfront needs "great" not "good enough", and budget cutting practicality often ends with a boring, uninteresting result (that only looks good on the finance dept's Excel table)... or no result at all. Not to mention the fed money that would likely end up funding another city's project.