Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
Just a short blog post but I thought he had good points:
https://deny.substack.com/p/dont-just-preserve-heritage-build
He talks about how the pro-heritage advocates often don't have a clearly articulated message, how important planning rules are, and how new character/heritage can be built.
I do think there are some good adaptive reuse projects, and some good small "boutique" heritage-style projects, but there aren't a lot of medium-scale heritage-style builds (3 or 4 storey wooden flats for example, which used to be common around inner Halifax), and the planning rules may not permit them. |
Meh.
He could have left out the ageist judgement... "They’re old, and naturally resistant to change of any kind."... and simply said that we need better architecture in the city, that reflects similar values to heritage buildings that are valued by many. The rest was a mishmash of ideas that didn't seem to have much focus.
I could get into a discussion about how things were built back then to suit certain purposes, and things like building codes changing to prevent entire city blocks from burning down due to a single house fire, but no point.
Also thought it was a little strange to graph FAR for 1-4 unit buildings only, when we mostly don't build multi-units on the peninsula like that anymore. If he had graphed FAR for all construction by year, I'm certain that the 2010s-2020s would be towering (just like the buildings) over the rest of the graph. Do we even build SFH on the peninsula anymore?
Too bad he didn't get into the discussion of actually preserving heritage structures by adding a new multi-unit on the extra land (that he is complaining about) while preserving/restoring the old building that originally occupied the lot on its own.
Oh well, it's always interesting to read others' take on the planning/construction/"heritage preservation" side of things. Thanks for posting it.
Threaded Mode