Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire
-----------------------------------------------------
Restoring a building lies with the will of the developer and the council of the day. All of the structures that fall into the category of these row houses potentially can be wiped out by any hosts of excuses.
In terms of renovating, any building can be restored. Here is a link for the restoration of St . George's round church on Brunswick St. that was over 75% destroyed by fire.
http://www.timberhart.com/pages/timberframersstgeorgesanglican.html
In this case you had an owner with the will to make it happen. No one disagrees that it is more economical to demolish a building and start over. This has been the practice in Halifax for the most part for the last forty years. Halifax has/had some very unique architecture and it is a feature that makes it a great city even for the people who don't appreciate it. Someone has to start recognising the importance of the architecture we have and this casual attitude of let's get rid of it because it's not up to code needs some rework. The common issue I hear for vacant buildings is that they are unsafe and homeless people are living in them. Ironically the homeless people are no doubt safer in a vacant building than on the street. The cry comes from developers who want to demolish the building instead of preserving it and seems to find great acceptance with our city planning machine. |
Nobody said to destroy buildings because they are not up to code, I said that many of these building are destroyed by fire because they aren't built to current fire codes. This is more a question of technology not ideology.
Personally, I think there are many buildings that have been lost over the years that should have been kept. Many publicly owned buildings could have been kept and maintained. For example, the Public Gardens Skating Rink built around 1860; if it had been kept then it would be a great attraction - the oldest covered skating rink in Canada. However, 100 - 120 years ago when it was demolished, residents probably just considered it to be an old, unattractive building.
There have to be very appealing tax incentives in order for people to buy and maintain old homes. I lived in and owned a 1930's home and the electrical wiring was inadequate, the single washroom was inadequate, it was poorly insulated, and the basement wall had severe efflorescence. I spent many hours of work fixing it up and lost money when I sold it.
The owners of these old homes are the ones who have to keep them maintained and bring them up to fire safety codes so they won't burn down or simply fall apart from old age. Since any owner will likely lose money on the restoration, how do you find enough owners who like old homes enough that they will fix them up and then probably lose money when they sell them?
Prev
).
Linear Mode
