Quote:
Originally Posted by pierremoncton
Schedule B lists those two houses (83 & 87-93 Botsford).
Section 8 of the bylaw states that a house can't be demolished without first attempting to sell it at a fair market price. Further conditions under sections 9 & 10.
On top of that, section 5 states that replacing a house that's a part of schedule B requires that the new development draw its design inspiration form one of the prevalent architectural styles of buildings located within the Preservation Area, and that it must use the same traditional materials and detailing as originally found on existing buildings of the same style within the Preservation Area.
I hardly see how that new building is reminiscent of the late 19th or early 20th century. I assume the city is asleep at the wheel.
|
So which properties are worthy of preservation for posterity?
This is the great challenge faced by all those individuals interested in historic preservation, while at the same time worried about stifling growth and preventing renewal in the urban core.
All conscientious North American cities (at least those in the east with histories going back more than 200 years) are trying to grapple with this issue. Basically, you can't preserve everything. If you do, you just drive growth to the periphery of the city and this will eventually hollow out the core. At the same time, it is vitally important that we preserve our built heritage as it is an important component of who we are. It reminds us of where we came from and contributes greatly to the character of our community.
A balance needs to be struck......
Individual properties should be preserved if the buildings can be proven to have historical merit, or if they are outstanding examples of the architectural form of their era. The Thomas Williams House downtown is an excellent example of this. A case can also be made where in some circumstances, entire neighbourhoods should be preserved if the streetscape is particularly historic or meritorious. A good example of this would be the neighbourhood around Victoria Park downtown. This neighbourhood is an exemplary example of early 20th century downtown residential architecture and is nicely complemented by the Victoria Park itself. The streetscape in this neighbourhood is very attractive and should be preserved at nearly all costs. If new construction in this neighbourhood is permitted, then it should very definitely complement the existing style of the street.
The case for 83 Botsford Street however is not so clear. This house, although considered a heritage property, is not really an outstanding exemplar of the period it was constructed and, to my knowledge, does not have any particular historical merit. The need to preserve this property therefore is relative rather than absolute.
The developer needs this property to consolidate enough land for his proposed development to proceed. The development in question has the elements that the city wishes to see in other future downtown projects, namely a street presence with ground level retail/commercial and upper level residential units. This type of development allows for downtown commercial growth and at the same time provides for the residential base to help support and nurture these new commercial enterprises. This type of project, if replicated throughout the core, allows people greater opportunities to live close to their places of employment, and would encourage walking rather than commuting. A vibrant downtown core would naturally follow from this trend.
In essence, I am saying that heritage laws shouldn't be obstructive, and should instead be applied in a judicious manner so that the best of our built heritage should be preserved, while at the same time new projects with merit are allowed to proceed. This is a fine balance to try to maintain, but if Moncton gets it right, we could have a truly spectacular downtown in 50 years time......
Prev
Linear Mode
