Heritage Issues - Page 22

UofC.engineer · #**421** Posted **Feb 3, 2015, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trans Canada

(@UofC.engineer - site doesn't work for me

)

Source http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/eau-claire-arp.pdf p40 (54 in pdf)

Thanks for posting, it is criminal that some architectural gems in Calgary were torn down and replaced by 🞵🞵🞵🞵 or parking lots.

I'll try and find the EV link again.

Update: It appears the website has been taken down.

Airboy · #**422** Posted **Feb 3, 2015, 5:59 PM**

I did some consulting work on some issue that arose during construction of La Caille, I recall the restaurant being part of the construction.

O-tacular · #**423** Posted **Feb 3, 2015, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

To me that looks like apiece of dung.

You clearly have no appreciation for Art Deco then except for maybe obvious examples like the Chrysler building.

speedog · #**424** Posted **Feb 3, 2015, 6:12 PM**

Not a expert on building style by any means, but this building is certainly unique and part of an almost non-existent style anymore in Calgary - worth saving or not? Google Streetview link.

DizzyEdge · #**425** Posted **Feb 3, 2015, 10:14 PM**

I actually like that too, although it took a while to grow on me.
I hear it's going to be demo'd though.

As for the Elliott, it falls into a category that happens all too often in Calgary:
It's not a great example of the style, but it's all we have left.
Or in the case of Art Deco, we didn't have much to begin with.

lineman · #**426** Posted **Feb 3, 2015, 10:28 PM**

The Elliot looks more Bauhaus to me.

O-tacular · #**427** Posted **Feb 3, 2015, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lineman

The Elliot looks more Bauhaus to me.

I can see that a little bit but it definitely has art deco influence. The main entrance in particular and the sign look very Art Deco.

suburbia · #**428** Posted **Feb 3, 2015, 11:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I can see that a little bit but it definitely has art deco influence. The main entrance in particular and the sign look very Art Deco.

It is also quite ugly.

Can't compare that to the Chrysler building!

Chadillaccc · #**429** Posted **Feb 4, 2015, 6:38 AM**

Wow looking at the last couple of pages, makes me sad. Calgary used to have such good historic bones. I mean, if Yonge Street in Toronto could manage to stay mostly intact through the 70s-90s "urban renewal", why couldn't our stuff? Bleh!

Chadillaccc · #**430** Posted **Feb 4, 2015, 7:14 AM**

Why does literally everything have to go wrong with heritage in this city?

Literally the only treasures that haven't been either destroyed or mutilated are the Palliser, Grain Exchange, Lancaster Building, Lougheed Building, Public Building, Burns Building, and Hudson's Bay Block.

We have lost...

and countless other buildings downtown...

The fact that the city has allowed one of the last heritage buildings in the EV to be torn down (the building that housed The Calgary Eagle [gay bar]) and is considering tearing down the Cecil as well as the Brewery shows just how far we have yet to go to save the little bit of heritage we have left. Even the Barron Building has been mutilated with the Uptown Theatre being torn out of it, and is on the books to be sterilized into a stoic glass corporate nightmare with barely any public interest value other than the pretty and unique central part of the facade. It just 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 I guess, but had to vent.

Rant over.

dazzlingdave88 · #**431** Posted **Feb 4, 2015, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Why does literally everything have to go wrong with heritage in this city?

Literally the only treasures that haven't been either destroyed or mutilated are the Palliser, Grain Exchange, Lancaster Building, Lougheed Building, Public Building, Burns Building, and Hudson's Bay Block.

We have lost...

Think of the flip-side to this argument:

With heritage property people tend to think with emotions, not logic. It also becomes a snowball effect. First you start with 100 properties, then you add another 100 properties, and so on...... People have a hard time drawing the line.

That means all those properties (usually located in the inner city) cannot be developed. You could enforce that developers require the heritage building be included in new development, but that makes it too pricey for much of the development.

Who pays the upkeep for these buildings? When I lived in England, I remembering hearing a report the English Heritage spent 100 million pounds (over $200 million) a year of taxes on their 400 heritage properties in all of England.

Don't get me wrong.... I love having some of our heritage around, but there are definitely some valid reasons to not keep everything.

Also, It's not often I agree with Surburbia, but I don't think there is a need to keep that building. I'm guessing that the majority of the public would not find it aesthetically pleasing.

MalcolmTucker · #**432** Posted **Feb 4, 2015, 4:08 PM**

Other places can protect 10% of buildings that were well built originally and seem to be chock full of heritage buildings. Calgary can keep 10% and it seems like almost nothing at all. It is easy to forget the growth curve of Calgary is really different.

UofC.engineer · #**433** Posted **Feb 4, 2015, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Other places can protect 10% of buildings that were well built originally and seem to be chock full of heritage buildings. Calgary can keep 10% and it seems like almost nothing at all. It is easy to forget the growth curve of Calgary is really different.

True, in 1930 Calgary only had 80,000 people while places like Portland and Winnipeg and 300,000 and 200,000 people.

With that in mind should try and protect our few heritage buildings more aggressively.

Any updates on the Brewery site??? I contacted the city over Christmas when the zoning changed and they said they would keep me informed, so far I have heard nothing but maybe the wheels in city hall are turning slowly on this site.

DizzyEdge · #**434** Posted **Feb 4, 2015, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

True, in 1930 Calgary only had 80,000 people while places like Portland and Winnipeg and 300,000 and 200,000 people.

With that in mind should try and protect our few heritage buildings more aggressively.

Any updates on the Brewery site??? I contacted the city over Christmas when the zoning changed and they said they would keep me informed, so far I have heard nothing but maybe the wheels in city hall are turning slowly on this site.

A number of stakeholders and the community association are meeting with the land owners tonight to see if we can discourage them to simply bulldoze the oldest parts into a parking lot.

DizzyEdge · #**435** Posted **Feb 4, 2015, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazzlingdave88

Think of the flip-side to this argument:

With heritage property people tend to think with emotions, not logic. It also becomes a snowball effect. First you start with 100 properties, then you add another 100 properties, and so on...... People have a hard time drawing the line.

That means all those properties (usually located in the inner city) cannot be developed. You could enforce that developers require the heritage building be included in new development, but that makes it too pricey for much of the development.

Who pays the upkeep for these buildings? When I lived in England, I remembering hearing a report the English Heritage spent 100 million pounds (over $200 million) a year of taxes on their 400 heritage properties in all of England.

Don't get me wrong.... I love having some of our heritage around, but there are definitely some valid reasons to not keep everything.

Also, It's not often I agree with Surburbia, but I don't think there is a need to keep that building. I'm guessing that the majority of the public would not find it aesthetically pleasing.

Thing is, is anyone ever arguing to keep everything?

in 1912 Calgary had about 50,000 people. Currently there are 423 buildings on the heritage inventory built between 1875 and 1912, and only 59 have legal protection. So keeping almost nothing is more the trend.

UofC.engineer · #**436** Posted **Feb 4, 2015, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

A number of stakeholders and the community association are meeting with the land owners tonight to see if we can discourage them to simply bulldoze the oldest parts into a parking lot.

Please let us know how it turns out.

DizzyEdge · #**437** Posted **Feb 5, 2015, 1:33 AM**

The Minister of Culture has released the demolition hold on the oldest buildings on the brewery site.

Chadillaccc · #**438** Posted **Feb 5, 2015, 3:19 AM**

By released, you mean they are going to allow the demolition?

suburbia · #**439** Posted **Feb 5, 2015, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

The Minister of Culture has released the demolition hold on the oldest buildings on the brewery site.

I heard they were really unstable and recovery was not plausible.

If some people want to protect some of the derelict structures, they should simply buy them.

DizzyEdge · #**440** Posted **Feb 5, 2015, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

By released, you mean they are going to allow the demolition?

Yes.