Heritage Issues

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

Some of the buildings slated for demolition were evaluated as being in good shape with no water penetration in the historic resource impact assessment. Specifically the ones to be demo'd for a parking lot.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

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

This is unacceptable, we need to put our foot down and stop this. I support a redevelopment as long as it is done in a tasteful and respectful manner with the existing structure.

What are the next steps the heritage initiative society will take?

[DizzyEdge]

We'll be putting something out on social media later today, I believe you are following our FB feed, so once is comes up please share with as many people as possible, and encourage your friends to do so as well.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

We'll be putting something out on social media later today, I believe you are following our FB feed, so once is comes up please share with as many people as possible, and encourage your friends to do so as well.

Do you mean Facebook and which feed is that? Calgary Heritage Initiative Society? I would like to also follow and share.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Do you mean Facebook and which feed is that? Calgary Heritage Initiative Society? I would like to also follow and share.

Yes that's correct

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Yes that's correct

why doesn't the society put its money where its mouth is, and simply buy and/or subsidize rehab of buildings? Making others do things at their cost and/or at the cost of the public purse could be made a lot easier that way.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

why doesn't the society put its money where its mouth is, and simply buy and/or subsidize rehab of buildings? Making others do things at their cost and/or at the cost of the public purse could be made a lot easier that way.

This does indeed happen more in other provinces.

When you get down to a house level, it can be easier as grants available from the city are considerable compared to the value of a single family lot. The city has been selling historic properties they own, and putting the proceeds into a fund. When it comes to larger sites, available granting is tiny compared to potential profits from redevelopment.

In some instances the city incentivizes the demolition of historic structures. For example, if the city upzones around TODs, any historic site within that zone is now much harder to save, as it's redevelopment potential might go from another 2 story structure to an 8 story structure due to the city-led land use change.

The province has the ability to legally protect sites, but from what I can tell in 40 years they've only ever done it once. Rumour has it that in some cases the board which advises the minister of culture have unanimously recommended protection, and the minister has ignored that recommendation,

So the province has tools, but they won't use them.

The city can legally protect, but only if an owner agrees, if not the city must compensate them for 'loss of economic value'. In theory that could be higher than market value. What that means is if the city wanted to run a high way through a historic site, they would pay the owner market value, and the owner would lose the site. With the way the Heritage Act is written, they could have to pay the owner more than market value, and the owner could keep the site. It's ridiculous.

That said, forcing an owner to do anything is not a good outcome in my opinion, I'd rather there be bigger carrots, than bigger sticks.

As an example of the zoning issue. I wondered why The Annex and areas in Toronto are so stable, compared to Calgary's innercity communities. The reason is most of pre WWI toronto residential is zoned for what is there, and has a height restriction of 3 stories. So you could actually freely tear down a victorian house in the annex, but you could only replace it with another 3 story narrow house. Calgary's innercity is blanket zoned with what was formerly R-2 or higher, so again the encouragement of complete demolition of the innercity via policy, with no mechanism to exempt historic sites.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by suburbia

why doesn't the society put its money where its mouth is, and simply buy and/or subsidize rehab of buildings? Making others do things at their cost and/or at the cost of the public purse could be made a lot easier that way.

Yes, a not for profit group operating on a small budget out of a tiny office certainly must have the resources of an oil baron to buy every structure that's threatened with demolition.

[O-tacular]

This city really hasn't learned a damn thing since the 70's and 80's. A 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 parking lot!!! ARgh!!!!!

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes, a not for profit group operating on a small budget out of a tiny office certainly must have the resources of an oil baron to buy every structure that's threatened with demolition.

Well the society buying the properties would only make sense if preserving Calgary's history is only of value to the society. Basically what we do is we publicize, and encourage people to contact their political representatives. In some cases no one cares, and we lose those sites. In others there's such a flood of response, the city acts, for example the McHugh house. We started a social media campaign, and things happened very quickly on that site. That said, should the city have to buy everything they want to save.

[O-tacular]

Just looked at the map of the site again. Why the hell can't they use the acres of existing parking to the West??? 🞵🞵🞵?!?

[DizzyEdge]

Well the argument is the buildings they want to demolish are unsafe due to decades of lack of maintenance. So it's a bit of the 'demolition by neglect' method.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I wondered why The Annex and areas in Toronto are so stable, compared to Calgary's innercity communities. The reason is most of pre WWI toronto residential is zoned for what is there, and has a height restriction of 3 stories. So you could actually freely tear down a victorian house in the annex, but you could only replace it with another 3 story narrow house. Calgary's innercity is blanket zoned with what was formerly R-2 or higher, so again the encouragement of complete demolition of the innercity via policy, with no mechanism to exempt historic sites.

In summary, The Annex was built way better than most of Calgary's inner city, which it actually a low density wasteland in most cases. The irony is that most of the people who want to protect older buildings are also in favor of higher density, looking at Toronto examples as you've done above.

I'm all for protecting true heritage structures, but some of the ugly run-down stuff people jump all over really isn't worth the dirt it is built on. Not everything that is old is worthy heritage.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yes, a not for profit group operating on a small budget out of a tiny office certainly must have the resources of an oil baron to buy every structure that's threatened with demolition.

Survival of the fittest.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

In summary, The Annex was built way better than most of Calgary's inner city, which it actually a low density wasteland in most cases. The irony is that most of the people who want to protect older buildings are also in favor of higher density, looking at Toronto examples as you've done above.

I'm all for protecting true heritage structures, but some of the ugly run-down stuff people jump all over really isn't worth the dirt it is built on. Not everything that is old is worthy heritage.

Innercity single family residential Calgary is definitely built lower density that much of the similar sort of area in Toronto, and only 160 of the thousands of houses in those areas have been identified as having historic value. Yes, I am one of those people who are in favour of higher density, and want to preserve older homes, but only a tiny subset of those homes. So when it comes to historic homes, my concern is greater protection of those identified as having historic value, the other 95% I'm fine with being demolished. Old and historic aren't necessarily the same thing automatically, except perhaps if something is the oldest.

[DizzyEdge]

Articles today:

Parts of Calgary's historic Inglewood brewery set for demolition
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/02/07/par...ric-inglewood-brewery-set-for-demolition

Province approves demolition of Inglewood's historic sandstone brewery buildings
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...on-of-historic-calgary-brewery-buildings

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Articles today:

Parts of Calgary's historic Inglewood brewery set for demolition
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/02/07/par...ric-inglewood-brewery-set-for-demolition

Province approves demolition of Inglewood's historic sandstone brewery buildings
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...on-of-historic-calgary-brewery-buildings

Yep it's the 70's all over again. Hopefully other parts of Inglewood don't suffer the same fate.

Question: has the Province ever actually forced a developer to preserve a building?

[DizzyEdge]

I've heard they have once, it's one of those things which is the subject of legend it's so rare.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I've heard they have once, it's one of those things which is the subject of legend it's so rare.

Those train tracks running east-west between 9th and 10th avenues are absolutely historic. I hope they never ever get moved. The are an important part of our heritage, and I think people who want those moved are mind-less haters. They don't love Canada.

[UofC.engineer]

"The brewery site, which was placed on Heritage Canada’s top 10 list of endangered places, contains the largest collection of sandstone buildings in the city outside of Stephen Avenue."


The Architects at Matco should be so ashamed of themselves...I apologize if I offend anyone but Architecture seems like a profession where the quality of work has been in steady decline since 1945. If I was an architect I would try and retrofit as many historic buildings as possible.

Also, quick question,and please forgive my ignorance. What does a minister of culture do? What exactly is the purpose of the minister of culture if he does not want to save a cultural and historic icon?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Those train tracks running east-west between 9th and 10th avenues are absolutely historic. I hope they never ever get moved. The are an important part of our heritage, and I think people who want those moved are mind-less haters. They don't love Canada.

Every potential historic site is evaluated by the city on its own merits, or lack thereof, therefore any potential significance of one site has no bearing on any other.

That said, I'll bite at your baiting. The rail right of way is significant, so if the railway ever stopped utilizing that area, keeping some of the tracks or otherwise memorializing the historic rail right of way would be a positive thing. The use of the right of way for modern trains is not as significant, similarly to how keeping a brewery operating at the former brewery is not key.