Heritage Issues

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by fusili

How about, tax people and use that revenue to build housing?

Works too, but doesn't solve the problem of concentration or community resistance to concentrated solutions. i.e. resistance to a whole building of transitional or low income housing.

Note: I not attempting to justify NIMBY behavior in relation to this projects, but we need to find solutions that prevent the problem in the first place.

[googspecial]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Too bad they let the Cecil rot, I would have liked to see it turned into transitional housing for DI residents and a drug and alcohol treatment centre.

Yeah this is more what I meant - I said "expansion" and that seemed to upset some people...

Even though the lot is in such a prime location, I can't imagine it being much else if were developed into residential. I suppose retail &/or office could work on that block also... I would just like to see the block filled out at the same height and continuing the shape of the current DI building.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Works too, but doesn't solve the problem of concentration or community resistance to concentrated solutions. i.e. resistance to a whole building of transitional or low income housing.

Note: I not attempting to justify NIMBY behavior in relation to this projects, but we need to find solutions that prevent the problem in the first place.

I think the opposite. Inclusionary zoning means that it will only be in areas where new development occurs, further bolstering NIMBY opposition to development. Sure, have it as a density bonus, but also make cash-in-lieu an option.

Also, I would rather tender an entire building to one specification (i.e. fixtures, floors, countertops, cabinets, etc), then do two. Just give the cash to the municipal government for them to build their own projects.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Works too, but doesn't solve the problem of concentration or community resistance to concentrated solutions. i.e. resistance to a whole building of transitional or low income housing.

Note: I not attempting to justify NIMBY behavior in relation to this projects, but we need to find solutions that prevent the problem in the first place.

Inclusion-airy zoning is ok as a zoning tool, but forcing the developer to pay is a massive distortionairy tax that should be spread out amongst everyone. Why should a family buying a new starter home pay, but someone living in a Mount Royal mansion not?

[DizzyEdge]

I would have liked to see a bit of the facade retained/restored (I really think the structure as a whole was not viable),and am happy the sign will be retained/restored.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Issue: Two homeless shelters in East Village concentrate homeless people in one area generating higher levels of vagrancy and a feeling of unsafety for the colder months of the year.

Why is this an issue? You guys are all about density and vibrancy, and land-uses that bring more people to the street-scape. Why would density case feelings of unsafety for the colder months?

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Why is this an issue? You guys are all about density and vibrancy, and land-uses that bring more people to the street-scape. Why would density case feelings of unsafety for the colder months?

That's the problem, besides the homeless, no one is around in winter time. Hopefully when the new Simmons building and the move-in's happening this changes quickly.

[DizzyEdge]

There is a LUA going in on the Wesley Church / Aratta Opera Centre site, to go from a Direct Control (where the entertainment venue use was added) to a CC-MH where the opera centre will be a non-confirming use. CPC is recommending approval since density transfer cannot be done from a DC site, but can be done from a CC-MH site, even though the added density of CC-MH does actually add future incentive to demolish while also allowing the ability to transfer at the same time.

The site has Provincial protection, but it's the weaker "send us a letter and if you don't hear back in 90 days assume we don't care" category.

Info on the 1911 church

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/PD/Pages/Herit...Calgary-resources.aspx?dhcResourceId=149


calgary.ca

It's kind of bizarre to me that any innercity church would need a DC to allow theatrical/live music uses.

[DizzyEdge]

1911-1914 fire insurance map composite of downtown calgary




15mb, very unlikely you'll be able to open in your browser, so right click and save
http://www.calgaryheritage.org/images/CalgaryFireInsurance1911-1914(Downtown).jpg

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

1911-1914 fire insurance map composite of downtown calgary


15mb, very unlikely you'll be able to open in your browser, so right click and save
http://www.calgaryheritage.org/images/CalgaryFireInsurance1911-1914(Downtown).jpg

Thanks for posting Dizzy! I love maps, but old maps are even better.

It's crazy how much of downtown use to be single family houses. There are also many hotels I never knew existed...Dominion Hotel, Windsor Hotel, Palace Hotel, Victoria Hotel, Empire Hotel, Yale Hotel, Grand Central Hotel, Alexandra Hotel, Queens Hotel, Imperial Hotel and Grand Union hotel.

[DizzyEdge]

Yeah, in a vague sense where office towers are now were sfh

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Thanks for posting Dizzy! I love maps, but old maps are even better.

It's crazy how much of downtown use to be single family houses. There are also many hotels I never knew existed...Dominion Hotel, Windsor Hotel, Palace Hotel, Victoria Hotel, Empire Hotel, Yale Hotel, Grand Central Hotel, Alexandra Hotel, Queens Hotel, Imperial Hotel and Grand Union hotel.

we did lose a lot of hotels. The big losses were the blocks the Convention Centre/Glenbow are on, we lost entire blocks of activity there.

As for the hotels, they were of varying quality, there are a few though that we should have kept:

Carlton/King George hotel (Demolished 1978)


http://peel.library.ualberta.ca


http://peel.library.ualberta.ca


http://cdm15098.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p280501coll7

Hotel Alexandra (Demolished 1980)


https://yycpennydreadful.files.wordpress.com


http://cdm15098.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p280501coll7

[DizzyEdge]

Cleaned up that Livery stable would have made a cool downtown market.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Cleaned up that Livery stable would have made a cool downtown market.

Or a bar called The Livery.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Or a bar called The Livery.

[DizzyEdge]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...s-about-protection-of-historic-buildings

Little Eau Claire smokestack raising big questions about protection of historic buildings

TOM BABIN, CALGARY HERALD
More from Tom Babin, Calgary Herald
Published on: January 12, 2016 | Last Updated: January 12, 2016 9:24 AM MS



When is an old smokestack more than just an old smokestack? When it becomes a symbol of the way the city protects its heritage buildings, according to some Calgarians.

Amid the recent debate over the proposal to redevelop Eau Claire was a pitch to move the area’s 27-metre-tall brick smokestack to a different nearby location because it didn’t fit into the proposed project. Most city councillors didn’t see a problem with that in a recent vote. The director of the downtown business revitalization zone likes the idea. Calgarians don’t seem to mind either, because 80 per cent of those surveyed supported the plan to move it.

The problem is that it isn’t just any old smokestack. It dates back to 1947 when the area was a gritty industrial riverside site, rather than today’s playground for well-heeled downtown lunchers. The smokestack served the Calgary Transit garages that sat on the site until 1988, and it is the last connection to an industrial past that includes the nearby Eau Claire lumber mill.

The Eau Claire smokestack dates back to the Calgary Transit bus barns that once sat on the site.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is that the smokestack is a designated municipal historic resource. That 2008 designation means it’s protected from, among other things, relocation. This is what has proponents of heritage protection worried. If the Eau Claire proposal is accepted and the smokestack moved, the protection designation would have to be rescinded.

That’s begging the question in the minds of some people: what good is heritage protection if it can just be stripped when it becomes inconvenient?

more: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...s-about-protection-of-historic-buildings

[milomilo]

I don't see a problem moving it at all - it's not as if there is any context to it now anyway.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't see a problem moving it at all - it's not as if there is any context to it now anyway.

Did you read the article? The problem doesn't really have anything to do with the stack, it's that it's a legally protected historic site, and if that can be stripped at will due to the item being inconvenient to the owner, that argument could easily be applied to every protected site in the city. It could destroy legal protection in Calgary.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Did you read the article? The problem doesn't really have anything to do with the stack, it's that it's a legally protected historic site, and if that can be stripped at will due to the item being inconvenient to the owner, that argument could easily be applied to every protected site in the city. It could destroy legal protection in Calgary.

Yeah I did, perhaps we do need to look at the law then to allow relocation in certain circumstances.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah I did, perhaps we do need to look at the law then to allow relocation in certain circumstances.

It's tricky, because international and national standards indicate that moved historic resources lose enough value that they should not be designated. I personally have issues with that restrictiveness (and besides, even if that were true, a site that has its historic clock reset to 0 after a move could then again be deemed historic in it's new location in 50-75 yrs)

Also I don't think it's a coincidence that none of the sites at Heritage Park are even on the city's inventory of historic resources due to having been moved to the burbs.

Anyway, it's a big problem. I suspect what might happen is if the stack is moved, it will not have its protection re-applied. That still leaves the issue of it being stripped so easily in the first place.

I think at a minimum I would like to see something from the owner that is a positive for heritage preservation in exchange.

Also what might not be clear is to move a stack you'd have to demolish it, then build a new stack with the same bricks, plus new bricks to replace the ones that were damaged. It's been estimated the newly built stack would need 10-20% of it's bricks to be new.

I respect the argument that the area is so different that the original context has been lost. But I think in addition to "this is how things were a century ago" historic sites like Stephen Avenue, there's also value in "this is the last remnant of how things used to be" historic sites like the stack.

Lastly, they would also be moving the un-protected Eau Claire lumber office (1886 Cafe) which is also on its original location.