Quote:
Originally Posted by quobobo
Even if the property is heritage-designated (which is not the same as being on the heritage register)?
My reading of the heritage designation page is that property owners need to apply for a heritage alteration permit for major changes, and the City could turn them down.
|
We're getting a bit of a way away from old photographs, but you're quite correct to identify the difference. The term 'heritage' gets thrown around here sometimes without any understanding of the nuances. There are old buildings - like the small 2-storey commercial building on one 100 block of main that was recently demolished for a new rental project.
Someone said that heritage buildings like that shouldn't be demolished, but it wasn't a heritage building (in that it wasn't on the heritage register), and to save it, and designate it would have required compensation through a bonus of space that might not have been practical and probably not economically warranted in that case. The City would have considered whether there was any great loss involved to the overall stock of remaining heritage buildings - presumably they concluded that it wasn't warranted in that case.
For buildings that are on the Heritage register, they can still get torn down. They come in 'A', 'B' and 'C' classifications. One recent example of an 'A' being demolished was the Legg mansion on Harwood - now redeveloped as the curvy Bing Thom designed tower.
The only 'protected' buildings are those with a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) - a legally binding agreement negotiated by the City and an owner of heritage property. There aren't as many of those, and there's no legislative basis for the City to impose such an agreement; it has to be agreed by the owner. In some places in the world it doesn't work that way, but the City of Vancouver has to work from the Vancouver Charter, and the Province has to agree to any changes. The recent heritage conservation area established in First Shaughnessy identified a list of buildings that are protected, where not all owners agreed. That's a very new change, and it could still get tested in the courts.