Heritage Issues

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by SteveP

If it burned down it wouldn't be the biggest loss. It is a pretty fugly looking place.

Meh, I could take it or leave it (mostly leave it) as I don't put much stock in heritage houses, or in heritage stuff in general unless it's something nice. This house isn't nice at all.

[suburbia]

Squatters house is on fire
https://twitter.com/joshuapinter/status/1091713936330649602?s=19

[Rollerstud98]

Well I guess nobody has to worry about restoring that place now.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Squatters house is on fire
https://twitter.com/joshuapinter/status/1091713936330649602?s=19

Someone did the city a favor.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Someone did the city a favor.

Was the city going to pay to restore that place?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Squatters house is on fire
https://twitter.com/joshuapinter/status/1091713936330649602?s=19

Why is it known as the squatters house, or is that meant to be a current era description?

[suburbia]

I'm tracking some of the YYCcc discussion relating to the Enoch house, and was blow away that this (IMHO modest) building would have cost $3M to rehabilitate, a fraction of the cost of building a new one that looked and felt the same. Having seen some of the interior images such as of the kitchen cabinets, it is not like the built-ins were of a spectacular quality. I mean, the cabinets were like plywood it seemed.

While I get the sad emotions of having lost the building, I think comparing it to the Simmons mattress factory (rehab cost $4M) is unfair.

Further, as I think about the area and how it was important for character for the immediate vicinity, I wonder if there should have been a role for the local community association. To be clear, that house in that location doesn't mean as much to the entire city as it would have to the people within 3-4km radius of it - to the extent that if CMLC / the City would have given $3M to rehab that house, most Calgarians would have actually been extremely upset with tax dollars used that way.

To put a touchstone out there for my comment that the community association could have taken "some" role (if not leadership role) consider some of the vintage plane rehabilitation projects that have taken place. Most have been civil society led, with local groups taking the lead, putting in some skin, and raising funds. I could see an effort like that having been successful in getting the City to match dollars against funds provided by the org, raised from the community, and donated inkind by craftspeople.

[topdog]

Agreed. $3M to spruce up a house is a lot of money, and for what? those people who are always pushing the heritage agenda had a chance over the last 20 or so years to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is, but they didn't.

Originally Posted by suburbia

I'm tracking some of the YYCcc discussion relating to the Enoch house, and was blow away that this (IMHO modest) building would have cost $3M to rehabilitate, a fraction of the cost of building a new one that looked and felt the same. Having seen some of the interior images such as of the kitchen cabinets, it is not like the built-ins were of a spectacular quality. I mean, the cabinets were like plywood it seemed.

While I get the sad emotions of having lost the building, I think comparing it to the Simmons mattress factory (rehab cost $4M) is unfair.

Further, as I think about the area and how it was important for character for the immediate vicinity, I wonder if there should have been a role for the local community association. To be clear, that house in that location doesn't mean as much to the entire city as it would have to the people within 3-4km radius of it - to the extent that if CMLC / the City would have given $3M to rehab that house, most Calgarians would have actually been extremely upset with tax dollars used that way.

To put a touchstone out there for my comment that the community association could have taken "some" role (if not leadership role) consider some of the vintage plane rehabilitation projects that have taken place. Most have been civil society led, with local groups taking the lead, putting in some skin, and raising funds. I could see an effort like that having been successful in getting the City to match dollars against funds provided by the org, raised from the community, and donated inkind by craftspeople.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by topdog

Agreed. $3M to spruce up a house is a lot of money, and for what? those people who are always pushing the heritage agenda had a chance over the last 20 or so years to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is, but they didn't.

QR77 had a segment on this topic this afternoon. CMLC said that the owners never applied for heritage status and it sounds like neither did they when they bought it. So why are some including the press making it sound like this was a heritage building when it wasn't? Like you said, groups had decades to do something about this building but they did nothing. Time to move on.

[suburbia]

I suspect the CMLC didn't apply for Heritage status because the building was beyond the point of repair and didn't meet the maintenance threshold for the Heritage committee. They could have applied for status had it been rehabbed.

Personally, I don't think status makes a difference. What is annoying though is that the people who wanted to keep it and get it fixed up didn't actually step up and put skin in the game. We can move on from a development perspective, however, this is a good case study for future.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I suspect the CMLC didn't apply for Heritage status because the building was beyond the point of repair and didn't meet the maintenance threshold for the Heritage committee. They could have applied for status had it been rehabbed.

Personally, I don't think status makes a difference. What is annoying though is that the people who wanted to keep it and get it fixed up didn't actually step up and put skin in the game. We can move on from a development perspective, however, this is a good case study for future.

CMLC bought the place about four years ago and screwed around too long.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

CMLC bought the place about four years ago and screwed around too long.

It was already in horrendous shape by that point.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

It was already in horrendous shape by that point.

They still bought it though and their plan was to restore it.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

They still bought it though and their plan was to restore it.

They had to buy it one way or another. The land is valuable no matter how you cut it. It is like marrying for money, and then realizing that just means your new spouse is going to be expensive. But if you can hang in there without buying too many expensive ridiculous gifts the financial balance could work out in your favour.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I'm tracking some of the YYCcc discussion relating to the Enoch house, and was blow away that this (IMHO modest) building would have cost $3M to rehabilitate, a fraction of the cost of building a new one that looked and felt the same.

What's the point of building replicas and then calling it a 'heritage building' while it's showcasing 2019 handiwork?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by topdog

Agreed. $3M to spruce up a house is a lot of money, and for what? those people who are always pushing the heritage agenda had a chance over the last 20 or so years to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is, but they didn't.

That seems like a weird angle. "Oh you want libraries? buy your own books". "Oh you want a park? Buy your own vacant lot".

I agree if I wanted to be able to exclude the public from a historic site then yes I should buy it myself.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

QR77 had a segment on this topic this afternoon. CMLC said that the owners never applied for heritage status and it sounds like neither did they when they bought it. So why are some including the press making it sound like this was a heritage building when it wasn't? Like you said, groups had decades to do something about this building but they did nothing. Time to move on.

I think there's two things being combined here.
Heritage status, or determining that a site is a historic resources is a process done by the Calgary Heritage Authority who orders professional research done to and then a site is added to the Calgary Inventory of Historic Resouces.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Heritage-planning/Inventory-of-evaluated-historic-resources.aspx

That's what determines if a building is officially a 'historic resource' and the site has been on that list for at least a decade, if not two.

Legal protection or Heritage Designation happens if an owner asks the city to protect a site they own, that is also on that Inventory.
Sometimes (maybe often) an owner that is intending to do a restoration will designate after it's completed, to cut down on red tape during the process.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

CMLC bought the place about four years ago and screwed around too long.

Originally Posted by suburbia

It was already in horrendous shape by that point.

It's honestly not fair to blame CMLC, the city screwed around on the file for 20 years, the building was in way better shape then. This result was completely unsurprising.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

What's the point of building replicas and then calling it a 'heritage building' while it's showcasing 2019 handiwork?

There was hardly a thread of the original handiwork in there, and frankly speaking, the original handiwork was modest at best when new. This was not a possibility for heritage status because of primo workmanship, but rather because of age and some arguable elements of interesting history.

I'm not against heritage, but in this case, this structure had lost its soul decades ago. It was just a shell of its former self.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

There was hardly a thread of the original handiwork in there, and frankly speaking, the original handiwork was modest at best when new. This was not a possibility for heritage status because of primo workmanship, but rather because of age and some arguable elements of interesting history.

I'm not against heritage, but in this case, this structure had lost its soul decades ago. It was just a shell of its former self.

I just mean that 'faking' heritage is not something I support. If it was between replication or demolition I would probably prefer the money went to rehab other 'real' sites rather than replication of one.

Years ago the Herald did a survey of "send us pics of heritage sites which are important to you" or something of that nature and more than one person sent in the Barley Mill in Eau Claire, fooled into thinking it was part of Calgary's history even though it was probably 10 years old at the time. I would prefer to not sow even more confusion.