Heritage Issues

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

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.

Frankly, there was little left of the original remaining anyway, not only after being converted into a rooming house for eight borders in 1941, but further after the rooming house configuration was changed to make it into apartments.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Frankly, there was little left of the original remaining anyway, not only after being converted into a rooming house for eight borders in 1941, but further after the rooming house configuration was changed to make it into apartments.

Ok? I'm responding to comments about replication.
As bad at the Sales house was, far worse sites are regularly restored.

[suburbia]

Insides of the Enoch Sales House from four years ago, via Avenue:

https://www.avenuecalgary.com/city-life/inside-the-enoch-sales-house/

I don't see much there that reflects exceptional 1904 craftsmanship.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Insides of the Enoch Sales House from four years ago, via Avenue:

https://www.avenuecalgary.com/city-life/inside-the-enoch-sales-house/


I don't see much there that reflects exceptional 1904 craftsmanship.

Did anyone mention anything about exceptional 1904 craftsmanship? Particularly in reference to the interior? You create false narratives in order to more easily argue with them. Very weak troll game.

Also


www.urbanghostsmedia.com



The state of affairs in those photos are nothing.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

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.

The rep (head guy?) from CMLC that was interviewed said he accepts responsibility for not getting this project done earlier which is why I blamed them. I'd like to know what made that building worthy of preservation. If it had historical significance then the city and/or province should have done something decades ago to preserve it.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The rep (head guy?) from CMLC that was interviewed said he accepts responsibility for not getting this project done earlier which is why I blamed them. I'd like to know what made that building worthy of preservation. If it had historical significance then the city and/or province should have done something decades ago to preserve it.

And I respect him for doing so, but it's really a long mismanagement.

Here's the report on the historical nature of the site.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Herit...Calgary-resources.aspx?dhcResourceId=461

In a nutshell after the loss of almost all evidence that East Victoria Park was once a residential community, that house was the most architecturally interesting one remaining, but also for other reasons as detailed in the report.

"If it had historical significance then the city and/or province should have done something decades ago to preserve it.".

I agree, particularly since 10 years ago the 3 million dollar restoration budget might have been significantly less.

In general, the province isn't interested in sites unless they have provincial significance, and particularly where a municipality has it's own heritage planners and budget. Maybe if it was in small hamlet they might get more involved directly.

The province has the ability to essentially wave a magic wand and legally protect a site, without providing the owner compensation, but have only done so maybe 3 times in 20 years, and again only on provincially relevant sites.**

The city can also do the same, but in their case they must "compensate the owner for loss of economic value".

In both cases it's almost irrelevant because the last feasible plan from a few years ago was to simply move the house one lot over onto city property, freeing up the land for full redevelopment potential by the private owner. But again, it never happened, there simply wasn't political will or just general indifference.


**I like that these 'sticks' exist, but I am not comfortable with them being used except in greatly destructive circumstances (Say a developer bought all of the historical buildings on Stephen Ave and planned to tear a bunch of them down.) Far better to have a full array of bonuses, tax credits, etc.

[DizzyEdge]

The thing I'm happy with is the discussions happening now are not simply " oh no the house!" but an examination on how inaction of this sort causes this sort of destruction or increases the price of sites that do end up being restored. As well we're damned lucky there weren't multiple fatalities.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

www.urbanghostsmedia.com



The state of affairs in those photos are nothing.

Detroit's Lucien Moore House is spectacular. A much larger, older and more prestigious property than the Enoch Sales House. It was purchased and rehabilitated privately by Michael VanOverbeke and a business partner. The home has six apartment suites and three more in the home's carriage houses. Nearly 12,000 square feet of space in main house and carriage houses!

Interestingly, the rehabilitation of the Lucien Moore House, much older, much grander, and much more ornate than the Enoch Sales House, cost about $2M in private funds -> making sense for a property that is much larger and brings in nine-rents. In any case, a great example of private enterprise doing these things.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2016/04/05/rebuilt-detroit-mansion-selling-33m/82664066/

Each of the nine apartments rent for about $1,500 US / month:
http://midtowndetroitinc.org/live/rent/the-edmund

[Bad Grizzly]

I agree with the others, while the Enoch House may have been old and had some history behind it, it was hardly worth spending the kind of money needed to restore it. It was barely a shell of anything. Might as well try and restore a piece of driftwood.

What surprises me the most about the whole thing is how many people are complaining about the loss and how nobody did anything. HELLO, wake the fuck up...those same complainers could have easily stepped up to the plate and walked the talk and it would have been restored a long time ago, but instead would rather have others pay for it.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

I agree with the others, while the Enoch House may have been old and had some history behind it, it was hardly worth spending the kind of money needed to restore it. It was barely a shell of anything. Might as well try and restore a piece of driftwood.

I mean that's basically a nonsensical comment being that the CMLC had already come up with numbers to do the restoration.

What surprises me the most about the whole thing is how many people are complaining about the loss and how nobody did anything. HELLO, wake the fuck up...those same complainers could have easily stepped up to the plate and walked the talk and it would have been restored a long time ago, but instead would rather have others pay for it.

It really just depends on your values. We as society have in general decided that items for the public good don't need to rely on generous benefactors. We don't ask "complainers" to build their own schools, buy their own parks, build their own roads, buy their own rec centers and community swimming pools. I include retaining our own architectural history in that list of public good items.

That said if the move had been done as planned there could have been a lot of different ways to fund the restoration.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

And I respect him for doing so, but it's really a long mismanagement.

Here's the report on the historical nature of the site.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Herit...Calgary-resources.aspx?dhcResourceId=461

In a nutshell after the loss of almost all evidence that East Victoria Park was once a residential community, that house was the most architecturally interesting one remaining, but also for other reasons as detailed in the report.

"If it had historical significance then the city and/or province should have done something decades ago to preserve it.".

I agree, particularly since 10 years ago the 3 million dollar restoration budget might have been significantly less.

In general, the province isn't interested in sites unless they have provincial significance, and particularly where a municipality has it's own heritage planners and budget. Maybe if it was in small hamlet they might get more involved directly.

The province has the ability to essentially wave a magic wand and legally protect a site, without providing the owner compensation, but have only done so maybe 3 times in 20 years, and again only on provincially relevant sites.**

The city can also do the same, but in their case they must "compensate the owner for loss of economic value".

In both cases it's almost irrelevant because the last feasible plan from a few years ago was to simply move the house one lot over onto city property, freeing up the land for full redevelopment potential by the private owner. But again, it never happened, there simply wasn't political will or just general indifference.


**I like that these 'sticks' exist, but I am not comfortable with them being used except in greatly destructive circumstances (Say a developer bought all of the historical buildings on Stephen Ave and planned to tear a bunch of them down.) Far better to have a full array of bonuses, tax credits, etc.

The CMLC guy said that the U.S. has much better incentives for preserving and restoring historical buildings and I think he said Toronto has a program as well.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The CMLC guy said that the U.S. has much better incentives for preserving and restoring historical buildings and I think he said Toronto has a program as well.

The US has had restoration tax credits for 30 or so years, leading to 41,000+ properties being restored and leading to a net positive of over $5 billion to the US Treasury. A way better method.

A similar one-off was done with the Lougheed building, where it had a, 10? yr tax assessment freeze, so if restored and protected it would remain at its dilapidated tax assessment value for 10 years before being reassessed. Also a great method since it doesn't actually involve the city spending anything and they get a better downtown site afterwards.

Rejected by the Liberal government, although they do have a point about only making budget decisions during budget time rather than via peititions.

So there's lots of ways to handle this that are better than it was handled.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I mean that's basically a nonsensical comment being that the CMLC had already come up with numbers to do the restoration.



It really just depends on your values. We as society have in general decided that items for the public good don't need to rely on generous benefactors. We don't ask "complainers" to build their own schools, buy their own parks, build their own roads, buy their own rec centers and community swimming pools. I include retaining our own architectural history in that list of public good items.

That said if the move had been done as planned there could have been a lot of different ways to fund the restoration.

If we're going to designate a property as a historic site/building then we should have a fund to help maintain it until any necessary work is completed and/or provide tax incentives for the owner to do so. The current system clearly isn't working so it's time to fix it. At the same time we need to tighten up the definition of what makes a heritage building/site. Just because something is old doesn't make it significant. If people want to save a building just because it's old then let them buy the property and fund the restoration work.

[Bad Grizzly]

What a nonsensical comment. Schools, roads etc aren't 'nice to haves' but rather 'need to haves'. There is a difference. Parks and rec centres? yeah they are nice to haves to, but there is only so much money to go around and far more people want those nice to haves. A 30' statue made of perogies is probably a nice to have for some people, but those people need to pay for it themselves.

Retaining our architectural history is a 'nice to have' and a great pet project for left wing libtards who don't mind spending other people's money. Best to keep it to a few important projects, and not any old heap of wood.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

It really just depends on your values. We as society have in general decided that items for the public good don't need to rely on generous benefactors. We don't ask "complainers" to build their own schools, buy their own parks, build their own roads, buy their own rec centers and community swimming pools. I include retaining our own architectural history in that list of public good items.

That said if the move had been done as planned there could have been a lot of different ways to fund the restoration.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

If we're going to designate a property as a historic site/building then we should have a fund to help maintain it until any necessary work is completed and/or provide tax incentives for the owner to do so. The current system clearly isn't working so it's time to fix it. At the same time we need to tighten up the definition of what makes a heritage building/site. Just because something is old doesn't make it significant. If people want to save a building just because it's old then let them buy the property and fund the restoration work.

Keep in mind that only about 0.06% of homes in Calgary have been added to the list, so it's not like there will ever be thousands. Having good tax credits would greatly offload the burden onto private owners which is a positive as well.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

What a nonsensical comment. Schools, roads etc aren't 'nice to haves' but rather 'need to haves'. There is a difference. Parks and rec centres? yeah they are nice to haves to, but there is only so much money to go around and far more people want those nice to haves. A 30' statue made of perogies is probably a nice to have for some people, but those people need to pay for it themselves.

Retaining our architectural history is a 'nice to have' and a great pet project for left wing libtards who don't mind spending other people's money. Best to keep it to a few important projects, and not any old heap of wood.

I'm really enjoying that you just called preservation of history a left-wing libtard ideal.

I guess the more ignorant of one's own history the more of a right wing ideal that is?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Keep in mind that only about 0.06% of homes in Calgary have been added to the list, so it's not like there will ever be thousands. Having good tax credits would greatly offload the burden onto private owners which is a positive as well.

That's a sad statistic, but at the same time, is likely as much or more about the city being rather new, and many of the original structures of the city having been prairie settler shacks. Forget European or Asian cities, Calgary doesn't even register in this category when comparing to places in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario, and likely also British Columbia.

Anyway - just so you know Dizzy, and I'm repeating myself here, that I do think heritage is important. It is just that our threshold shouldn't be reduced because 0.06% of homes in the city are on the list and we'd like to say 0.1% or whatever. There needs to be merit, history and economic sustainability (and the Detroit example you brought out reinforced the latter). Further, it would be good to convince civil society to get involved and even take the lead. I suspect on this last point you agree, but it doesn't come up because fact is, there are not many if any success stories there.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

That's a sad statistic, but at the same time, is likely as much or more about the city being rather new, and many of the original structures of the city having been prairie settler shacks. Forget European or Asian cities, Calgary doesn't even register in this category when comparing to places in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario, and likely also British Columbia.

Anyway - just so you know Dizzy, and I'm repeating myself here, that I do think heritage is important. It is just that our threshold shouldn't be reduced because 0.06% of homes in the city are on the list and we'd like to say 0.1% or whatever. There needs to be merit, history and economic sustainability (and the Detroit example you brought out reinforced the latter). Further, it would be good to convince civil society to get involved and even take the lead. I suspect on this last point you agree, but it doesn't come up because fact is, there are not many if any success stories there.

I think the low percentage is simply based on the fact the most of the homes from the Victorian era were demolished as our downtown expanded as most were in the downtown core and East Village, and in general homes from the 40s and 50s were far more plain, so although some will undoubtly end up on the list, very few will be there for architecture, and typically not much newer than the 1960s is looked at for inclusion. As Calgary grows so much about 80% of the homes are newer than 1970.

I think the #1 biggest thing would be Federal tax credits since it's been so wildly successful in the US.

[DizzyEdge]

Oh and I agree a threshold shouldn't be reduced (or increased for that matter) based on percentages, things should be evaluated and the #s end up as they end up.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

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.

I’m agreeing with Topdog in this. Heritage properties and roads/schools are not the same thing at all. Comparing the two is ridiculous. Some heritage preservation is fine, but it’s not a necessity, and really doesn’t do much to enrich people’s daily lives, it only enriched the lives of the small special interest group who are into that kind of thing. I find whenever a heritage building is bulldozed or burns down there is a hue and cry from the usual special interest groups, ‘why wasn’t this saved?’

The answer is because you didnt fork out the bucks to save it.