Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[lio45]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The difference is though, that lots of our historic buildings today are being replaced by cheap/banal/mediocre condo/apartment buildings.

And just so it's clear, I find that we are horrible at heritage preservation, that if it were up to me we'd rarely demolish anything pre-WWII anymore, and that what we're building these days is usually total shit.

So, we probably agree on nearly everything

It's still crazy to think I was accused of not caring enough about heritage preservation. I mean, sure, okay, maybe it was the context... but still, it's rare that a comment misses the mark so thoroughly.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

That’s what Foster did with the Bow as well. Looks way fatter and stubbier that originally designed. The loss of the skygardens and the south cultural block also arguably turned it into nothing more than a corporate monolith that is now only 40% occupied. Street level is atrocious. At least The One has an attractive street level.

The Bow is 60% vacant?!?

[csbvan]

It's that Canadian thing where we're so obsessed with looking internationally worthy that we end up overloading on banal modernity.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I absolutely love your new signature

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

Interesting

To me, a 1880s or newer building isn't anything that special, while anything 1850s or older would be something that I would never ever accept to see demolished, for any reason. (Well, "never say never", but you get the idea.)

There's a great difference in rarity (and thus in interest as a "historical" structure) between 1850s and 1880s. That's true at least in all of Quebec, and probably in many other areas (AFAIK, it's true everywhere in the eastern USA).

Using this metric almost all of our historical building stock would be worthless and deserve to be demolished. Ironically anything built here around 1850 would be nothing more than a wooden ‘shack’.

[Chadillaccc]

An uncommon angle of the Brisbane CBD...


Calgary in Late June by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

The Bow is 60% vacant?!?

It may have changed recently with Nexen (CNOC) moving there now, but Encana packed up and left for the States last year. Downtown Calgary has 40% vacancy but it’s even higher when you factor in empty leased space.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's still crazy to think I was accused of not caring enough about heritage preservation. I mean, sure, okay, maybe it was the context... but still, it's rare that a comment misses the mark so thoroughly.

All that I have to go by are your words and you bragged about demolishing historical buildings for your projects.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Using this metric almost all of our historical building stock would be worthless and deserve to be demolished.

That isn't what I said. What I said is that structures from the 1880s or newer don't immediately, on the basis of age alone, fall into the "old enough that it's just off-limits regardless; don't touch!" category as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, in Quebec City last fall they demolished a house from the late 1600s. For some kind of real estate project... Now that's outrageous.

Ironically anything built here around 1850 would be nothing more than a wooden ‘shack’.

Correct, and would also be of extremely high heritage value as it would be one of the very oldest preserved structures in all of Western Canada.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

There's a great difference in rarity (and thus in interest as a "historical" structure) between 1850s and 1880s. That's true at least in all of Quebec, and probably in many other areas (AFAIK, it's true everywhere in the eastern USA).

Yep. In Halifax it's accidental that so many 1850's buildings survived. This was a boom time in the city (where many older wood/brick buildings got replaced by nicer stone buildings) and then there was no 19th or early 20th century boom period when people would have torn down those buildings with no second thought. Most were demolished but it was maybe 2/3 or 3/4 of the nicer ones while it would have been 95% if the city grew by 10x by 1930. The main commercial streets in 1860 Halifax were stone buildings with a few cast iron facades.

Halifax in general is a treasure trove of rare buildings and is underappreciated because it doesn't have a lot of fully intact historic districts. It is the "oldest" city architecturally, by far, outside of Quebec. And actually is pretty comparable to Montreal or Quebec City for certain periods like the early 1800's (the NS legislature from the 1810's might be the single nicest building from that decade in Canada for example). Most people don't realize this because pre-WWII heritage buildings all look kind of the same to them. Although I'd guess most people can tell that a 1793 stone warehouse building was from a different era than an Art Deco office building (arguably more distant from the Art Deco style than Art Deco is from today).

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

That isn't what I said. What I said is that structures from the 1880s or newer don't immediately, on the basis of age alone, fall into the "old enough that it's just off-limits regardless; don't touch!" category as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, in Quebec City last fall they demolished a house from the late 1600s. For some kind of real estate project... Now that's outrageous.






Correct, and would also be of extremely high heritage value as some of the very oldest preserved structures in all of Western Canada.

I think it is difficult to discuss what constitutes heritage buildings worth saving when comparing a 400 year old city to one that is 150ish years old.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

All that I have to go by are your words and you bragged about demolishing historical buildings for your projects.

I was replying to someone who seemed to suggest that anything that's even only a mere 100 year old should be automatically sacrosanct on the basis of age alone. Which is ridiculous.

I can show you examples of 100 year old buildings in Quebec that would be no great loss if demolished (among other reasons, because they're both newer and less architecturally interesting that tons of other buildings in the same city or even neighborhood.) Typically, basic/featureless utilitarian cubes always intended as low-rent housing from the very start.

[suburbanite]

I agree it's hard for me to make an urbanist argument against Billionaire's Row. I would rather have them in filing cabinets in the sky as Esquire put it, as opposed to taking up vast swaths of desirable land as they do in London.

Not a fan of the effect on the skyline, but that's the nature of the game.

[SpongeG]

Does Vancouver have any left to save? I think most that met the definition have already been saved.

[lio45]

Last edited by Chadillaccc; Today at 2:55 PM. Reason: Removed response to troll

You're the one who's the moron. You need to work on your self-control too - don't post stuff if you're going to have to remove it right afterwards. Or else, if you do post it, leave it there - I assure you, I can take it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

All that I have to go by are your words and you bragged about demolishing historical buildings for your projects.

Sure, but you have (or, should have ) over a decade of "my words" to go by. I am sure other SSPers would rate me as someone whose personal position on the heritage preservation spectrum is quite extreme (even though, not as extreme as it could be - sometimes I can be okay with eliminating a building).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I was replying to someone who seemed to suggest that anything that's even only a mere 100 year old should be automatically sacrosanct on the basis of age alone. Which is ridiculous.

I can show you examples of 100 year old buildings in Quebec that would be no great loss if demolished (among other reasons, because they're both newer and less architecturally interesting that tons of other buildings in the same city or even neighborhood.) Typically, basic/featureless utilitarian cubes always intended as low-rent housing from the very start.

The Vieux-Hull district of my city is filled with 100+ year old buildings that aren't much to look at.

I believe this one (from the late 1800s) has a heritage designation of some kind, due simply to being one of the oldest houses in the city.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/57+Rue...0a8c45b03!8m2!3d45.4210074!4d-75.7449189

But the streets in the vicinity are filled with hundreds of houses of a similar age and architectural "quality".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

All that I have to go by are your words and you bragged about demolishing historical buildings for your projects.

I did that once, and I recall that I told you the full story already. I wanted to save the building, but the City forced me to demolish it. If I could have gone back in time, I could have played my cards differently, but now that I'm less of an extreme preservationist, I don't feel THAT bad anymore about what happened.

And I'm pretty sure you DID see "before/after" pictures already. I recall you were angry at the City's idiocy. (With reason.)

We turned the property into a surface parking lot. The basement of the destroyed building was masterfully filled and leveled by the father of fellow SSPer "le calmar" to create it

The municipal regulations require a narrow band of "greenery" on the street side for a surface parking lot, so I left the very narrowest band possible, and left it to weeds, the inspector said "the City would appreciate if you did something nice there" and I replied "weeds are green enough to be compliant with the letter of the rules, right?" and the conversation did not go further.

So... it's not like I would be "proud" of those before/after shots, because as you did recall correctly, the "after" was kind of a f-u to the city.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I believe this one (from the late 1800s) has a heritage designation of some kind, due simply to being one of the oldest houses in the city.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/57+Rue...0a8c45b03!8m2!3d45.4210074!4d-75.7449189

I think that around here, we would call this building a...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I think that around here, we would call this building a...

I have to admit I thought of the word. There are actually "skyscrapers" (well, 25-storey office towers) just a few blocks away.

100+ year old buildings are a dime a dozen in the Vieux-Hull:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4311416,...ltvhqe1pifYBbn_dk2yFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656