Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
ha ha...damn you internet!
the grain exchange annex and the pumphouse are very different buildings....the facades were 99% of the annex's heritage value. For the pumphouse the facades are 1% of what makes that building special.
yeah we could save the facades, why not....that's nice, but losing 99% of what makes it special is nothing to accept. Its better than nothing but a massive loss. That isn't the case with buildings like the annex. losing the interior wouldn't have mattered.
we have to evaluate why we care about preserving buildings. It is not always only about the way it looks walking or driving by. We have to consider what makes each important. Why have heritage preservation at all? facades are not the only heritage.
its like saving the floor mats from a Porsche 911...or saving the exterior columns of a main street bank and destroying the grand banking hall....sure the columns are better than nothing, but what has been saved?
|
I agree that the
ideal would be to save it all, and that it is not ideal to have to accept the loss you describe. But as you say, the facades are 'better than nothing.' I hope an architect such as yourself can come in with a 'creative solution for redevelopment' to avert this beautiful building being taken down.
You talk about the facades being 1% of the value, and the interior functionality being 99%, in a sort of a conceptual ideal of heritage value. And yet elsewhere, you said something which strikes me differently - that these facades are in fact not 'unimportant' and 'nondescript', and that the interior is essentially utilitarian:
"Closed in 1986, the pumping station's
elegant, rhythmic facade and
double gable roofline serve as a reminder that the utilitarian building once stood as a pavilion in Victoria Park, Winnipeg's first municipal green space and ground zero for the 1919 General Strike."
So in a sense, it is not just a 'nice' thing to do (I don't think you're being sarcastic there as I believe you value heritage in all its forms, although I'm surprised you're sticking so resolutely to a hardline all-or-nothing position).
In fact, in the same column you go on to say:
"
The significant heritage asset of most buildings in the Exchange District is their character on the street, making their interiors easy to redevelop."
In fairness, you add:
"The challenge of finding a new use for the pumping station is that without maintaining the inspiring industrial character of its interior, the historic value and redevelopment potential is lost. Effectively creating usable interior floor space while maintaining the building's unique character has been such a significant design challenge and economic barrier that the building has remained empty nearly two decades."
So it has remained empty for nearly two decades and now faces the prospect of demolition because of that challenge. Rather than having all or nothing, here I would argue for
something:
"Buildings such as the pumping station are the reason the Exchange District is seeing such significant economic growth.
The architectural character of the neighbourhood is an attractive catalyst to residential development, which makes its preservation critical to continuing prosperity in the area."
I agree with you here when you mention how The Forks was able to be revitalized through a
repurposing - in other words,
the market buildings at the Forks still had and have value, and even greater value than before arguably, even though they know longer serve their original, historically pure purpose of holding railroad junk (assuming that's what they did).
These are smart words in terms of precedents, I feel:
"When looking at The Forks as a precedent, it is easy to appreciate that the site's spirit and character could only have been realized through the
redevelopment of the existing industrial buildings. The Forks would not be the same had the old railway repair shops and storage buildings been demolished and replaced with new structures."
Prev
Linear Mode
