Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
We seem to have a cadre of folks here who believe that no old building should ever be demolished, despite it being a slum or unsafe. Then there are others who believe that just as in nature, things have a natural lifespan, and some things get replaced by better-adapting, newer things. Although the SF quake wasn't part of the normal lifecycle of buildings, the result is as you have seen - it led to a significantly improved city in the long run.
|
NYC's Lower East Side was a "slum" and "unsafe" in the 80s. Walls were crumbling and floors caving in. But is this because the buildings had reached the end of their lifespans? No, it's because landlords stopped doing, in many cases, even the most basic maintenance, and that persisted for decades.
Nonetheless, most of the buildings survived. Here's the neighbourhood today:
Sure, the bricks could use a scrub. But the interiors are incredible, and the proof is in the real-estate market. Millionaires are buying condos in restored tenements like these, and high-end retail occupies more ground floors than you can count. The appeal wouldn't be there if these were all shiny and new--and the city would lose a big part of what makes it so loved.
Likewise: I was in Toronto this morning on a long layover, and walked around the city for a few hours. Took this pic of the Gladstone Hotel on Queen Street West:
This building was in worse shape, by far, than anything currently considered an at-risk historic building in Halifax. A long-standing flophouse, it was a fairly fancy hotel in the 19th century, before the neighbourhood around it fell into poverty and the building became a flophouse for most of the latter part of the last century.
It was barely been maintained at all since the second world war. There's nothing in Halifax that can compare to the state of its decrepitude—not the block Westwood plans to knock down, not the Dennis, not anything. There's a good little documentary called
Last Call at the Gladstone Hotel, about the difficulty of the restoration, and the gentrification of the neighbourhood, that really lays bare the dire shape the thing was in after decades of neglect. It was condemnable and seemed to be ultimate headed for demolition.
But, since being restored by heritage-friendly developers, it's become a lynchpin of the entire neighbourhood's revitalization. Given the role it occupies in the area, the way it bridges between old and new, and simply because people love restored historic buildings to feel connected to their community, a new building couldn't possibly have been as important to the neighbourhood, and couldn't MEAN what this place means to the neighbourhood and the city as a whole.
And of course, it would never have required such extraordinary effort to restore if it hadn't been ignored for so long.
I suppose buildings have lifespans, but a well put-together masonry structure, kept in good repair, can last for centuries as long as it receives regular maintenance—as many do. I don't think any of Halifax's 19th-century masonry buildings could possibly be considered at the end of their run. And I DO oppose tearing pretty much any of them down at this point, because we've already lost a huge amount. And the character of the city isn't going to be our much vaunted "balance" of old and new if we keep losing the old to bad development, fires, etc.
I just don't get the arguments that these kinds of buildings are obsolete or ready for the wrecking ball because they're a little worn-in.
Prev
Linear Mode
