Quote:
Originally Posted by OttawaSteve
|
Although I enjoyed Learning the historical background about this gas station, what worries me is to see heritage rationales being developed to preserve what are essentially low density patterns of urbanization. No doubt that there is merit in keeping old buildings and in being able to relate them to their origin, but in a case like this, where the original use (a gas station) is no longer present, would it not be better for the building to be moved and be re-used for a purpose that suits its single-storey cottage shape? Because keeping it
in situ is essentially locking that corner into a low-density footprint, and running the risk that the building will continue to house the types of things that are no longer relevant or wanted in evolving urban environments (i.e. used car lots).
There can be the purist viewpoint saying that
in situ conservation is essential to maintain a link to the area's history as an early-age suburb that saw these original gas stations at major highway intersections, back in the day when that's what that corner was... but the gas station is no longer there, this is now an inner-urban intersection and a gateway between two major neighbourhoods, at a location where the urban fabric is weaker and a little more disjointed and where intensification would sew a stronger bond between Wellington West and Westboro... and this site serves as a used car dealership.
If the building can be re-used for any of the things that belong on a Traditional Mainstreet, great. I can see a restaurant with a big patio out front, and a re-use of the municipal laneway to access parking, if any, on the site, away from the sidewalk. Although, the building looks to me a wee bit too small to be effective as a restaurant. And that would be a very big patio to fill at this corner, in an area that doesn't really have any nightlife yet. So the space risks being too empty, which is the opposite of what a key corner like this should be. Likewise, it would be difficult to find a viable retail operation for such a small building - which limits what can realistically happen on this site if it's left intact. As for the original purpose, I doubt that a modern-day gas station would move into this property and re-use the building (although by purist standards, this should be the goal to strive for).
Basically, the problem with preserving that type of car-oriented site is their footprint, which is back from the street and designed for front yard parking and car crossings of the sidewalk in front of the building.
If the building could be moved forward, facade maintained for the ground floor, and a few storeys built above, that could be one way to preserve this little slice of automobile heritage without imposing the automobile function and footprint onto a mainstreet that is trying hard to become more pedestrian-friendly.
In short - in my opinion, it would be interesting to see if the prominent components of this building could be dismantled and reassembled as part of a redevelopment that takes a more urban footprint, and introduces the appropriate density into this key corner, or moved to a different site altogether.
The difference between "old heritage" and "car-era heritage" is that "old heritage" is a lot more flexible in its possibilities for re-use. Preserving movie theatres has been clamored for in vain, as commercial businesses, but many older cinema buildings themselves have wonderfully re-adapted. Whereas "car-era heritage" comes with the sprawly, low-density footprint that represents all the anti-urban damage we are now trying to undo.
Prev
Linear Mode
