Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87
The Ralston situation though, is that normal? Would this fly in any other major Canadian city - the federal government allowing one of their (heritage-designated!) office buildings to deteriorate to the point that they were forced to essentially staple it back together and making no effort to even sugar-coat this? There was 0 dignity to any of this, and I have a hard time picturing the same situation playing out in say, Ottawa, or QC, or Victoria, but maybe it does. At no point did the public here demand better AFAIK. It's not hard to picture an alternate scenario where there would have been a huge public backlash and the situation was spun into a national scandal. The problem is that people (if they cared at all) found the situation unfortunate but not really noteworthy. We are not in control.
Yes all cities have their problems and Someone123 is pretty quick to recognize these (and when he does, often other SSPers will say that he's being too critical of Vancouver or that he idealizes Halifax ). I do think that he makes good points here though. We have an advantage (a fairly extensive and unique stock of heritage architecture) and we do a relatively poor job of A - capitalizing on this and B - making sure that we don't lose it. We do an ok job at both but a lot of other cities even within Canada there is more effort given (or at least a better regulatory system in place) for way less real payoff (as in smaller and/or less interesting collections of heritage architecture are better protected).
Of course there are a lot of other things that we do well/better than other cities but taking advantage of and protecting our stock of heritage buildings isn't one of them. It's not necessarily a case of people not caring, not being resourceful, or what have you - mostly it's just that some laws need to be tweaked. But for laws to be tweaked it needs to be seen as important enough to the public.
|
Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been going 24/7 for the past week or so.
Firstly, I want it to be clear (as I thought I was trying to be) that I agree with most of someone123's assertions regarding how the various levels of government deal with heritage properties. I always tend to find his posts informative, well researched and written, and well grounded. I most often agree with his points, and I tend to think that we both share a similar appreciation for heritage structures and history in general.
However, I also want to address my thoughts about the negativity expressed:
- Perhaps I should not have reacted so strongly to the negative comments about Halifax/Nova Scotia, but I have a strong passion for the area and have started to resent the typical media portrayal of Halifax as being ground zero for just about every socially unacceptable trait that exists. While there is definite truth and history associated with much of it, the degree to which it is portrayed seems to be exaggerated compared to the reality as observed.
Thus, I am disappointed when I read:
Quote:
Nova Scotia is incredibly utilitarian and doesn't really value its past much aside from the folksy stuff.
|
...which I believe to be grossly inaccurate, and an unfair generalization.
Quote:
There is a lingering sense that Nova Scotia is poor and Halifax is a small town and so it's futile to try to have nice things.
|
...disagree. I have not observed this as being the general feeling here.
Quote:
there's a lack of appreciation that a good quality public realm will have a significant positive impact on the people in it.
|
...disagree. Most I talk to have the opposite viewpoint, in fact.
Quote:
No new bridges needed, no trains needed, no new roads.
|
...I don't hear anybody saying that, except perhaps the hard-core cyclists that believe building new roads creates more car traffic.
Quote:
is the nearly 50 year old MacKay still called the "new bridge"?
|
...not very often. Most call them by their assigned names, though some of the older people who were around when the MacKay was built are still in the habit of using those terms. Besides, I don't believe the use of colloquialisms is necessarily an accurate reflection of one's perception of the need for new infrastructure.
Quote:
This is all very noticeable looking at NS from afar.
|
...perhaps living away from Halifax/NS gives one a different perspective, but it can also serve to detach oneself from the culture/vibe of living there. As time passes, it is a likely outcome to become less in tune with the vibe of the place while allowing old memories to intensify and become skewed to the point that they may no longer be accurate.
-------These two comments below from another poster---------
Quote:
I think the problem is that Halifax once had a history of having very "worldly" people. Now, many of the critics are people that have never really lived anywhere else... or seen what is possible. It is culturally a shame when comparing ourselves to similar sized cities in North America and elsewhere.
|
...utter BS, and see my comment above.
Quote:
People need to actually live in different places for EXTENDED periods of time to see how things can be done.
|
...as if living in another part of the world somehow makes you more qualified to determine how Halifax should progress, or the ideas that people who live there should have.
----> Nobody is more qualified to make Halifax the best HALIFAX it can be, than somebody who lives there and is intimately familiar with the customs, concerns and trends affecting the local people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
The bad news is that this barely seems to register in Halifax right now; the result that looks shoddy someplace else was created by newly increased heritage preservation grants (which are still inadequate, but a step in the right direction).
|
...I don't think this is an accurate statement, for reasons mentioned in a previous post. Additionally, one must also consider that the comments on messageboards like these are typically from somebody who is at "enthusiast" level and may not reflect the opinions of the average citizen in other cities, so it's not fair to say that this refurbishment would be unacceptable to people in other places.
On the subject of St. Paul's Building, and the reason I drew the Ralston into the conversation, is the idea that a historical disservice was done to the building when the cornice was changed and cupola removed. The pic I had posted in the other thread was dated 1951, but we don't know when it happened exactly. By the photo, though, we know it wouldn't have been any more than 60 years old when it was done.
The idea of preserving a 60 year old building for heritage purposes would not have been a very popular idea in most places in the 1940s-50s. In fact, most of us know that the general attitude was quite the opposite with the urban renewal trend that was just starting around then, in the shadow of WWII when the idea of new beginnings and stepping away from the shadows of the past were popular, and understandable, outlooks. The fifties was all about modernity - a new world with new styles and new technology, a brighter outlook as we move away from the dark years of the war.
So, as suggested, perhaps those elements were removed to modernize the look of the buildings, maybe they had deteriorated to the point of falling apart, maybe they were putting the aging building at risk due to the loading on the older structure. No matter the reason, preserving the history was not a popular attitude. These were considered old, dated buildings, an eyesore to many, and were judged on a practicality and economic scale -rather than an aesthetic one - by most.
Where does the Ralston fit in? Well it was being conceived around the same time. It was being styled in the
new modern sense that was becoming so popular at the time and that stood in stark contrast to the ornate Victorian buildings that were still lingering from the previous century.
It was, basically, a collection of boxes, clad in stone which was attached, apparently, in a manner that did not take into account the effect of Halifax's humid environment and thus apparently lead to early corrosion of the fastening system (an assumption, as I haven't seen a report on the failure mechanism of the cladding fasteners).
So today, we now have a 63-year-old building, that holds high value among enthusiasts of mid-century architecture, but to most casual observers doesn't hold the charm and design sense of earlier architectural styles (personally, I have never found it very appealing). Its version of ornamentation (the cladding) has been failing, but has been repaired 'by MacGyver' to keep the building functional.
Would this building be completely restored if it were in another city? I'm not sure that it would. Considering that
24 Sussex had been allowed to deteriorate to the point that our current Prime Minister did not want to move his family into it says something about the feds' will to maintain 'significant' buildings and the public's ability or will to make sure that it happens.
Going back to the St. Paul's Building, the recent refurbishing definitely does not qualify as a full restoration, but is it all that bad? The building still has eye appeal but is still devoid of some of its ornamentation that was removed approximately 70 years ago. Personally, I'd love to see some of those features reinstated. Is it practical? I'm not sure, as in today's world it is much more difficult to find craftsman who can duplicate the decorative elements, and custom-built features are mulitiple times more expensive than off the shelf stuff. For example, a family friend is restoring the curved windows in his Victorian-era home in NB, and has literally payed several thousands of dollars per pane of glass for those windows multiplied by however many windows he is replacing.
I'm not excusing an incomplete restoration, but as a realist I understand that businesses have to justify their expenses, and without sufficient government-supplied incentives (as mentioned), it would be difficult to make a business case for it.
On the topic of Boston, it does appear that they have a fairly robust and effective heritage-defending organization. Heck, they are even fighting to preserve the
Citgo sign, which is much more than we were able to do about the
Morse's Tea signage that was unceremoniously painted over, and more than apparently Vancouver has been able to do about the
BowMac sign (though I haven't heard any updates about it recently).
Sorry for the wordy response, but I felt I had to comment about my own posts and the comments by others. I'm not sure if I've effectively made my points, but I'm sure I will soon learn whether I have...