Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
Dunno, just found it on some real-estate website when searching for "Halifax north end." The thing is, I bet you anything those houses went through a period at some point in the last half century when they looked more like this or worse.
But they were fixed, and the city is better for it.
|
On the one hand, I get Keith's perspective, old wooden houses-- while interesting historically-- are generally lousy if they are let run down; and they can promote a sense of aimlessness and malaise on a city block.
However, I also agree with Dry, that solution is not to bulldoze old stock housing like this. In fact, I love some of the old, smaller, tightly built, wooden houses in that area in the North End around Cunard, Maynard, Creighton, etc, that area seems almost wholly unique compared to anything in the city.
Rather, if we just get the hell out of the way, and let natural gentrification occur, yes, new families with populate these areas and spend a little more money to rehabilitate some of these sad old stock. That means that, yes, some condos and apartment buildings will be built to help sustain businesses. It'll mean *some* things will be taken down; but not whole blocks or communities. As the community is more sustainable, walkable, improved, more people will want to move there, increasing demand, and these houses will be lived in and renewed as a key part of broader community renewal.
In other words, the solution to our polarized preserve vs demolish debate is actually found, at least in important part, by getting over our other polarized urban debate-- gentrification and Halifax's knee-jerk NIMBY opposition to it. Here's a recent TheCoast debate on point:
http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/gentr...nt?oid=4375400
The anti-gentrification guy self-describes as a "libertarian communist" which, on its own, shows he doesn't have a clue about either of those political ideologies; but put that idiocy aside-- the opinion he expresses, I think, is a common one in Halifax, particularly among media, journalists, academics, and broader high profile civil society groups.
It's a "cool" or more "hip" perspective, to be sure, but I think gentrification is just a derogatory term for the natural transition any community undergoes, as it builds, grows, shifts, over time.
Kensington market in Toronto, for example, was originally a largely jewish market; today, it is much more diverse. Was it gentrification that caused this? Yes, but in two directions ways-- some families moved out of the area to more upscale neighborhoods (outbound gentrification) whilst other families moved into Kensington (inbound gentrification) changing the constitution of the community. Old families were displaced, new ones arrived. Was the "old" Kensington inherently better? Of course not.
Gentrification is actually more complex and multi-directional than we give it credit for. For some reason, in Halifax we talk about it in a simplistic one-sided way and usually ascribe intrinsic value to a community at some idealistic moment in time. Because there was a documentary about the North End in the 1960s, you see, then the community should never change from that.
Bollocks. Bring on the North End renewal!
PS: Ironically, the anti-gentrification guy sounds like a first rate snob, which is usually what all this comes down to...