Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain
Sure, but none of that has to do with architectural quality. This kind of facadism is (slowly) falling out of favour in larger cities' architectural and development circles, as more complex approaches to integrating old and new structures evolve.
In any case, decrying "the heritage lobby" has become a favoured mantra for Haligonians fancying themselves progressive and in favour of new, modern things, but the most progressive cities out there are well past all that--they're actively safeguarding their heritage far better and more aggressively than Halifax does. So, its complicated.
|
I agree wholeheartedly that there must be a balance. But the way people talk these days, we get basically get a year's worth of activity downtown (2013) and people make out like the sky is falling on heritage all over the city.
So let's look at recent history. For essentially two decades, likely more, there hadn't been a significant development downtown. No cranes for more than twenty years. The Heritage "Lobby" or STVers, had the run of the place, with the help of sprawl agents (housing developers who were happy to develop cheaply outside the core), clueless / hapless / useless mayors and councils, and Provincial Governments more concerned about funneling tax dollars and corporate handouts to badly managed 19th century resource industries elsewhere in the province.
And what did twenty years of such "heritage preservation" give us? A bunch of dilapidated and rotting buildings downtown. The disgraceful Dennis. The burnt out Barrington NFB. Plenty more empty heritage shop fronts all over downtown, an economically and developmentally depressed core, sprawling suburbs... and great view planes. Basically, an urban nightmare that we are only now, finally, waking up from.
I don't, by the way, think it's necessarily "progressive" to point any of that out. I just think it's common sense.
So here we are, after twenty years of slumber, and we have some development. I don't think that means we need to bulldoze heritage buildings left and right. But I do think it means that sometimes, we particularly ambitious proposals, there is going to be a clash between unique new proposals on the one side, and heritage preservation on the other. And inevitably, sometimes, unlike in the past, heritage has to lose, or at least a certain conception of heritage preservation.
The best balance, or the best conception, is a debate I'm willing to have. But you must admit, DryBrain, that the Heritage Committees' rejection of EVERY heritage aspect of this proposal was ludicrous. As I pointed out upthread they even rejected the ENTIRE preservation and restoration of the Merrill Lynch building, because the cantilever "made it looks small".
So, my thought, is that until the "heritage lobby" comes back down to earth, remove their tinfoils hats, realize it's no longer 1995, and start an earnest conversation about how we can all work together toward more balanced development, then they're going to be wholly marginalized, with no one to blame but themselves.