Development Rumours

[Architype]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

It looks nice there! Has it been reclad with fake stuff or something? It looks REALLY cheap up close now. It's only a step above vinyl.

The third floor windows are characteristic of houses built around 1900-1910, and I think the masonry cladding or stone is original - you can see the colour difference where the front porch was removed:

http://goo.gl/maps/bnXI5

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Townie709

Harbour Light is ugly, run down and fake. Salvation army is nothing more than a concrete box. I really hope Harbour Light is torn down and I'm indifferent on the Salvation Army. This site has the potential to be a great highrise location! Something tall and skinny with underground parking would be spectacular!

I don't like either of the buildings that are currently there and very few of the 6 people that notice them in the run of the year will care if they disappear. But it would be cool if they worked the salvation army building, or maybe just the front facade into the development.

I don't think you're qualified to deem a building worthy of preserving or not. Why are you being so critical of it? As someone with an architectural education, I would totally disagree with you. It's not ugly, it has perfect symmetry and thoughtful detailing. It may look run-down, but that doesn't mean it should be demolished, perhaps it can be redeveloped or restored. And your crass disregard for the Salvation Army building shows how you don't fully understand architectural and heritage conservation, as you are apparently blinded by the dream of tall, shiny, new buildings.

You realize that high-rises aren't the be all and end all. They are great for density and for modernizing a City's image. But overall, they are (usually) very ugly structures, particularly the ones we see in St.John's. I get it - high-rises are more symbolic - they represent prosperity, progress, development. That's great and I support high-rise development but we need to be careful. High-rises are also generic, austere and perpetuate placelessness.

I will be extremely disappointed if either of these buildings are removed. I would fight any development which proposed demolishing them.

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

I don't think you're qualified to deem a building worthy of preserving or not. Why are you being so critical of it? As someone with an architectural education, I would totally disagree with you. It's not ugly, it has perfect symmetry and thoughtful detailing. It may look run-down, but that doesn't mean it should be demolished, perhaps it can be redeveloped or restored. And your crass disregard for the Salvation Army building shows how you don't fully understand architectural and heritage conservation, as you are apparently blinded by the dream of tall, shiny, new buildings.

You realize that high-rises aren't the be all and end all. They are great for density and for modernizing a City's image. But overall, they are (usually) very ugly structures, particularly the ones we see in St.John's. I get it - high-rises are more symbolic - they represent prosperity, progress, development. That's great and I support high-rise development but we need to be careful. High-rises are also generic, austere and perpetuate placelessness.

I will be extremely disappointed if either of these buildings are removed. I would fight any development which proposed demolishing them.

wow harsh!

he's just voicing his opinion about the project just like everyone else .. personal targeting is not nice! you can voice your opinion about a project/site without being rude towards other forumers directly like that

we all just want to learn from each other and you have to realize that differing views exist and there's a right way to go about it and a wrong way .. you could highlight from whatever background you have as to your position on it and listen to why others feel the way they do and then we learn from each other .. not personal attacks

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

I don't think you're qualified to deem a building worthy of preserving or not. Why are you being so critical of it? As someone with an architectural education, I would totally disagree with you. It's not ugly, it has perfect symmetry and thoughtful detailing. It may look run-down, but that doesn't mean it should be demolished, perhaps it can be redeveloped or restored. And your crass disregard for the Salvation Army building shows how you don't fully understand architectural and heritage conservation, as you are apparently blinded by the dream of tall, shiny, new buildings.

You realize that high-rises aren't the be all and end all. They are great for density and for modernizing a City's image. But overall, they are (usually) very ugly structures, particularly the ones we see in St.John's. I get it - high-rises are more symbolic - they represent prosperity, progress, development. That's great and I support high-rise development but we need to be careful. High-rises are also generic, austere and perpetuate placelessness.

I will be extremely disappointed if either of these buildings are removed. I would fight any development which proposed demolishing them.

We really do try not to take these little jabs at each other, MrJane. You didn't break any rules, of course... but we do want to preserve our inclusive, welcoming tone here.

We certainly don't want to be calling into question people's qualifications for sharing their opinion. The freedom for all of us to do that is what makes this a forum, a living community, as opposed to some development magazine, architectural digest, or news blog.

Please don't discourage others from participating. We can all share our opinions without doing that.

[mrjanejacobs]

Signal - I agree.

I wasn't trying to question his qualifications. There's no qualifications necessary. But his comment was also VERY harsh.

I have worked with heritage conservation advocacy groups and this issue is very important to me. I am offended when people just say 'let's slash and burn our history'. He was insensitive to the architecture and history of those two buildings. That's uncool.

I don't want anyone to feel intimidated IN ANY WAY or feel discouraged from posting.

But I also think that this forum is a place for real conversation, and taking a shit on someone's profession and interests (like architecture and heritage conservation) isn't ok. If he doesn't like the buildings, he didn't need to be so rude and crass in communicating it.

It wasn't intended to be a jab and I certainly don't want to harm the 'welcoming vibe' of the forum.

[Architype]

Yes, it was a bit harsh. None of us are really qualified to make ultimate judgements, we can only give opinions and point out facts when we can. I did some research to find out the age of the building, and pointed that out. I can't find the age of the other concrete church style building, but from the style I think it is around the art deco era, probably late 1920s to 1940s. Heritage is not always pretty, but usually can be spruced up, or even incorporated into a new development, which is what I would hope for at this location.

[mrjanejacobs]

I just re-read Townie's comment a couple of times (as I felt guilty).

And it was very crass and totally unfair to anyone on this forum who does have education/interests in architecture and heritage conservation.

I could care less about someone's qualifications. Townie often makes very thought-through comments on the forum but this one was blunt and offensive.

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

I just re-read Townie's comment a couple of times (as I felt guilty).

And it was very crass and totally unfair to anyone on this forum who does have education/interests in architecture and heritage conservation.

I could care less about someone's qualifications. Townie often makes very thought-through comments on the forum but this one was blunt and offensive.

... you should go back and read some of Chris Chafe's posts lol ...

[Townie709]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

I don't think you're qualified to deem a building worthy of preserving or not. Why are you being so critical of it? As someone with an architectural education, I would totally disagree with you. It's not ugly, it has perfect symmetry and thoughtful detailing. It may look run-down, but that doesn't mean it should be demolished, perhaps it can be redeveloped or restored. And your crass disregard for the Salvation Army building shows how you don't fully understand architectural and heritage conservation, as you are apparently blinded by the dream of tall, shiny, new buildings.

You realize that high-rises aren't the be all and end all. They are great for density and for modernizing a City's image. But overall, they are (usually) very ugly structures, particularly the ones we see in St.John's. I get it - high-rises are more symbolic - they represent prosperity, progress, development. That's great and I support high-rise development but we need to be careful. High-rises are also generic, austere and perpetuate placelessness.

I will be extremely disappointed if either of these buildings are removed. I would fight any development which proposed demolishing them.

First of all I don't take offense from your comments. But beware.. Not only can I take it, but I can dish it out twice as hard haha (jk, I don't think we're arguing)

I never said I was "qualified" to deem a building worthy of preservation or beauty. Everyone has an opinion, do they not? One might have a degree in art, but yet one cannot deem a piece of artwork beautiful or complete crap based on their own personal feelings, tastes and opinions. Art is subjective and so is architecture in some respects. Just because someone doesn't have the "proper education" does not render their opinion useless on a subjective matter.

It's not so much that these buildings are "ugly" it's just that they are very inappropriately placed. They are buildings with little historical significance, in a run-down, low-traffic area of downtown that is finally beginning to be filled in by larger developments that increase the density and functionality of our downtown. I don't think such buildings, that frankly not many people see or care about, should put a damper on a modern, density increasing development that could breathe life into that desolate area. Now, if somebody proposed to tear down both buildings and build a 2 story warehouse, of course I would object. But if this project was something of a bigger magnitude, I would be all for the demolition of the buildings.

I understand highrises are not the "be all and end all" of development. But St. John's needs a revitalized downtown area, and guess what can bring that.. Highrises! (Not two story neglected buildings with surface parking lots.) I'm not suggesting we tear down all the heritage buildings on Water Street and erect glass condo towers. That would be ludicrous. I'm suggesting that we sacrifice a few of our non-important, largely forgotten old buildings in an area that should be zoned for dense development. Also, a common misconception here, Old does not necessarily mean Heritage. It doesn't.

So. Would you rather see this area remain barren, desolate and neglected, or would you rather see a thriving community built on top of that ghetto that is the West End of downtown?

Edit: I was also in a bad mood when I posted that first thing. So it probably read a little more rude/offensive than it would have if I was in a good mood. but my point remains the same haha

[Copes]

I tend to hesitate when it comes to deeming something heritage. I think Townie said it best. "Old" does not equal "heritage". In regards to these two buildings (and I honestly don't know, you all know my limited knowledge of St. John's history) what is their historic significance? Are they buildings that, once upon a time, played a significant role in the everyday life of St. John's citizens? Did any crazy, historically significant event happen here? Are they an example of a rare architectural style, do the facades have unique characteristics that don't exist elsewhere, or are they the works of a famous architect that has since had much of his or her legacy destroyed?

Or are they, as I suspect, just old buildings?

If one, or more than one, of my above questions is indeed answered with a yes then I think that the buildings may be worth preserving, and I would suggest leaving the decision in the hands of the St. John's heritage committee. If, however, the answer is no... well, St. John's needs to grow, and they sit smack dab in the center of the area in which I vouch for the most growth.

Could they be worked into a design in a neat way to provide the best of both worlds? Maybe. But if not... I'd be hard pressed to justify keeping them.

[Townie709]

Originally Posted by Copes

I tend to hesitate when it comes to deeming something heritage. I think Townie said it best. "Old" does not equal "heritage". In regards to these two buildings (and I honestly don't know, you all know my limited knowledge of St. John's history) what is their historic significance? Are they buildings that, once upon a time, played a significant role in the everyday life of St. John's citizens? Did any crazy, historically significant event happen here? Are they an example of a rare architectural style, do the facades have unique characteristics that don't exist elsewhere, or are they the works of a famous architect that has since had much of his or her legacy destroyed?

Or are they, as I suspect, just old buildings?

If one, or more than one, of my above questions is indeed answered with a yes then I think that the buildings may be worth preserving, and I would suggest leaving the decision in the hands of the St. John's heritage committee. If, however, the answer is no... well, St. John's needs to grow, and they sit smack dab in the center of the area in which I vouch for the most growth.

Could they be worked into a design in a neat way to provide the best of both worlds? Maybe. But if not... I'd be hard pressed to justify keeping them.

I think the best possible solution would be to work one or both of them into the facade of a new development

[Architype]

It seems they are all that remains of the Salvation Army legacy in downtown St.John's, that has some significance.

Edit: However, they do not seem to figure prominently in anything written about or by the Salvation Army in regards to its history, so you could make the assumption that if they do not care about their own heritage buildings, then neither should we, perhaps. In fact I could not find anything documented about the concrete citadel (church) building at all.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Townie709

First of all I don't take offense from your comments. But beware.. Not only can I take it, but I can dish it out twice as hard haha (jk, I don't think we're arguing)

I never said I was "qualified" to deem a building worthy of preservation or beauty. Everyone has an opinion, do they not? One might have a degree in art, but yet one cannot deem a piece of artwork beautiful or complete crap based on their own personal feelings, tastes and opinions. Art is subjective and so is architecture in some respects. Just because someone doesn't have the "proper education" does not render their opinion useless on a subjective matter.

It's not so much that these buildings are "ugly" it's just that they are very inappropriately placed. They are buildings with little historical significance, in a run-down, low-traffic area of downtown that is finally beginning to be filled in by larger developments that increase the density and functionality of our downtown. I don't think such buildings, that frankly not many people see or care about, should put a damper on a modern, density increasing development that could breathe life into that desolate area. Now, if somebody proposed to tear down both buildings and build a 2 story warehouse, of course I would object. But if this project was something of a bigger magnitude, I would be all for the demolition of the buildings.

I understand highrises are not the "be all and end all" of development. But St. John's needs a revitalized downtown area, and guess what can bring that.. Highrises! (Not two story neglected buildings with surface parking lots.) I'm not suggesting we tear down all the heritage buildings on Water Street and erect glass condo towers. That would be ludicrous. I'm suggesting that we sacrifice a few of our non-important, largely forgotten old buildings in an area that should be zoned for dense development. Also, a common misconception here, Old does not necessarily mean Heritage. It doesn't.

So. Would you rather see this area remain barren, desolate and neglected, or would you rather see a thriving community built on top of that ghetto that is the West End of downtown?

Edit: I was also in a bad mood when I posted that first thing. So it probably read a little more rude/offensive than it would have if I was in a good mood. but my point remains the same haha

First, Jeddy - I was actually on the verge of saying that this comment sounds like it's coming from Chafe...

--

Townie - Architecture is much less subjective than art. Much, much less. When there's a good work of Architecture, architects are much more likely to come to a consensus than artists would on a work of art. With that said, you're criticizing more than Architecture, you're criticizing history. A building can not be 'inappropriately' placed if it's been there for 100 years. At some point in time, it was appropriately placed.

And on the note of 'qualifications' - I used the word 'qualified' but really (honesty) never thought about it in terms of education, haha. It was more like 'who are you to say it's ugly, etc...'? As I said before, I couldn't care less about qualifications. I was more so suggesting that you aren't fully appreciating the buildings, as an architect would. And if you have an opinion, you can communicate it in a more mature way...

Back to the buildings... they do so have historical significance. They are old! Historical = old. Heritage doesn't mean old, as you said. But both of these buildings have heritage value as well as being historical. Any old building in downtown St.John's is of heritage value because the downtown is a historical gem. We have lost enough buildings in our downtown, we cannot continue to weed them out, one by one by saying "it's just one heritage building".

Conserving these buildings will just make the neighbourhood more dynamic once it develops. People don't see them because there's nothing else in the vicinity. Getting rid of these buildings is definitely not the only way of bringing people into the area. Moreover, a high-rise definitely doesn't ENSURE that more people will be in the area either (if it has no streetscape or street engagement).

High-rises are but one way of bringing life into a defunct area. Oftentimes, they do the opposite - they ostracize pedestrians and people because they are so out of scale.

Consider this image:



This is horrific and the thought of losing more of this is terrifying. Having spent extensive periods of time in Europe, where protectionist heritage policy is much more strict, I have seen that every preserved building contributes to the betterment of the urban quality of the City.

We have to work with what we've got. Why demolish these buildings when there are several empty lots/parking spaces in the immediate vicinity that could be developed for high-rise development?

To sum, high-rises are not the only way to rejuvenate a neglected urban neighbourhood! Assuming they will is naive, honestly. Downtown Montreal with all of the high-rises is one of the most alienating parts of Montreal. It's unwelcoming, unfriendly, out of scale and it is not barren in the same way as west-end downtown, but barren in character and placefullness. People don't spend time in downtown Montreal - they go and get out. It's not alive or 'thriving' in any way.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Copes

I tend to hesitate when it comes to deeming something heritage. I think Townie said it best. "Old" does not equal "heritage". In regards to these two buildings (and I honestly don't know, you all know my limited knowledge of St. John's history) what is their historic significance? Are they buildings that, once upon a time, played a significant role in the everyday life of St. John's citizens? Did any crazy, historically significant event happen here? Are they an example of a rare architectural style, do the facades have unique characteristics that don't exist elsewhere, or are they the works of a famous architect that has since had much of his or her legacy destroyed?

Or are they, as I suspect, just old buildings?

If one, or more than one, of my above questions is indeed answered with a yes then I think that the buildings may be worth preserving, and I would suggest leaving the decision in the hands of the St. John's heritage committee. If, however, the answer is no... well, St. John's needs to grow, and they sit smack dab in the center of the area in which I vouch for the most growth.

Could they be worked into a design in a neat way to provide the best of both worlds? Maybe. But if not... I'd be hard pressed to justify keeping them.

Copes - you're describing the most extreme cases of something being deemed 'heritage'. If it's historical (old) and it contributes to the culture, place, identity of a group, organization, individual or era, then it's of heritage value. St.John's is an extremely historic city - it used to be one of the biggest City's in Canada and a huge economic hub. We need to protect every last bit of 'old'/historical/heritage buildings we have. We have already lost too much of it.

Why demolish them when there are lots of empty lots on all sides? Why are we trying to tear down 2 of the only 3 heritage buildings in the downtown west-end when there's an abundance of surface-parking space and old, non-heritage buildings?

I am also a huge proponent of new meets old urban design. I really appreciate it when a historic, conserved building or group of buildings sits conspicuously in between high-rises and modern developments. They could in-fill a new building in between the two existing ones to densify though...

Originally Posted by Townie709

I think the best possible solution would be to work one or both of them into the facade of a new development

You're talking about façadism and it's a hotly debated topic. It's kind of a cop-out and it's also very fake - it's like we're putting up a set for a theatre piece. I also draw analogies of façadism with the idea of building new buildings that "look" old - which I think is total bullshit. It's better than demolishing it completely, but it's not that progressive.

[Architype]

Further research indicates that the S.A. Temple on Springdale was built in 1942:

From The Daily news - January 17th 1942:

The new S.A. Temple on Springdale Street will be officially opened at 3 p.m. on the 21st January by Lady Walwyn, supported by Mayor Carnell, and other prominent citizens. At 5.30 tea will be served and at 8.30 there will be a musical festival in the Auditorium.

http://nl.canadagenweb.org/dailynews_janfeb1942.htm

[Townie709]

I see you got a few more digs in there. Very sly indeed.. You should be proud of yourself.

Also, comparing the west end of downtown to Old Montreal or a European city is completely ludicrous. Have you been past Waldegrave street in the past 10 years? The place is a dump and there is NO life there. We are not talking about destroying a functional community to build a highrise. I too would oppose that. We are looking to revitalize a dead neighbourhood. Obviously these two buildings are not doing much to enhance that part of downtown. You can compare from pictures all you want but unless you take a walk around downtown I don't think you will understand.

If we build around them, fine. They will one day add diversity to a thriving neighbourhood. The problem is there isn't much land around it or in the downtown at all. And to build elsewhere in the west end, we might have to demolish other key historical structures in the west end.. like.. rotting row houses, or dirty industrial warehouses. That would be a shame

Yes they are historical. Not every historical thing is worth preserving. The Holocaust is also historical, but you don't see people lining up to relive that every day. Some parts of history are better left where they belong, in the past. (extreme example, doesn't really apply here. I just thought of it and it was too good of an analogy not to share haha)

And just to take it to an extremely childish level: compare the two pictures you posted. In which do you see more people? That's right. I thought so.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

Why demolish them when there are lots of empty lots on all sides? Why are we trying to tear down 2 of the only 3 heritage buildings in the downtown west-end when there's an abundance of surface-parking space and old,

Not to argue most of your points, but there are actually lots of heritage buildings in the West End, for example the George Street church next door, and others farther west, and actually in almost every direction. The West End was not touched by the fire of 1892 and you would be surprised to find many remaining buildings that are older than that, as far west as Patrick Street.

I agree with most of your other points, but would rather have facadism than nothing remaining at all.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Townie709

I see you got a few more digs in there. Very sly indeed.. You should be proud of yourself.

Also, comparing the west end of downtown to Old Montreal or a European city is completely ludicrous. Have you been past Waldegrave street in the past 10 years? The place is a dump and there is NO life there. We are not talking about destroying a functional community to build a highrise. I too would oppose that. We are looking to revitalize a dead neighbourhood. Obviously these two buildings are not doing much to enhance that part of downtown. You can compare from pictures all you want but unless you take a walk around downtown I don't think you will understand.

If we build around them, fine. They will one day add diversity to a thriving neighbourhood. The problem is there isn't much land around it or in the downtown at all. And to build elsewhere in the west end, we might have to demolish other key historical structures in the west end.. like.. rotting row houses, or dirty industrial warehouses. That would be a shame

Yes they are historical. Not every historical thing is worth preserving. The Holocaust is also historical, but you don't see people lining up to relive that every day. Some parts of history are better left where they belong, in the past. (extreme example, doesn't really apply here. I just thought of it and it was too good of an analogy not to share haha)

And just to take it to an extremely childish level: compare the two pictures you posted. In which do you see more people? That's right. I thought so.

CRAP! There weren't supposed to be any digs... (well one, but subtle, and it was more of advice... ) I appreciate your participation in the forums, honestly.

I never spoke about Old Montreal...? ahah, I spoke about downtown Montreal where all the high-rises are as being gross. I didn't even mention old Montreal. And I spoke about European cities for their heritage qualities. I also didn't compare it to the west-end. You should read more carefully.

I am not disagreeing with you! I know west-end downtown is a dump! My point is that demolishing heritage buildings isn't the solution to improving the area!

I have walked through this area a bunch of times, and I really think you're misinterpreting me... haha I am fully in support of redeveloping/gentrifying this area. I just don't think that we need to destroy 2 of the area's 3 heritage buildings in the process...

"The problem is there isn't much land around it or in the downtown at all. And to build elsewhere in the west end, we might have to demolish other key historical structures in the west end.. like.. rotting row houses, or dirty industrial warehouses. That would be a shame "

What's your problem? We are not so hard pressed for land that we need to destroy these 2 damn buildings. There's also further west toward the Oceanex parking lot for more development... And did I suggest preserving rotting row-houses or dirty industrial warehouses? No. What are you even talking about?

"Yes they are historical. Not every historical thing is worth preserving. The Holocaust is also historical, but you don't see people lining up to relive that every day. "

This is a childish analogy and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it. This is not an appropriate place and it has nothing to do with this conversation. It's also an extremist way of trying to make a point.

And I won't even address your 'more people' question - it's illogical.

[Townie709]

We shall agree to disagree. I feel absolutely no need to defend myself and my opinions to one of much greater intelligence than I. One thing about my analogies.. and much of what I say, never take me seriously haha. There's usually some kind of joke/sarcastic comment hidden within.. xD That "more people" thing was a joke. I thought I made that quite obvious.

Please forgive me for stepping out of line, having an opinion and having a light-hearted additude. It will never happen again, Master

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Architype

Not to argue most of your points, but there are actually lots of heritage buildings in the West End, for example the George Street church next door, and others farther west, and actually in almost every direction. The West End was not touched by the fire of 1892 and you would be surprised to find many remaining buildings that are older than that, as far west as Patrick Street.

I agree with most of your other points, but would rather have facadism than nothing remaining at all.

I think you're right. The 3rd building I refer to is the George Street church (which is a fantastic building).

And I was mainly referring to the area between Springdale and Waldegrave - those are the three most prominent 'heritage' buildings I can think of, but I am sure there are others.

I agree - I would rather facadism than nothing remaining at all.

I would like to just see more creative infills for developments. I find most of the proposals that will come forward will just want to clear cut a massive area with a large clearance on all sides of the building and will end up making the neighbourhood even less inviting than it currently is.