Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
I don't know if it's just me, but I'm struggling to think of many historic buildings of merit in the area? The fact is Calgary only became a significant city relatively recently and the majority of the buildings around there are cheap single family homes, many of which are of wood construction and falling into disrepair.
By all means lets preserve the good examples in the area, but it's hardly Paris, there are more than enough forgettable buildings to redevelop.
|
This is a tricky one, as that is usually intentional.
When it comes to old residential neighborhoods, I think there are a few challenges
1) There are often only a few non-single family housing structures which would qualify as "historic" individually, most structures that would are commercial, religious, etc.
2) The few individual single family homes which would quality tend to be those built by wealthier families, this resulting in more interesting architecture, but also larger houses and lots. These larger houses and lots tend to be the first to be demolished regardless of condition as more units can be built on the property
What then happens is the best and most historic homes are demolished, leaving those interested in preservation trying to preserve the lesser structures which are left. Usually almost none of these would quality for historic classification on their own. This leaves you with two remaining situations
3) first being clusters or strips of historic architecture which is representative of the era and founding of the community, where they are in decent shape and enough original condition where that cluster is historically relevant and
4) the rest of the housing from the same era which is in poor condition, has been badly modified, etc.
So the key here would be to expedite proper evaluation of 1) and 2) and put in place incentives which are effective in the kind of real estate market we have here in Calgary. Giving a home owner a $25k grant or some minor tax relief would likely convince a historic home owner in a area zoned for single family or perhaps semi attched, but probably not for someone who owns a historic home in the Beltline (See McHugh). Typically what is needed is density transfer so an owner can cash in the density they're not providing, by providing it somewhere else in the community, or selling it to someone who can apply it elsewhere in the community. That way the owner gets their payout which is essentially promised when an area is upzoned, and the desired density in the community that the upzoning aimed for is not lost.
When it comes to 3) that's a bit tricky, what typically is needed here are owners who think that being part of the "Sunnyside 7th Street Historic District" (just picking a street at random) complete with signage and fancy lights or whatever is something which would be of value, rather than looking at their home as a tear down investment only.
When it comes to 4), the issue tends to be more about 'character of the community" than any specific historic value. What I think is important here is as an area is upzoned, one should try to meet or exceed the architectural quality and perhaps be conscious of massing, rather than trying to put in strict rules to build the same style.
I have issues with restrictions to build the same style because it tends to lead to two situations a) kind oldey timey house that just look like cheap knockoffs b) high quality oldey timey houses which make people question why any historic buildings should be kept since we can create nice looking fake historic styled ones. When it comes to innercity communities with housing type 4) I'd like to see some high quality 'contemporary' replacement, for example high quality row housing or something that creates a new but equally comfortable and attractive character for the community, something that 100 years from now people might work to preserve.
God that was far longer than expected....and off topic
Prev
.
Linear Mode
