Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
In my opinion the #1 thing about the Skye proposal (that is actually likely to happen) is that it will provoke some real debate over the ramparts bylaws and other old rules that are in many cases really out there.
Halifax has an old mythology of half-truths and superstitions that have to be destroyed if the city is to move forward. They are slowly disappearing but it is slow and painful. Lots of people still think that empty grass always makes things better, that the downtown should be half parking lots, or that the city runs off of tourism that will evaporate if anything new is built.
|
I plan to attend some more of the RP+5 meetings and something that I absolutely will be bringing up is the notion that being progressive will destroy the tourism sector.
First of all, why are we planning a city for tourists? We should be planning a city for US.
Second: Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Philadelphia, Vancouver. Orders of magnitude more tourists then we have here, yet no Citadel. How do they do it?? The fact is that people visit these cities because they have tons of interesting things to do and see, and so do we. The Citadel/view from the Citadel is just one of these things, and to many (most?) tourists, not the most important. I worked at a popular bar near the boardwalk that saw hundreds of cruise ship passengers every day all summer, and I would say that over half of them had never heard of the Citadel.
Finally: heritage is not a static phenomenon. Everything that we build is a part of our heritage. To say that only Georgian, Victorian, and Edwardian buildings "show our heritage" is short-sighted at best and xenophobic at worst. Simply put, all of the things that we have built, and that remain, capture a moment in history, whether we want them to or not. That goes for the buildings that we are building now. Would people rather look back on the 2010s as an era where Halifax finally got to be quaint just like Guelph or Victoria or Sherbrooke, or as an era where we actually got serious about increasing density, increasing sustainability, increasing livability, lay the groundwork for an effective transit system, actually started to attract immigrants, etc? Having a handful of new taller buildings downtown isn't about disrespecting the past, it's about respecting the future, and the buildings themselves would be a testament to us actually following through with our goals and objectives.
When I look at Vancouver's skyline, I don't see sterile, overwhelming skyscrapers that make Vancouver look "just like Toronto". I see a city that Canada should be proud of, because they're one of the best examples IN THE WORLD of a city actually achieving the qualities that all of the other cities are striving for, Halifax included. And they certainly didn't get there by making sure any post-war buildings were hidden from the tourists.