Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner
Maybe I'm strange but I just don't see the fascination with keeping a building standing just because it is old. Old doesn't to me equal heritage. I dunno maybe I just put more stock into what living human beings do historically than the buildings they do it in.
What was more important. Sir Isaac Newton or the building he completed Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in?
Do we hold onto old buildings because they survive longer than any human being? So for example there are no Egyptians from 4600 years ago living today yet the Pyramids still stand so we pay homage to these, basically, piles of rock?
I guess I'm asking why some people get "extremely upset" over heritage building preservation and why should a building like "The Burrard Building" (St. Paul's Hospital) be preserved ad infinitum? To me it is a hospital that serves the third most densely populated downtown core in North America. I'd just as soon see it torn down in phases to be rebuilt in phases as a top of the line modern hospital that can survive more than a 5.0 earthquake. Designating an old building from 1912 a heritage site doesn't save lives. And for the record my late grandmother was very well served at St. Paul's in her later years and eventually died in its cardiac unit well into her 80s. I respect the people working in the hospital, but it is just a building.
|
Globally, I understand and respect your take on this.
And yes, a more modern, more earthquake resistant building would probably be more desirable.
*
But this is Vancouver, and by that I mean there aren't many older building around.
I would, as I mentioned, like to see the hospital itself relocated, but keep the building, seismically retrofit, and turned into a a cultural institute of some sort.
Prev
Linear Mode
