Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
I am usually pro-preservation when it comes to historic buildings if I had to pick one direction or the other, as redevelopment can include restoration while respecting heritage... but often times, I think people get too nostalgic / sentimental about buildings that are no longer in use and are likely impeding growth as cities grow. Many of these proposed buildings for demolition are dilapidated and are sitting empty / underused as is. I say in this case, make way for progress. That is a very, very central / high-value block that can be a catalyst for other development in the core going forward (hopefully residential), something that has consistently been needed in this city since the 1970s. Plus, not everything in that block will be destroyed.
We don't keep most cars that become outdated, or appliances or clothes (we buy new goods), so why don't we hold buildings to the same standard? Sure, keep ones that have a unique history and still can serve a physical purpose; keep them if you have the resources to restore or modernize them (the St. Louis Hotel and the King Edward Hotel come to mind). But we should really not let nostalgia, NIMBYism and predictable fear of change get in the way of something that can be transformational for an urban core, likely resulting in something greater than the sum of its parts.
|
After walking through the area tonight on the way to the Dome, I'm feeling better about this. Most of the historic frontages are from the late 1800s but most of the stores have gutted the insides already.
The Molson Bank aka James Joyce looks like the most well preserved in terms of interior and exterior and it looks like it is staying put in the development.