Historic Places Walking Tours
The city’s heritage department is holding a series of walking tours and information sessions regarding historic properties, according to the brochure I received in my mailbox. The letter on the back included only a phone number, and I didn’t find anything on the city website about it (I suppose the heritage department isn’t expected to be particularly high tech).
The walking tours are in the Mount Pleasant Area (north of the throughway toward Rockwood Park) (May10); Lower West Side (May 17); Old North End (May 24); and South End (May 31).
According to the letter on the back (below), there are “no strings attached” to a property being added to the Register of Historic Places, leaving out the fact that the city’s heritage bylaw does a mighty fine job of attaching string to many of these properties.
4 comments:
In your note you state:
"According to the letter on the back (below), there are “no strings attached” to a property being added to the Register of Historic Places, leaving out the fact that the city’s heritage bylaw does a mighty fine job of attaching string to many of these properties."
To clarify, being on the register of historic properties does not have any strings attached. The properties that have strings attached (if you see it that way) are those within the designated heritage preservation areas. Obviously there is crossover with the HPAs and the HPI register, but there are many more properties that could be in the register than exist in the curretn preservation areas.
Also, just a comment, the heritage bylaws are in place to protect the built heritage our city posseses from individuals or companies who would otherwise buy cheap inferior materials and destroy the original look and feel of the built heritage. There are grants to assist with the extra costs of bylaw compliance. Overall, protecting heritage ensures we have our asset preserved and available for future generations to enjoy. Without bylaws you have disfigured streetscapes mixed with heritage and modern buildings, which is very unattractive (see Halifax as a prime example). There is no reason heritage and modern architecture can't co exist, and Saint John does it well. You can have areas protected and preserved and areas meant for modern construction, however integrating them rarely works and usually lowers the attractiveness of both heritage and modern.
The historic property index is a good website/program and helps point out why many buildings are worth preserving.
I agree that in a strong real estate market that the "strings" of the heritage development bylaw are not a big problem for many owners of heritage properties.
The bylaw of the past did seem to slow owners from updating properties though - if one didn't have the time or energy to play ball with the heritage preservation crew, they couldn't update or replace exterior building elements. I think the new bylaw is supposed to be easier to navigate, and with time hopefully this is proven.
I'm not sure if I agree that broadly defined heritage preservation areas are always beneficial. When these laws make it difficult or cost prohibitive to development surface parking lots (a land use that soon should be a relic of a bygone era, but is not particularly heritage), I don't think that this is a full success. It might keep ugly or mismatched buildings out of the neighbourhood, but it also keep new families, new business and new community out of the neighbourhood.
Not sure if I'm reading you right, but you're saying that the heritage bylaws are making it impossible to redevelop open lots, so we see more surface parking? I agree with you that it is an issue to have gaps in the streetscape due to limitations on building, however the lack of development is often due to the landowner. If you spend the money and make the project a good one you can easily develop modern buildings that fit into the streetscape and can be repurposed to modern uses.
If you do it right you will not stop families, business, or community from locating there. It will be just the opposite and start momentum bringing more people to the area and expanding the use of the building. A prime example is Centerbeam place. A beautiful use of historic built heritage, completely updated to modern standards and full of mixed use - retail, food, financial services, IT, art, books, etc. What an amazing asset.
Another example is the infill they built on Queen Street. They maintained the heritage look and feel across the two new sections, not just maintaining, but improving the streetscape, and it keeps things in the spirit of the preservation neighbourhood. Now there will be a whole bunch of new South End residents, and the project was made much better by the heritage bylaws.
For a great example of why you need heritage bylaws check out the pathetic infill on Orange Street from many years ago. Why would anyone think that a blue vinyl sided structure would fit into the Orange Street landscape. Unfortunately, sometimes you need to protect people from their own bad taste.
The new heritage bylaw is very easy to understand and the process for communicating with the Heritage Development group is simple and accomodating. My experience has been that anyone willing to understand the mandate of the Board and step up and do their part have no issue with the bylaw. It is those who don't understand it, don't spend the time to learn about it, and have their mind set with preconceived notions who are complaining.
I wouldn't say that the bylaw made development impossible - it did make it more expensive though. The local market can now better afford to develop as such.
I know the "greater good" is at the heart of zoning and other land use bylaws, but we balance protecting property values and aesthetics with promoting urban density and new ideas.
The building on Queen you refer to is one of my favorite recent developments; I think economic conditions and government programs allowed this affordable housing development to succeed.
Personally, I'm a fence-straddler on heritage preservation/ development. I think it's great to encourage the use and maintenance of heritage buildings, but my stomach sometimes turns when I hear of windows replacements being turned down or the struggles of developing something new in the area.
Again, the new bylaw may address some of this (I do trust that it is better, I've read the old and the new as well as the never-enacted infill housing guidelines).
I get concerned that the heritage area doesn't allow for tall structures. I understand keeping that area at a heritage scale is important for some people, but now the city is intent on wasting a lot of land outside of the heritage area but close to the city centre on a two-storey police station. Land area is finite. If we want to create more urban density it has to happen somewhere.
In conclusion:
CenterBeam Place - Good.
Queen Street apartments - Good.
Preservation of worthy buildings - Good.
Considering everything our governments try to impose with skepticism - Good.
Post a Comment