[BCMA] CMA Clip Serv: Some reminders just don't deserve to berescued

[Moderated BCMA subscriber listserv.]

December 4, 2009

 

As to reminders of the past...

 

Mr. Gee seems to bemoan the saving of the ugly and not so good looking
in Canada's historical architectural landscape.  Recently, I read an
article in the China News about a fellow bemoaning the fact that they
tore down the railway station in his home town - a place he venerates
with memories from his past.  The thrust of his argument was the fact
that loads are spent on monumental or significant architectural
conservation, but little on things that reflect the daily lives of the
people who build the country; because the reigning thought was that the
former would draw more tourists.  More often than not, the ugly and not
so good looking reflect reality and the monumental and significant our
aspirations and dreams.  We can not help but to have aspirations and
dreams, which are especially useful when we are ugly and not so good
looking.  But, if we want to teach our children well, our past must be
inclusive - it adds character.

 

W. (Bill) G. Quackenbush,

President, Wells Historical Society

Box 244, Wells, B.C.  V0K 2R0

www.wellsmuseum.ca 

 

________________________________

From: bcma-bounces at lists.vvv.com [mailto:bcma-bounces at lists.vvv.com] On
Behalf Of Moderated BCMA subscriber listserv.
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:23 AM
To: bcma at lists.vvv.com
Subject: [BCMA] CMA Clip Serv: Some reminders just don't deserve to
berescued

 

Some reminders of the past just don't deserve to be rescued 

Let's not tie ourselves into knots trying to rescue unremarkable or
simply ugly buildings 

Marcus Gee, The Globe and Mail, Thursday, December 3, 2009 

 

A city with a past as brief as Toronto's has to fight to preserve its
heritage. Thanks to the energy and passion of conservationists, we have
come a long way since the days when the wrecking ball threatened
historic monuments such as Old City Hall. Sometimes, though,
conservation can become a fetish. 

 

Consider the case of the Downsview hangars. The two structures,
romantically known as Buildings 55 and 58, stand on what used to be a
Canadian Forces Base near the 401 and Allen Road. The Department of
National Defence was on the verge of pulling them down when developer
Paul Oberman objected. He calls them 

important heritage buildings that recall Canada's contribution to the
Second World War, when the de Havilland company used them as part of a
contract to manufacture Mosquito warplanes. 

 

A piece on the online site BlogTO praised their "square-shouldered,
muscular majesty." The Heritage Canada Foundation speaks of their
"precise and polished design aesthetic." The Architectural Conservancy
of Ontario calls them "historic, iconic structures enclosing vast space,
with dramatic monitor windows filling them with light." 

 

Hmm. When you cast your eyes on the crumbling hangars, it is hard to
understand all the to-do. Where heritage buffs see iconic majesty, the
ordinary person sees vast, empty boxes of plain brick and steel. This is
not exactly Versailles we are talking about. The Defence Department says
the hangars are riddled with asbestos and lead 

paint. Parts of the ceiling are falling in. Defence looked at
restoration and found it would be cheaper just to demolish. 

 

Mr. Oberman believes the hangars should be restored instead, repurposed
as a museum or an air exposition space. He has even offered to put up
his own money. His motives are noble, but the danger is that, as costs
of restoration rise, as they always do, the restorers would run to
governments for help. With so many other 

demands on the public purse, they would be mad to throw money at these
suburban hulks. 

 

This is not the first time conservationists have rushed to protect
"historic" structures of dubious architectural or heritage value. For
years now, they have been striving to save two sets of storage silos
that sit like bookends at either end of the downtown waterfront. The
silos may be a nice reminder of the waterfront's gritty industrial 

past, but they are still, well, silos - blank-faced towers that are hard
to convert to other uses. Even though budget problems forced the city to
abandon a plan to put a city museum on the site of the western Canada
Malting silos, Heritage Toronto continues to push for a
multimillion-dollar restoration of this "significant cultural heritage 

resource." 

 

Another nutty heritage row broke out when a condo developer proposed to
tear down the Royal Canadian Military Institute, a grey Edwardian pile
on University Avenue. Although the building is hardly a jewel and the
institute itself said it was falling apart and beyond repair, heritage
zealots still fought to save it. 

 

In the end, sense prevailed and a compromise was reached that would save
elements of the building's historic facade and build condos on top. But
that underlines another unfortunate result of the heritage fetish:
facadism. 

 

In the name of heritage, Toronto developers are often forced to retain
the facade of the building they knock down, incorporating it in the new,
modern building. Sometimes it works. The Air Canada Centre kept the art
deco facade of the post office it replaced, with its pictorial history
of postal delivery. Other times, it is just silly. 

 

The developers of a planned new apartment building on St. Nicholas
Street were forced to preserve the facade of the poky old Jesuit college
on the site. The result is a damp squib compared with the dramatic
figure-ofeight-shaped tower the architects had drawn up. 

Of course, not all heritage campaigns are nonsense. Loblaw and Ryerson
University are getting together to save that temple of hockey, Maple
Leaf Gardens. The restoration and redevelopment of Union Station means
that its cavernous great hall - now that's majestic - will live on.
Developers have found creative ways to reuse many abandoned industrial
structures in the city, from the Don Valley brickworks to the Distillery
District to the Wychwood Barns. More power to them. 

 

Where truly historic, distinguished or interesting buildings can find
new life at a reasonable cost, it only makes sense to save them. But
let's not tie ourselves into knots trying to rescue unremarkable or
simply ugly buildings merely because, in a young city, they qualify as
old. 

 

---   30   --- 



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4661 (20091204) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.vvv.com/pipermail/bcma/attachments/20091204/e99e4372/attachment-0001.htm