[JonnyCanuck]

Years back the Calgary Herald did a thing asking people to send in photos of heritage buildings they liked. One of ones that multiple people submitted was the Barley MIll in Eau Claire. It was built in the late 1990s..

Now that is funny

 

[JoeUrban]

Now that is funny

During a public meeting about new development around the Nimmons house, someone in the audience didn't like the contemporary architectural style of the proposed development, and wanted it instead to be "a heritage building".

People in this city already seem to barely understand what a heritage building actually means, I wouldn't support making that even worse.

 

[FCC1982]

https://www.thestar.com/calgary/201...r-historic-calgary-home-goes-up-in-smoke.html

So, the Enoch Sales House burned down today. I know this is not technically urban development, but it seems important enough to go in one of the most viewed threads on the board.

It’s sad, but unfortunately not unexpected. You let a building sit abandoned like that for decades, it’s only a matter of time before some squatter looking to escape a brutally cold winter night ends up torching the place.

Yep - that about sums it up.

 

[kora]

Because that would quickly turn into a situation where the default option for heritage preservation would be to just tear down the actual historical building and build a facsimile that looks similar. It's one thing to rebuild your city because outside forces destroyed it, vs creating a bunch of fake 'heritage' because you can't be bothered to preserve it.

Years back the Calgary Herald did a thing asking people to send in photos of heritage buildings they liked. One of ones that multiple people submitted was the Barley MIll in Eau Claire. It was built in the late 1990s.

I'd much prefer any $$ that would be spent on a replica be used instead to preserve actual heritage buildings.

This is a unique case where a disaster destroyed a building that was trying to be preserved. We need to make exceptions if we care about our heritage.

 

[JoeUrban]

This is a unique case where a disaster destroyed a building that was trying to be preserved. We need to make exceptions if we care about our heritage.

Well I guess the way I look at it is if money could be used to rebuild a replica, or preserve something real, I'd pick the real.

 

[retrofiturbanism]

Enoch is a huge loss. Beautiful building that had so much potential. A cool café or a community space would be amazing there. Just really sucks when such an important asset is lost because of neglect and lack of vision.

 

[Habanero]

I would choose to preserve the real too, but now with it being something we can't fix, I wonder if a rebuild would be so bad?

 

[JoeUrban]

I would choose to preserve the real too, but now with it being something we can't fix, I wonder if a rebuild would be so bad?

It's a fair point. The reason I don't much thought into it, is there is a list of seriously like 100 pressing heritage issues involving existing buildings, so once one is gone there still leaves 99 that need money or attention. So while that backlog exists, I don't support putting money into replicas.

Think of it this way, if you have 100 patients to do deal with and one dies, should you put any money available into a wax replica of the dead one, or to help save the other 99?

 

[Patrick.1980]

I agree. It’s a shame the house burned down, but if anything it makes us more realize that we need to take care of the rest of the heritage properties.

It's a fair point. The reason I don't much thought into it, is there is a list of seriously like 100 pressing heritage issues involving existing buildings, so once one is gone there still leaves 99 that need money or attention. So while that backlog exists, I don't support putting money into replicas.

Think of it this way, if you have 100 patients to do deal with and one dies, should you put any money available into a wax replica of the dead one, or to help save the other 99?

 

[Disraeli]

There are ways the city and province can legislate better protection of our heritage buildings. Right now, if a building doesn't have heritage protection, it is up to the the owner to put it up for protection, maintain or restore the building, or demolish it. Demolition, especially given the amount of development in the city, is %99 of the time the most economical of the options if a building doesn't have heritage designation. There are a litany of sites across the city that are at direct risk as result of this. That stretch of buildings on 7th avenue and the brewery site are both prime examples of sites that are in poor condition and whose owners are sitting around doing nothing to preserve the buildings while they dither about on how to redevelop the area. And if or when these sites come up for demolition the structural state will conveniently be cited as a reason why they chose to demolish the buildings rather than preserve them. If you feel passionate about protecting our heritage buildings, then find your Councillor or MLA and bring your concerns to their attention.

 

[JoeUrban]

There are ways the city and province can legislate ways to better protect our heritage buildings. Right now, if a building doesn't have heritage protection, it is up to the the owner to put it up for protection, maintain or restore the building, or demolish it. Demolition, especially given the amount of development in the city, is %99 of the time the most economical of the options if a building doesn't have heritage designation. There are a litany of sites across the city that are at direct risk as result of this. That stretch of buildings on 7th avenue and the brewery site are both prime examples of sites that are in poor condition and whose owners are sitting around doing nothing to preserve the buildings while they dither about on how to redevelop sites. And if or when these sites come up for demolition the structural state will conveniently be cited as a reason why they chose to demolish the buildings rather than preserve them. If you feel passionate about protecting our heritage buildings, then find your Councillor or MLA and bring your concerns to their attention.

100%.
People are often surprised to learn that about half of the buildings on Stephen avenue have zero protection, let alone others at far greater risk.

 

[JoeUrban]

I should mention that the Alberta government can designate without requiring an owner's permission, but that probably been only done a few times in the past 20 years.

 

[Always_Biking]

100%.
People are often surprised to learn that about half of the buildings on Stephen avenue have zero protection, let alone others at far greater risk.

Stephen Ave is about the only area of downtown left that has any character, hopefully we never have to grieve the loss of buildings there.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Some good news on the heritage front.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/city-heritage-rouleau-house-renovation-1.5015170?cmp=rss
City has a line on tenant for Rouleau House, which dates back to 1885

 

[JoeUrban]

I do have some concerns about the cost, the restoration costs here seem way out of whack compared to other provinces, like triple out of whack, so I'm trying to see what exactly is causing our restoration projects to be seemingly so 'gold plated'. Good news though.