Davis Block | 22m | 5s | Unitii | S2

IMG_8802.jpeg
 
I completely understand that the city needs to densify and that some heritage buildings will be the casualty of that, and I also understand that these were cool but not necessarily indispensable, but their destruction would be a lot easier for me to swallow if they weren’t being replaced by the most generic, soulless, bland, characterless building you can think of. Would it kill them to make it look at least a little nice?
 
BigWoofer said:
I completely understand that the city needs to densify and that some heritage buildings will be the casualty of that, and I also understand that these were cool but not necessarily indispensable, but their destruction would be a lot easier for me to swallow if they weren’t being replaced by the most generic, soulless, bland, characterless building you can think of. Would it kill them to make it look at least a little nice?
Click to expand...
The CFO says yes. Heritage preservation needs to be given some teeth. I think of that building in the UK that the developer had to rebuild exactly the way it was. Some work needs to be done to look at the inventory of heritage buildings and identify the ones that we absolutely cannot lose. I hate to say it but not all Heritage buildings need to be kept. I'm not even talking buildings that are that old. I'd actually hate to lose the old CBE head office as much as any building in Mission. The issue is the owner lets them fall into disrepair and gives themselves no other option. If you classified your Heritage buildings by importance and implemented fines for letting them go into disrepair (similar to the city tree registry) you force the owner's hand either way, maintain it or you will be compelled to pay what it would cost build it again, exactly how it is now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top