The loss of historical buildings in Canada to developers

I have no problem with churches being demolished.  If you're talking "important" historical buildings, I might be more sympathetic.

How come LTJ?

Perhaps the colonialists who  feel angst at this at this so called destruction of history, will get a glimour of insight into how First Nations peoples felt, and feel, to watch the destruction of their sociery buildings and culture.

Moreover, I guess us white colonialists are by the same token "vermin".

remind wrote:

 will get a glimour of insight into how First Nations peoples felt, and feel, to watch the destruction of their sociery buildings and culture.

Wonderful!

Now, we're getting somewhere, thanks Webgear.

remind wrote:

What an empty statement.

It's more than we've gotten before.  Glacial steps.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Yes, they're purty, what's the reason to keep them from falling apart?

Aesthetic and religious considerations aside, what's wrong with trying to preserve whatever we can of our history?

Would you bulldoze Stonehenge because it doesn't make any sense to you?

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Webgear: I don't want to see any of the past recreated.  I'd like us to move forward.  I'm sorry for distorting your statement.

al-Q: Yes, I would bulldoze stonehenge because it's recreatable in 5 minutes these days.

Yes, they're doing great things with styrofoam and airbrushes these days, aren't they?

Good grief, pass the Victory Gin.

I just finished watching the film, Idiocracy, and now have read your posts in this thread.

Small world.

As someone who has worked as a roofer on more than a few construction projects, I say "Who cares how much it costs?"  It sure beats working with fibreglass insulation.

I think I live in the 'lost history' capital of Canada. Because of former 'new development' friendly Councils, LIUNA has possession of several historical buildings, which are simply being allowed to deteriorate until they are structurally unsound and can be demolished, or fall down of their own accord.

It's disgusting. 

(See Balfour building here...)

http://www.heritagecanada.org/pdf/2008_risk/Worst_Losses_List_2008.pdf

 After a struggle to save the Lister Block, it sits empty because LIUNA refuses to sell and cannot make a reasonable proposal to restore it for new uses without the city paying for it (while they reap the profits? NOT!!). I guess they are waitingfor a return to the old style of governance where tearing down was the mantra. NOT going to happen LIUNA!!!

The Lister building is concrete and steel, and refuses to fall down.

However, it's incredible terra cotta facade is being allowed to deteriorate, windows are not boarded up against the elements and the birds, etc. It's a travesty.

 I suggest anyone concerned about vacant and deteriorating historic buildings in their area find out who owns them and lay complaints and publicize the name of the owners (in bold print). (They hate bad press.) Cities only act on complaints about properties being allowed to deteriorate. Be clear that you are asking for it to be preserved, not torn down.

 Tell them you'll lie down in front of the demolition machines.

Quote:

However, I am against, the condescending self righteous tone...

And here I thought I was being merely descriptive, comparing their behaviour to that of rats and termites. 

By the way, I  support the efforts made to preserve or excavate sites important to First Nations' culture as well.  We have such a place, Wanuskewin, near here.

Just saying it's not very important to me.  Human history is soiled.  Yes, document it but I don't get the fascination.  I've learned from the past and look to the future for hope.

These days it's partly history and partly why demolish and send the debris to the landfill? It makes no sense from environmental perspectives.

I see nothing of interest, no beauty, in shiny new glass and steel monstrosities. I guess it's a matter of taste.

We've lost entire blocks of beautiful historic buildings that defined neighbourhoods, with nothing to show for it but blank dreary cement walls with few windows and no street presence at all.

I disagree.  Preserving old buildings, retaining crafts, fighting to maintain threatened languages; they're all part of a battle against the homogenizing forces of capitalist modernity.

Canada has pretty well surrendered to these forces, but I've seen encouraging counterattacks in Europe.  For example, the Breton language revival is tied to a renaissance in Celtic music and interest in traditional crafts and architecture in Brittany.  These people are resisting soulless capitalist "progress" by promoting the values of village life as it once existed.

Sky Captain Bauhaus raises good points.  However, I think there should be more preservation of older buildings-- and as taxpayers we  should be more prepared to fund those endeavors.

A more disturbing trend is how many of these buildings are being lost to suspiciously convenient fires.

Someone is going to get killed eventually.

Sky Captain wrote:

Sorry, but as one person said before about an article on the same subject somewhere else, a city or town is not a museum.

Cities/towns are places to live and work in, and the buildings, by and large, reflect that function. They are not simply just beautiful object d'art to gawk over, but places to conduct business, or to live in. If a well-designed and beautiful building can be kept and serviced, that's great, but a structure-beautiful or not-should be fufilling a prime function, then a diffrent one under what owners own it.

People all over the world value cities and towns for their beauty not just their function. Buildings such as this old church can be and are repurposed. That doesn't necessarily bring as much profit to the current owner as they would like but the interests of individual owners do not supercede the interests of the residents of the area.

You say, "if it can be kept and serviced" but in almost all cases it can be. In fact if it can't be serviced it will fall down of it's own accord. That is different than an owner refusing to keep a building in good repair because they hope to develop it or sell it to be developed for a more lucrative use.

Heritage buildings are in use. They are not kept as museum pieces.

This thread seems to have drawn out some latent Howard Roark fans.