The loss of historical buildings in Canada to developers
I don't know why these vermin are called "developers." They seem like destroyers to me.
I have no problem with churches being demolished. If you're talking "important" historical buildings, I might be more sympathetic.
I somewhat understand the sentiment, but architecturally, churches are often very important buildings.
How come LTJ?
The best of architects were contracted for their design, the best of craftsmen hired, fewer financial compromises in construction...
As a generality, until post-WWII times, they are the finer buildings in any region.
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".
Thanks much LTJ. Isn't that kind of classist or at least culturally biased?
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!
Yes, they're purty, what's the reason to keep them from falling apart?
Now, we're getting somewhere, thanks Webgear.
What an empty statement.
What an empty statement.
It's more than we've gotten before. Glacial steps.
Yikes! I withdraw my support.
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?
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.
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.
No, we just seem to have discovered the secret to place rocks where the sun shines.
I just finished watching the film, Idiocracy, and now have read your posts in this thread.
Small world.
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.
If you ever want to drive up the price of a construction project, demand styrofoam -- that stuff is not cheap.
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.
Meh. I just finished "exolating" an exterior retaining wall for a set of basement stairs. This was for moisture protection for an 8 inch think concrete wall, where none of the walls so exolated were part of the interior/exterior wall of the house, and therefore performed no function in retaining heat.
Styrofoam for this opeation comprised 1/3rd of the overal material costs for the entire job. Waste of money, materials, and certainly no help to the environment.
It is also extremely posionous when it burns.
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.
In truth, I am not really againt the keeping of old building, if only for the fact of using a usable structure instead of the waste of energy and money in tering down the old and and creating a new.
However, I am against, the condescending self righteous tone, of labelling people as "vermin" when one has no room to talk, if one is white and living in Canada or the USA.
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.
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.
YIKES!!
You sound like LIUNA that wanted to demolish a sound building to build a cheap copy of it! (Thinking that would make us happy. ugh!)
History is history and cannot be 'recreated'.
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.
Saga, I am not sure if your strategy will work however it is worth an attempt. I know of several attempts like this in Grey/Bruce country however each one has ended in failure.
I believe a gas station or coffee will be likely built on the land.
I know of a historical building that I want to save, I will use your advice and start planning now.
______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
Good luck! (It worked for me!)
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.
And I believe that's as much on us as it is developers. Preserving historic buildings won't preserve a village.
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.
they destroy the stuff that looks cool and yet my boi said in the east end a statue of a guy who majorly supported apartheid still stands. Shit like that makes you wonder.
edit- lol tho aint like im gonna see either in real life anyway lol
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.
Countinued from a lost thread.....
Another building lost.
"Within an hour Thursday, a backhoe reduced the 125-year-old board and batten former church at Mennonite corners to a pile of splintered wood, shredded insulation and plaster dust.
The building, under threat of demolition for at least four years, was ripped down less than 12 hours after Georgian Bluffs council ordered its destruction in a 6-1 vote Wednesday night.
John Harrison, whose Heritage Georgian Bluffs group tried to save and restore the aged church, was fuming mad Thursday morning. "
______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
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 think that today's ulitarian structures are just too drab, but if kept right, the building can be used again-and with some classic buildings, that's what's being done. Actually, the current ecological drive to keep buildings instead of just demolishing them will help more than just keeping a city or town a museum.
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.
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.
But there usually is more preservation of older buildings; and as I said before, the current drive to preserve current buildings instead of just tearing them down will help more than just preserving something because it's just so-gosh-darned pretty. And to be frank, the owners of the church should have provided a plan to keep it around rather than let it be destroyed by the vissictudes of life.
This thread seems to have drawn out some latent Howard Roark fans.