General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[danbrotherston]

But that is the point.

Knocking a few stories off this development does NOTHING for heritage (and why would it, heritage is a bullshit argument, especially here).

But what it will do is represent a few dozen families in the margins who are now unable to find housing.

I hate that fake compromise so much....

I disagree with this. Preserving the heritage of areas of cities is an important thing to do. New developments can in fact destroy a neighbourhood. I don't think most people would disagree that if Venice suddenly started building massive condos and skyscrapers, it would be very detrimental to the city. Or for a more relatable comparison, all the new construction you see in China or Japan only happened by destroying the historic fabric of those cities.

It's all subjective of course and one can argue that heritage can coexist with the contemporary (and I believe it can), but suggesting the preservation of cultural, neighbourhood and architectural heritage is bullshit in terms of blocking new developments is wrong and can have negative impacts on an area. Of course, in this case I don't believe for one second that this proposed project will do any harm, but due to the subjective experience each person has in their cities, their voices are worth hearing out.

Heritage is a very important thing. As an Indigenous person, I could argue that all the settlers who came here destroyed our cultural heritage (both the intangible and tangible). Waterloo Region - Canada - only exists because you guys came here and decided that our heritage was not worth preservation and much of who we are has been destroyed. I know that's an odd argument to use but it helps illustrate why certain groups of people get wary when history is destroyed for something new. It's possible to have both, you just need compromises.

That said, given that downtown has always had tall buildings, their argument against this project is junk. More so because they are wanting to protect an actual parking lot. But at the same time, it's possible to develop cities without the need for highrises and skyscrapers everywhere. European cities are a great example. Many of them have high density, but many also prevent the construction of tall buildings in order to preserve the historic fabric of the area. Our cities would need to reconsider zoning rules, but you can achieve high density without the need for towering buildings everywhere.

I don't generally agree with heritage arguments. I think change is a natural thing which should happen. The most conciliatory thing I will say that there are perhaps SOME objects of historical significance that should be kept and maintained a historical artifacts open to the public, as a museum (e.g., schneider haus), but this does not mean our community should not change and evolve. (For example, who decides *WHEN* an area should be frozen in time?--perhaps Venice should have been held at a prior version!)

But generally I think almost all of the heritage arguments I've heard in KW are completely bullshit. They have nothing to do with our history, and have everything to do with opposing change.

Obviously this is not an opinion shared by most, but I feel like it is an increasingly easy to defend argument as we see increasingly ludicrous "heritage" arguments like this.