(06-28-2021, 11:31 AM)tomh009 Wrote: I think to date the city has not exerted any control over heritage interiors (don't know whether other cities do this though). Would you propose that owners would need to get permission for any interior modifications or renovations to heritage-interior-designated buildings?
I think it should be based on the architectural merit of the interior in addition to the exterior. So yes, I think that buildings with significance should have their value assessed and developers ought to get permission before making extensive changes first. If I bought up a city block somewhere with a beautiful ancient cathedral, I should not get the freedom to demolish the entire thing as I see fit just because I own it. The value of the building in all regards should supersede my ownership because it has value to everyone. This building, for example, has some beautiful architecture inside but in addition to that, there is a historical significance. As the article mentions "the woodworking was done by Berlin Interior Hardwood Company and the plaster and stone work by Berlin general contractor Casper Braun". To me, that's an interesting part of our local history and should be protected as much as it possibly can be.
But also, there is the tangible cost of demolition or modification. Currently, the way we judge a buildings heritage status is quite narrow. A couple weeks ago I linked this lecture by UW School of Architecture professor Eric Haldenby in another thread. At the timestamp I linked (1:21:11) he discusses how the Ontario Heritage Act is a very ineffective method of determining the heritage value of a structure. He has been working with a graduate student at the school to develop a broader method of judging a building. He explains how currently, buildings are primarily judged on 3 points of judgement value which is a fairly limited way of making these heritage value assessments. He argues, though, that it should be expanded to also judge something based on its intrinsic value - materials, energy/effort, construction methods, craftsmanship and so on.
Essentially, is it worth destroying or reconfiguring a building - and ultimately resulting in a permanent loss of architectural, aesthetic and cultural/historical value - or is it worth preserving that existing building and instead simply build a new structure elsewhere? He raises the point that the student is trying to include the energy cost in this sort of heritage protection and modification. Construction and demolition costs an incredible amount of energy and that ought to be taken into consideration as well since we're facing a climate crisis. They could spend less energy building a tower on an empty lot or by bulldozing some old houses with an excavator.
When I look at it this way, it makes no sense. This building is a rare local treasure. Momentum wants to build a massive condo tower on top, saving the façade and spending an incredible amount of energy in the process. Is the loss of this buildings interior - and much of its exterior - worth the loss of the architectural and cultural/historical value - as well as the cost of this demolition and construction of a new tower? I don't believe so. There are so many places in this region they could build this tower. They are using this site because it's a nice building and they can use that historic façade to market it to people, but I think this is an insane thing to do. A similar situation happened with Circa 1877. They saved a tiny bit of the façade of the old brewery, but destroyed everything else...and then built one of the ugliest condo towers in the region on top. They spent a lot of energy doing this but also destroyed one of the most significant parts of our local history when they got rid of the majority of the existing structure. That old brewery is now gone forever and nothing remains but the carbon footprint and parts of the façade that might as well not have even been saved.