Heritage Issues

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I think the low percentage is simply based on the fact the most of the homes from the Victorian era were demolished as our downtown expanded as most were in the downtown core and East Village, and in general homes from the 40s and 50s were far more plain, so although some will undoubtly end up on the list, very few will be there for architecture, and typically not much newer than the 1960s is looked at for inclusion. As Calgary grows so much about 80% of the homes are newer than 1970.

I think the #1 biggest thing would be Federal tax credits since it's been so wildly successful in the US.

It would be nice if the feds here did more to preserve the past (accurately) but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Too many activist groups want to rewrite history for that to happen.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I’m agreeing with Topdog in this. Heritage properties and roads/schools are not the same thing at all. Comparing the two is ridiculous. Some heritage preservation is fine, but it’s not a necessity, and really doesn’t do much to enrich people’s daily lives, it only enriched the lives of the small special interest group who are into that kind of thing. I find whenever a heritage building is bulldozed or burns down there is a hue and cry from the usual special interest groups, ‘why wasn’t this saved?’

The answer is because you didnt fork out the bucks to save it.

If we concentrated on preserving the truly historic buildings and sites there would be a lot more buy-in from the general public. Anything else should be saved by SIGs if it's so important to them.

[BlaineN]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

If we concentrated on preserving the truly historic buildings and sites there would be a lot more buy-in from the general public. Anything else should be saved by SIGs if it's so important to them.

That's my opinion too. Good to keep some architecture, but there is a small group of people wanting to save everything - SIGs is a good name for them - but the Enoch House wasn't worth saving.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I’m agreeing with Topdog in this. Heritage properties and roads/schools are not the same thing at all. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

It is similar to when people were comparing the new public library to the private business arena. Can't compare the two. In this case, the Enoch Sales House would have been parallel to the arena. There is a spin for how great it will be for the city as a whole, but it is a money pit that only benefits a few - precisely the folks that talk a lot but don't want to put skin in the game.

Originally Posted by BlaineN

That's my opinion too. Good to keep some architecture, but there is a small group of people wanting to save everything - SIGs is a good name for them - but the Enoch House wasn't worth saving.

Agreed.

[Corndogger]

Opinion: We need tools for heritage preservation before it's too late

Calgary Herald
Updated: February 22, 2019

Over the last number of weeks, Calgary has lost two significant heritage buildings.

The Enoch Sales residence, built in 1904, was the sole surviving single-family home in the west part of Victoria Park, which once included numerous other substantial houses. As a still-striking example of a rare architectural type in Calgary, this building was a prominent visual landmark in the community.

The Cope residence in Upper Mount Royal was built in 1912. It was an eclectic house with Tudor half-timbering on the front gable dormers and tapered Craftsman columns on the open verandah. The patterned brick masonry was unique in the city.

Both houses were listed on the Inventory of Evaluated Historic Resources, an online database of historic buildings in the city. Any structure or cultural space over 25 years old is eligible to be included on the inventory. However, being on the inventory does not guarantee protection. Unless a site has been legally protected as a designated “historic resource” at the municipal or provincial levels, normal land use and development conditions apply, including the ability to alter or demolish. Neither Enoch nor Cope was municipally or provincially designated. In the case of the Cope residence, being municipally designated would have prevented this unique heritage home from being demolished.

Of the 857 sites listed on the inventory, 74 have been demolished over the years, leaving 783 sites still standing. Of those sites, only 95 are designated as municipal historic resources and only 63 are designated as provincial historic resources. This means the rest could be demolished or altered.

We need to protect our heritage today, not tomorrow. We have already lost so much of our heritage. As a city, we have been talking about heritage incentives for almost 20 years. In a July 18, 1999, Calgary Herald article, then alderman Jon Lord said, “There are incentive programs that make good economic sense that don’t cost taxpayers any money that we could easily put in place.” Fast-forward 20 years and we are still talking about heritage incentives.

The city’s historic resource conservation grant program currently only has $225,000, compared to the City of Edmonton, which has $1.2 million in its grant program. Thankfully, the City of Calgary will be doubling the heritage grant to $500,000, starting in 2020. But we still have a long way to go to match, let alone surpass, Edmonton.

In Alberta, the provincial Historic Resources Act is written in a way that requires a municipality to compensate an owner if the municipality designates a property as a historic resource against the owner’s wishes, whereas the province can designate a site as a provincial historic resource against the owner’s wishes and not pay compensation. This requirement needs to change to bring Alberta in-line with most other provinces in Canada.

There are key actions that can be taken to preserve our heritage, and they must be taken now.

Canadians need the federal government to bring in a heritage tax credit like what has been in place in the United States since 1976.

Albertans need the province to come to the table to update and amend the Historic Resources Act. Albertans need the province to increase the grant to the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation. Albertans need the province to make the creation of heritage districts easier.

Calgarians need the City of Calgary to look at incentives and tools for heritage preservation, like the heritage tax rebate program that the City of Toronto has in place.

We need Calgarians to tell city councillors that they care about our heritage.

We also need Calgarians and all Albertans to make this a provincial election topic.

Visit our website www.calgaryheritageauthority.com for more information.

Source: https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...e-its-too-late

[DizzyEdge]

A few comments on that opinion piece, sorry for how long winded it will be.

- The 857 probably seems like a lot of sites (probably 90% are buildings, 10% are parks, trees, etc), and in fact many communities haven't even been surveyed yet so I could see that go up to even 1200. But over the past ~20 years almost 10% of the list have been demolished, so tightening up the criteria of what should be added to the list is probably something to be done after we have a better track record of not losing sites.

- Tax credits are really the way to go. The Lougheed/Grand theatre building took advantage of a one-off property tax abatement deal. Essentially restoration would increase the value of the building, but the agreement was in return the city would freeze the 'bad shape' tax assessment for something like 10 years, so it's not an actual pay-out from the city budget, it's just delayed revenue. In the US the Federal restoration tax credit which is a 20% tax credit has been involved in restorations of 41,000 sites since the mid 1970s, involving something like $90 billion in private investment. Apparently even with the tax credit the federal coffers have ended up $5 billion ahead, but I'm not sure how that was calculated.

- The main problem with the low grant dollars available is much of the time the availability of a grant on the 'incentive to preserve' side is competing with a big windfall on the 'incentive to redevelop' side because the city has upzoned the site, directly incentivizing demolition. Of course that is the precise purpose of upzoning, but there are ways to let owners of historical sites cash in on upzoning without needing to demolish, such as density transfer systems.

So basically create a system of municipal property tax abatement, and Provincial and Federal restoration tax credits as a way to promote restoration projects, don't upzone areas with inventoried historical sites without a way to mitigate that financial incentive to demolish (such as density transfer), and increased grants would be nice but I really feel the other things are the most important. If the glut of new builds starts to grow restoration projects is one way to keep trades busy as well.

Density transfer: Many times an upzoning allows a certain amount of density but you can only get the full zoned amount through bonusing, such as public amenities, etc. Density transfer allows an owner of a protected historical site to transfer the density it will never use to another site which the developer of the receiving site can use as bonusing to top out their density. Currently the Beltline has this in place, but most communities don't.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

- Tax credits are really the way to go. The Lougheed/Grand theatre building took advantage of a one-off property tax abatement deal. Essentially restoration would increase the value of the building, but the agreement was in return the city would freeze the 'bad shape' tax assessment for something like 10 years, so it's not an actual pay-out from the city budget, it's just delayed revenue. In the US the Federal restoration tax credit which is a 20% tax credit has been involved in restorations of 41,000 sites since the mid 1970s, involving something like $90 billion in private investment. Apparently even with the tax credit the federal coffers have ended up $5 billion ahead, but I'm not sure how that was calculated.

- The main problem with the low grant dollars available is much of the time the availability of a grant on the 'incentive to preserve' side is competing with a big windfall on the 'incentive to redevelop' side because the city has upzoned the site, directly incentivizing demolition. Of course that is the precise purpose of upzoning, but there are ways to let owners of historical sites cash in on upzoning without needing to demolish, such as density transfer systems.

So basically create a system of municipal property tax abatement, and Provincial and Federal restoration tax credits as a way to promote restoration projects, don't upzone areas with inventoried historical sites without a way to mitigate that financial incentive to demolish (such as density transfer), and increased grants would be nice but I really feel the other things are the most important. If the glut of new builds starts to grow restoration projects is one way to keep trades busy as well.

Density transfer: Many times an upzoning allows a certain amount of density but you can only get the full zoned amount through bonusing, such as public amenities, etc. Density transfer allows an owner of a protected historical site to transfer the density it will never use to another site which the developer of the receiving site can use as bonusing to top out their density. Currently the Beltline has this in place, but most communities don't.

That all makes a lot of sense. Thank-you for providing your thoughts in long format.

[DizzyEdge]

After the Enoch Sales house fire council asked for a report on what can be done to preserve the city’s heritage buildings, this is apparently a draft of it to go to council tomorrow.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=83502

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

After the Enoch Sales house fire council asked for a on what can be done to preserve the city’s heritage buildings, this is apparently a draft of it to go to council tomorrow.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=83502

Looking forward to seeing this