The Great Canadian Heritage Restoration Thread

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by shappy

Do you mean the way it was restored or the actual buildings? My guess is these were originally commercial properties that were converted to residential and are now going back again. There are lots of buildings like this lining S. Ontario's main commercial streets (like the neighbours to the left and across the street).

I meant in the way it's restored. I don't necessarily mean it in a bad way either. The originals don't exactly look like exemplaries. I'm just saying that it's more renovation and less restoration.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by jamincan

They look nice, but it's definitely not S. Ontario vernacular architecture.

I've seen designs like that throughout Southern Ontario.

[davidivivid]

This post isn't so much about restoration than it is about preservation.

Construction of the Grand Théâtre de Québec began in 1965. The goal was intrinsically linked to the Provincial Governement's desire to modernize the City and at the time, modernity and brutalist architecture walked hand in hand.

However, a few years ago, the concrete slabs of the outer shell showed advanced signs of deterioration. The governement was presented with three choices. 1- The complete removal of the concrete slabs and its replacement with a more "modern" looking outer shell. 2- The installation of similar looking concrete slabs. 3- The enclosing of the exterior walls in a glass case.

The direction of the Grand Théâtre opted for the third choice. In explaining their decision, they mentionned that just as château style, brutalist architecture was part of the history of the city and that good examples of it could not simply be wiped away.









https://grandtheatre.qc.ca/a-propos/notre-histoire/











https://www.facebook.com/Stephane.Gr...grapher/photos

[J.OT13]

That looks great! Excellent balance between modernizing the building, yet maintaining the original design.

[hipster duck]

I don't know if they saved it or destroyed it.

[J.OT13]

A little off topic, but it involves a performance hall of the same era and architectural style. The NAC has maintained its original architecture and added a modern glass addition, continuing the geometric pattern of the original. It was supposed to be a centennial project, but was completed two years late in 1969.

The original architect was Fred Lebensold while the addition was designed by Diamond Schmitt.

The main entrance used to be Canal side, but a new entrance has been added on Elgin, facing the city. The Canal side entrance remains.


https://twitter.com/CanadasNAC/statu...19048375078914

The new entrance lantern lights-up.


https://twitter.com/CanadasNAC/statu...24728310124546

Some work has been done on the main performance hall, Southam Hall, to improve sound quality, including new seats with wooden backs. The overall design remains mostly unchanged.



Work on other theatres within the building has been planned. Not sure how far along they've come.
https://twitter.com/CanadasNAC/statu...94844451401732

[SignalHillHiker]

Basically every old rowhouse in St. John's spent much of the 60s-early 80s looking like absolute shit with cheap, modern, wide siding and cabin windows. Luckily there was a huge push starting in the mid-80s to restore them to the local Southcott style. Most of them, though, are just houses so they're not impressive to share - it's just today they have much bigger windows with ornate trim and nicer-scale siding.

But holy shit, some of the wooden public buildings were also restored. This is one I honestly didn't even know about, even though I was alive for some of its shitty years.

So Victoria Hall (a fave of mine as it displays the tricolour flag) looks like this today:



And it used to look like this:



Typical St. John's before/after. But, unbeknownst to me, it spent a good chunk of the time in between every bit as destroyed as most of our rowhouses used to be:

[Architype]

LOL, and sometimes I thought it was my actual memory that was bad. Notice that it is still different though, the two doors have been replaced by one. At least the house next to it survived. Let's just restore it back to 1983 again.

[J.OT13]

That is a shocking one in St. John's. They would have considered way beyond saving anywhere else.

[jamincan]

I know aesthetics change over time, but it's hard to understand why someone would purposefully alter it to the 1980 version.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I know aesthetics change over time, but it's hard to understand why someone would purposefully alter it to the 1980 version.

Cost. The wooden decorative elements are not maintained and deteriorate over time. A box covered in vinyl siding is the cheapest option.

[someone123]

Cornwallis and Gottingen in Halifax, the opposite of restoration. Looking at the modern streetscape, you'd think these were newer buildings or originally plain wooden box type architecture, but they have degraded into vinyl-clad boxes over time.


Source


(Google Streeview)

[SignalHillHiker]

Oh Someone that example from HFX is exactly how our rowhouses looked until we starting reversing that “modernization” in the 80s.

Jaminican, he’s right that it’s cost. For that particular building we actually know exactly why, owners did it to reduce heating and maintenance costs.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Oh Someone that example from HFX is exactly how our rowhouses looked until we starting reversing that “modernization” in the 80s.

In Halifax many of these buildings have been restored but it is left up to the building owner. There doesn't seem to be any push at the municipal level to restore historic character to these areas in a coordinated way. There are funds for registered heritage buildings but the owner must register them and I doubt these buildings would qualify; they need heritage assets at the time of registration.

Generally speaking the areas that are privately owned by the residents look good and the rental and commercial buildings look much worse. It is a sort spot because you can have a neighbourhood that is mostly nicely restored buildings with a couple of slumlord properties that stick out like a sore thumb. This is the poorer end of the inner city so it has the worst properties, although there are plenty of ugly ones in the more expensive areas too.

In municipal politics in Halifax there's traditionally been a strong "owners' rights" type lobby that partly leans on the idea that somehow the local economy sucks and so these buildings will all be abandoned if any demands are placed on the owners. I think that culture (or whatever you want to call it) is starting to go away, and maybe people will expect a bit more in the future.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

Cornwallis and Gottingen in Halifax, the opposite of restoration. Looking at the modern streetscape, you'd think these were newer buildings or originally plain wooden box type architecture, but they have degraded into vinyl-clad boxes over time.


Source


(Google Streeview)

The enthusiasm for turning attractive buildings into vinyl-sided boxes has been a pox on this city. It's waned in recent years, but you still see it, usually with rental properties. I would never have imagined that building on the corner at Gottingen used to look like that.

[someone123]

Another one.





https://halifaxbloggers.ca/noticedin...0/02/cornered/

Better than this outcome:

[SignalHillHiker]

The City has started advertising its grants - I'm legitimately confused. Normally they're snapped up so quick that the city is loathe to advertise and remind people that someone has already gotten the money and applications are closed lol



Must be COVID-related, I guess.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

The City has started advertising its grants - I'm legitimately confused. Normally they're snapped up so quick that the city is loathe to advertise and remind people that someone has already gotten the money and applications are closed lol

It seems like cities underspend on this. A city with an old building stock could spend 0.5% of its annual budget on renovations and over time develop some very nice heritage districts. Some of this money may be recovered in property taxes too. Often these are coordination problems where the individual landlords have no incentive to do better (most value is from the interiors) but the city as a whole would be better off. There are also economies of scale. If a city spends reliably every year on painting, carpentry, and masonry, a local industry will develop.

It is getting better in Halifax with heritage conservation districts but the city needs to invest the (small amount of money) needed to improve these buildings.

One example of bad maintenance. This one on the corner on the right side is from 1789 (left side has since been demolished and redeveloped; it had a granite foundation and was probably quite old):


https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/old-south-suburb

This one is from 1819:


https://signalhfx.ca/regional-counci...ntown-halifax/

These ones are in a heritage conservation district now so I think they are more protected but in 2019 I believe the rule was that building 1 could be demolished at any time and building 2 could be demolished after a 3 year waiting period ("registered heritage building" in NS means "wait a few years before demolishing"). Both are owned by property development companies.

[Echoes]

Not a conventional heritage restoration, but this seems like the thread where it best fits:

'Keep that history going': Iconic Robin Hood sign returns to Saskatoon's skyline

SASKATOON -- After undergoing some major work, a fixture in Saskatoon’s skyline is back.

The well-known Robin Hood mill sign - installed in 1927 - was taken down in February so LED light strips could be installed and the letters could get a fresh coat of paint.

On Tuesday, a crew reinstalled the letters on top of the milling and mixing facility located on 33rd Street East.

Ardent Mills maintenance manager Gerry Hanke says once they decided to address the nearly 100-year old sign, it didn’t take much convincing that new wasn’t going to be better. He says Smuckers owns the Robin Hood brand name, and stood by the project from the start.

“They recognized the value in the history just because they visit here lots and we are very close to our customer and it’s a good thing to keep that history going,” Hanke told CTV News.

[....]

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/keep-th...line-1.5394832


These mills absolutely tower over the Saskatoon cityscape and the Robin Hood sign is a local icon so it's so great to see the owner reinvesting in it rather than letting it deteriorate further and eventually go dark.

A couple photos I took of the mills in 2014:


IMG_7822 by Echoes Saskatoon, on Flickr


IMG_7643 by Echoes Saskatoon, on Flickr

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

One example of bad maintenance. This one on the corner on the right side is from 1789 (left side has since been demolished and redeveloped; it had a granite foundation and was probably quite old):


https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/old-south-suburb

A building from 1789 in Canada is a museum piece, even in a place like Quebec City. The number of intact buildings in Canada that are this old is probably in the low hundreds. It should be given the highest heritage designation and the exterior should be restored to be faithful to its original design.

I mean, it's great that it's a living apartment building in a city rather than a museum piece on a set, like a Louisbourg or Upper Canada Village, but buildings this rare are often better off in institutional hands.