To repeal or not to repeal
- Number of views : 2816
- Rate
- Top of the page
Comments
-
- MoosejawResident
- - September 18th, 2009 at 18:00:36
This is where the heritage designation comes back to haunt us.
Back in the 1980's the push was on to designate every building we could because we could get money to fix them up. Problem was, it was hardly any money and it was very short lived. The owner at the time got $5000 to fix up the facade (new sign or a door) and wham...it was a done deal. Glenda James and others worked their butts off getting grant money to hire people (for peanuts) to gather all the data to do this. Some 25yrs later after the parade of slumlords bought up these dumps and milked every nickel they could out of them, the buildings sit all worn out and ready to fall down. Not one cent spent on really fixing them up, handicap access, code upgrades or anything substantial...just minor facelifts to bring in more revenue for the slumlords. The City did not help the situation...No Building Inspector visits, No proper Fire Inspections/Fire Code Inspections, Sprinkler Systems...you name it. Just ask yourself how bad the big fire on New Years Day really would been if the building that burned would have had to been upgraded to code when it was renovated. There was no sprinkler system installed, no fire alarm system, etc, etc. Who do you ask is responsible for enforcing those requirements?...you guessed it, the City of Moose Jaw. If there was one ounce of pride with Heritage in respect to Moose Jaw's buildings it was certainly along time ago, and it had nothing to do with anything but someone else's money. The days of the Brunswick Hotel are long over. It is far too late, far too costly and far beyond the thoughts of the City . Just ask yourself.....why are we as Taxpayers/Citizens involved in this at all when the 2, 3 or 4 previous Owners of the Brunswick didn't have to spend 2 cents fixing the place up? I have probably spent more time writing this comment than the Owners did caring about the heritage of that building. -
- Babs
- - September 18th, 2009 at 17:20:31
Time to move on, indeed. The building has already fallen victim to neglect (like too many other downtown buildings). Structurally unsound = bulldoze.
Kudos to Little Chicago. Admiration for their vision, which is restoring River Street to its much more glamourous heyday of the 1920's; I can see their restoration of 0-block River Street as something to be proud of.
Time to move on; go Little Chicago go!!! -
- Darcy
- - September 18th, 2009 at 17:06:54
This whole concept is flawed from one end to the other. Yes its great to have a heritage designation. For buildings in a solid state of repair..go for it. Where is the money going to come from to restore this rundown piece of junk. Does Glenda expect the builders of the River Street project to absorb these costs? If this hotel was allowed to become a danger to the general public then it should be put under the wreckers ball and get on with the new project. It makes no sense to hobble the people who come here and offer to rejuvenate our slum area of town by increasing their cost with a problem that really is not their problem . Heritage properties should have funds attached to pay for the upkeep. Why was Glenda not fundraising for these costs that are attached to the heritage sites?. The River Street project needs to go ahead with the planned facades depicting another era...that's all we need to see, not some building waiting to fall on our heads and if you are thinking green don't waste construction material on this old relic.
-
- Gary
- - September 18th, 2009 at 16:50:52
Yes it is a noble cause to protect our built heritage but it is a completly different animal to maintain it.
In my opinion there needs to be long term planning prior to designating any of these buildings as heritage properties.
Roles need to be defined between, the City, potential Owners and the community at large. All parties need to understand exactly what they are getting into.
I often thought one of the old hotels would have made a great tourist center (rather than spending all that money out on Thatcher) or perhaps a small theme museum.
Anyway it makes no sense designating these buildings unless there are long term measures in place to assure their success.
One would be hard pressed to argue against allowing this development to proceed. I just have to wonder why the Mayor was not up front about it from the start?? -
- BDana
- - September 18th, 2009 at 16:21:06
Who was it that applied to have the building designated a heritage building. And why?
Also, I am not sure it would be possible to even retain the facade. The majority if the building is contructed out of locally Wellington White made bricks that are soft as dust inside. Not really structurally sound I would guess. -
- Clint
- - September 18th, 2009 at 16:20:16
The building should not be demolished. The shell could be preserved and it could be rebuilt from the inside.
Developers always use this ploy - saying the building cannot be salvaged- it is simply more expedient for them to develop by demolishingh it, saving some token elements and proclaiming that they have retained its heritage. This is development of the worst quality and cheapest kind -
- Lisa
- - September 18th, 2009 at 16:13:49
Time to move on...if we can. There is no doubt Swanson & Luhning will be against progress..even if it doesn't cost city $$.
time to rebuild
