Councillor Brian McHattie is expected to introduce a motion today, calling on the city to approve hiring a consultant to look at the issue. The cost of the consultant would be contained to $5000.00.
Councillor Bratina, on the other hand, isn't convinced that the hiring of a consultant, is the best way to proceed. Bratina argues that the city's development process needs to be perfected so heritage concerns get flagged right away. He also maintains that there also needs to be a list of priority heritage buildings in the city, something council has approved compiling, he said.
(see article as found in The Spec, here)
Do you think we should focus on this issue and, if so, what do you think is the best means to do so?
What about conversion to live dinner theatre in one of those massive empty churches downtown?
ReplyDeleteUnless things have changed, I believe that there is, and has been for some time, a list of priority heritage buildings. Maybe the list is not prioritised to the Ward 2 councillors' satisfaction. $5,000 does not seem an excessive expenditure to at least look at this issue carefully, and explore options. That said, older churches, or any other heritage structures, should live or die on their owners' decisions and not be dependent on massive government assistance. What the city can do, is make positive suggestions about adaptive reuse, if such a course might work. But, again, the threat of designation, or the payment of property tax monies, to preserve a heritage structure are not really options, particularly in this economic climate.
ReplyDeleteI think preservation of heritage churches is a looming issue that should be looked into, but not by a $5,000 consultant. How does McHattie know it will cost $5,000? ...without even a terms of reference or an RFP? This could be just another lame attempt by a politician to get profile or parrot what he heard from someone else.
ReplyDeleteThis issue should reviewed by the many highly qualified heritage policy and planning staff at the City. That's their job.They can review what other older cities such as Toronto have done and provide examples of adaptive reuse. This research is not rocket science and could easily provide Councillors with some background and list of potential strategies.
Dana Brown's article says that in 1994, the city purchased St. Mark's Anglican church at Bay and Hunter streets, and it was designated a heritage site the next year. She says the church has since been sitting without revitalization, because of a lack of funds. Not true! It has since sat there without revitalization because the City has not come up with any plans for adaptive reuse. As long as taxpayers fork out for its maintenance without making noise, the benign neglect by the City - staff and councillors - will continue. Why did the City not put a submission in for stimulus funding from the federal and provincial governments for St Marks? Because they had no plan, no idea.
Why do we need a consultant for everything. Dont we have someone who works at city hall who can do this?
ReplyDeleteElvis P
It seems a shame to knock down our heritage, the past. I watched a video where over in England an old church was bought by a private entity and was being refurbished, which included moving the church grave yard. Not sure if all people would agree with that.
ReplyDeleteHow will our grandchildren and great grandhcildren know about our history if it is all gone?
We do not need to hire a consultant, the city staff should be looking into this, and if they are not, why not?
I guess there are no easy answers.