A Response to "A building that isn't there threatens a skyline that is"
Before you read my thoughts on this, it is best if you have read the opinion piece by Martin Segger in the Times Colonist from Sunday.
Martin Segger for those who are not familiar is perhaps one of our city’s most preeminent architectural historians. His work on bringing mid-century modernist architects and their buildings into the heritage discussion in Victoria is absolutely amazing. (Example 1, Example 2). And Segger’s compendium on heritage buildings in Victoria is a must have for all Victoria building nerds.
Due to my true appreciation of his work it made reading this piece in the Times-Colonist that much more difficult because I couldn’t disagree with him more and even more troubling was that the arguments used are many of the usual grab bag of anti-development rhetoric you hear at any public hearing for a building proposed downtown. Arguments that can be disproved just by taking a short walk to take in the contextual city surrounding the Northern Junk Buildings and the broader area of Old Town which his piece was about.
For fairness to you, I have a bias here in support of saving the Northern Junk Buildings. I have written about them a few times before (Here, here, and here).
Before I get into my main three issues with his argument, I just want to be clear that there are four parties at play here with these buildings: The City of Victoria, including its politicians; the developer Reliance Properties; the heritage lobby; and us, the public. Strangely enough, it seems that only two players here have been actually hoping to see these buildings saved, the public and the developer. The City, through stringing along the developer over a decade before removing of the possibility of building on the property just to the north. And the heritage lobby who for whatever reason has fought this development on every front imaginable. The Hallmark Society back when the first proposal came up in 2009 I believe, pushed back against what was a perfect Old Town project. It kept the buildings separate and there was a new portion that met every single criteria. Then it was the Downtown Residents Association that pushed back on the City’s sale of the northern property to Reliance which left the developer with just the property that the two buildings sit on to recoup their investment. And now with only the airspace above to pay for the saving of these two buildings, the heritage lobby is saying that is not good enough either. If the developer is not able to go forward with this plan, there is not another option out there unless the city wants to give Reliance some massive density transfer but I am unaware of them owning any other properties. When those buildings fall, it will be the fault of the heritage lobby that is purporting to want to save them.
Okay so back to the Segger opinion, as I said I have three main arguments with his position here, they are:
The skyline and views
The height objection
The myth of authenticity
The Skyline and Views
Segger uses the skyline even in the title of his piece and tries to make the argument that the addition of four floors of residential units above the Northern Junk Buildings will impact the layout of that skyline as viewed from the harbour. To further mark this point there is the position put forward that it is not even about these buildings, but that they are the slippery slope, the start of an avalanche of proposals that will destroy the layout of the harbour views as they were meant to be and even invokes the perennial favourite Victoria development bogeyman with the Reid Proposal. Segger says this:
“This cityscape amphitheatre profile was, of course, intended to be read from Victoria’s historic main entrance, the harbour.”
This is a strong statement that tries to create a sense that there was some plan. That Victoria’s colonial builders “intended” for buildings to be short along the water and then taller as they moved up from the harbour. This is not true. While I would be the first to agree with not putting a layer of 20 storey buildings along the water’s edge, two six storey buildings here will not have any perceivable impact. I have included some pictures of the view from Vic West looking at the Northern Junk buildings and it is clear that the impact will be negligible or in my opinion, improved. Segger also makes this curious comment:
“But from the east, from the gentle rise of the urban landscape, the view framed the waterfront against the backdrop of the Sooke hills on the horizon.”
This draws upon a common complaint though usually reserved for a potential proposal at one of the parking lots that have sat vacant for years to the south of the Northern Junk Buildings. In the context of the Northern Junk buildings, it is of no relevance. From the pedestrian perspective the current buildings already block any view from Wharf Street, if it is not the pedestrian we are concerned about, then whose views are we? Also the pedestrian will actually be just fine as there will be a lovely new walkway to the west of the buildings, so view saved!
A view of the harbour and the majestic Sooke Hills
The Height Objection
No matter where a new proposal is being suggested in Victoria and no matter the height proposed. There will be objections to it on the basis of height alone. Generally you will hear that “height generally is fine, just not here,” or “that kind of height is okay in Vancouver, but not in Victoria.” This, of course becomes ridiculous when a proposal is for adding a few storeys to an already existing building such as is being proposed here. Here Segger uses stronger language:
“A trade-off of the four storeys of height and density is of a magnitude unprecedented in the 50-year history of local heritage restoration.”
It isn’t of course, one can look at the significant height allowed in the Hudson District, or the Era on Yates Street. And while not height per se, the significant seven storey addition to the Janion building, just north of here (also built by Reliance Properties for which they won a heritage preservation award). The true issue is that the proposal will require a minor allowance above the 15m guideline for Old Town. Segger mentions this height guideline in this way:
“The resulting comprehensive conservation plan for the city’s historic core recommended the use of restrictive zoning and height controls as the primary toolset for guiding and encouraging historic-building retention.”
While I agree that Old Town deserves special consideration when it comes to new developments, I have significant issue with many of the requirements in the Old Town Guidelines but height is one of the most objectionable at 15 metres because it does not seem to be based on the reality of historical context of Victoria. There are currently many amazing heritage buildings in Old Town above this height (I have included a few photos of this below). There are even many more tall buildings in Victoria that have been removed in whole or had floors removed off of them. But for whatever reason, we have decided that the arbitrary number should be 15 metres which gets into my last argument with Segger’s piece.
The Myth of Authenticity
Those opposed to development and change in Old Town use the myth of authenticity as their argument often. I am not sure if they believe or not but it presents as though Old Town, or least those buildings that have been “saved”, have sat in some vacuum since the late 1800’s and as we see it so did the colonial Victorians that walked in front of them. I have spoken about the fact that authenticity in buildings is a myth in my article of Facadism and it is still valid. No building in Victoria is as it was 140 years ago. In Victoria, much of Old Town is made up of buildings that look nothing like they did when they were built. Some buildings have been so altered you wouldn’t even know that they were old, like the post office building on Yates Street. One can be certain that the crumbling shells of the Northern Junk Buildings as they sit today, are nothing like the original buildings and no amount of work will return them to that state. But that doesn’t mean that a project couldn’t shine a light on the important and beautiful aspects of the buildings while giving them a whole new life. I do believe that the Reliance proposal would do this. Segger doesn’t agree saying this:
“Reliance Properties Corp. is a developer with a good record for innovative heritage conservation in Vancouver. But the Vancouver approach is very different from past practice in Old Town.
Vancouver practice encourages the treatment of lower-density heritage commercial building as mainly street level decorative elements to be subsumed into a much larger development scheme. Authenticity is therefore interpreted in very different terms from Victoria’s approach.”
Segger of course fails to note Reliance’s record on heritage conservation in Victoria, but beyond that to say that Vancouver and Victoria don’t do heritage conservation in the same way and that really our way is “authentic” is just trying to use scary Vancouver developments as a foil. It comes down to who decides what is “authentic”, Victoria had a handful of buildings where the facade has been retained and the inside completely redone, but there are many people in Victoria, that see that as inauthentic as well. In my opinion, we can spend decades hand-wringing over authenticity or ensuring a project meets a random set of parameters that a select group of people decided means “heritage”; or we can support quality projects that will improve the vitality of the city while celebrating those special aspects of Victoria. The choice is clear to me.
Also just a small side rant the proposal by Reliance has almost no relation to the “brutalist” movement apart from the likely use of some cement not sure how this comparison came up in the article.