Heritage as a downtown driver

[Thomas Hinderks]

Last night I had the pleasure of attending a meeting of a group of Heritage related organizations and during the meeting a woman representing one made the comment that "Heritage was the most effective driver of downtown revitalization".

When I questioned her she was quite adamant and suggested I check the net...so I did and was surprised by what I found.

1)
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/cced/downtow...nts/DE0207.pdf
2)
http://www.globalurban.org/GUDMag08Vol4Iss1/Rypkema.htm
3)
http://www.research.ufl.edu/publicat.../historic.html
4)

http://www.stjohns.ca/cityservices/p...Report%201.pdf
5)
http://www.stjohns.ca/cityservices/p...Report%203.pdf
6)
http://www.stjohns.ca/cityservices/p...Report%204.pdf
7)
http://www.tpcs.gov.sk.ca/msprogramhcf

Now I haven't had time to read each link in depth yet but from the quick overview I have done it appears she is right.

Heritage and heritage buildings, both original and recreated, have a far greater impact than new build by far.

This is not a Canadian or North American phenomena it is world wide, produces the greatest vibrancy, interest, involvement, is sustainable and apparently produces the greatest selection of well paying employment in restoring and re creating the buildings while apparently being 4% less to do than new build according to some of the reports.

With the call for tall towers etc here to create vibrancy DT I found it particularly interesting that it seems that Heritage and stepping back to the future (couldn't resist sorry) is more effective as creating a centre of place, walkable interactive environments which attract the arts and create the vibrancy so sought.


This is in contrast to what seems to be the popular trend on this forum where as apparently tall new build doesn't make it happen as effectively.


but thinking about it, makes sense...the more new tall build that happens downtown the better Whyte ave does. The contrast in effectiveness is on our own river banks, more or less.

Using Downtown and old Strathcona up to these links simply shows that the links are likely right.

So I thought I would share the information I found and tonight hope to read it trough tonight.

As an aside while digging up the heritage links I found these raising concerns about high rise living and it's affects on people, seems mostly negative from what I have read so far.

If you read them through seems many believe there are no good things from having young families with children in a high rise environment. Families with teens yes, but not younger children.

1)
http://web.uvic.ca/psyc/gifford/pdf/...es%20proof.pdf
2)
http://mams.rmit.edu.au/iyowyv5zw2oq1.pdf
3)
http://www.gowellonline.co.uk/index2...205&Itemid=218

Now I'm no expert in these fields but, the reports on a fast read seem very credible on both subjects...I look forward to reading deeper on the subjects.

But they do call to question the path so many seem committed to.

Just a few links and some interesting thoughts and opinions from them

Just my personal opinion and obsservations

[Old Dawg]

I thought these three observations from your first attached pdf were worth considering as they are currently being overlooked by the a majority of younger citizens here as well as most of city council.
====================================

1) Sense of Place]: A commitment to a community’s historic character will help foster a built and natural environment that is not "Anyplace, USA," but a distinctive place with authentic experiences.

2)Sense of identily In a global economy, a product that can differentiate itself from the competition is usually the most successful. Attention to a unique historic story can help differentiate a community from its competitors.

3) Sense of Evolution People want to experience a community that is neither stuck in the past, nor dedicated to only what is "current." Using a historic perspective to frame modern economic development can help a community achieve the proper balance of past and present.

[AShetsen]

Bluntly put, downtown Edmonton, having lost its heritage, had better build fresh.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

Bluntly put, downtown Edmonton, having lost its heritage, had better build fresh.

If it's new build it appears from the reports it should re create the Heritage, as the reports indicate, in order to get the most benefit.

[moahunter]

Is heritage a reference to old fashioned designs? If so, it sounds like something Prince Charles would say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...arbuncles.html

I think so much heritage has gone, or was substandard anyway. The bigger focus is on filling the "gaps", be it with tall or small buildings. I like modern cutting edge designs, yes you can get good ideas from the past (like linear streets for new suburbs, one Charles got right, per below), but modern designs are the heritage classics of the future (like Canary wharf and its "One Canada" Square, a development he didn't approve of).

8. Poundbury, Dorset

WHAT THE PRINCE SAID: In 1993 he laid the founding stones for the 'urban village' new town which believed would be a model for future housing developments. He also championed the relatively unknown concept of affordable housing.

WHAT HAPPENED: The street layout, modelled on traditional linear village development rather than the modern cul-de-sac patterns associated with suburban and post-war schemes, has proved so successful with residents it is now cited as an example of good practice in government manuals for improved design. Affordable housing is a flagship government policy. "One of the legacies of the Prince has been the consideration not just of buildings themselves but also communities and places," said Hank Dittmar, Chief Executive of The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment. "At Poundbury he set out a vision of affordable housing and creating streets that were designed for people rather than cars. At the time the conventional wisdom was that these were radical and impossible ideas and yet they are now a part of mainstream planning policy.

4. Canary Wharf, London

WHAT THE PRINCE SAID: In his October 1988 BBC documentary A Vision of Britain, the Prince said: "I personally would go mad if I had to work in a place like that, because I would feel how the hell would you get out in the event of a fire apart from anything else."

WHAT HAPPENED: The One Canada Square tower became an icon of the regeneration of London's Docklands area, and many of the lower-level buildings that surrounded it won design awards and are of significantly better quality than the early houses and office blocks that sprung up when the area was first designated an enterprise zone by the Thatcher government in the mid-1980s.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Moa

From my reading of the same article he got more than one right and instituted a change of attitude in the industry...

I like modern cutting edge designs

Appreciate your opinion, but the evidence from the reports appears awfully strong that they are not the most effective way to revitalize the DT core to create the desired vibrancy and rejuvenation.

As I did some additionally reading last night it seems the great City Centres of Europe are built around their heritage buildings and history which has resulted in vibrant walkable communities.

Interesting

[moahunter]

^he got a lot of things right, but some things wrong, like this (the pointy one as the anchor is One Canada):



Even the brutal New Zealand house in London, on his hate list, has a weird charm (only high rise in its area):



I think you can take ideas from the past like walkable grid form streets, low rises interspersed with high, boulevards, and similar, but they don't have to be done in a traditional manner or to try and recreate something that once existed. You also have to be concious of the world today we live in, for example, some ideas, like small stores, can struggle when they have to compete with power outlets in other parts of the city, the risk being boarded up empty stores.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^he got a lot of things right, but some things wrong, like this (the pointy one as the anchor is One Canada):



I think you can take ideas from the past like walkable grid form streets, low rises interspersed with high, boulevards, and similar, but they don't have to be done in a traditional manner or to try and recreate something that once existed.

Not what the information from the links show.

This is a case where, as I read it, there is clear evidence to the effectiveness of recreating the heritage and atmosphere as opposed to other options. It's not anecdotal.

It's also not mine, didn't know it existed till Wednesday night.

As a result I think it is worth discussing as a direction for Edmonton

[kcantor]

my two cents is probably a bit different perspective. i won't disagree with the pros and cons of heritage buildings per se - or ignore the pros and cons of new construction per se - but i do think the discussion and the underlying assumptions are more than a bit skewed.

the real discussion from my perspective has nothing to do with heritage vs new or traditional vs cutting edge. it does however, have everything to do with good design vs bad. having recognized that, one of the things that makes us enamoured with our heritage buildings is that, for the most part, those with good design are the ones that have survived and those without it have had ample opportunity to be replaced. there is no question that we have lost some wonderful and irreplaceable "good ones" as well - particulalrly, but certainly not exclusively, in edmonton - but that is a different discussion that includes things like reuse and repurposing in addition to "aesthetics" (it matters not what they look like either heritage or new if they are abandoned and left alone either inside or out more than they are used). many of these reports focus on the successes - regardless of what the success should be attributed to - and omit those that don't support their goals.

by the same token, while time has allowed the cream of our older stock to rise to the top, new development - which still includes the bad with the good - has not had that same benefit. but just as all old development was not all good, all new development is not all bad.

good design, whether it's art or furniture or industrial or building or planning, is good design irrespective of how old it is or isn't and we need to focus on good design, not how old things are. it is also worth remembering that most of what is held up - particularly in north america - as heritage is in fact not particularly old at all and not that long ago would have been considered "new" and not "heritage".

lastly, edmonton has a better recent history than most give her credit for in participating in and supporting a number of "main street" storefront and facade programs both along jasper and in jasper east village (now the quarters) including some of those linked here. and while they can be quite successful on an individual builidng basis (and you can still see some of them today if you know which ones to look at), of themselves these programs are not stand alone silver bullet solutions for everything (per my earlier note about paying attention to the case you want to make and omitting what doesn't support it even if that's sometimes simply a matter of not knowing what didn't work elsewhere vs being bombarded with things that "did").

to pick up on old dawg's comments, heritage is important but we have to get past individual site/building/project completion and spend more time on city building and knitting them together...

[Thomas Hinderks]

Originally Posted by Old Dawg

I thought these three observations from your first attached pdf were worth considering as they are currently being overlooked by the a majority of younger citizens here as well as most of city council.
====================================

1) Sense of Place]: A commitment to a community’s historic character will help foster a built and natural environment that is not "Anyplace, USA," but a distinctive place with authentic experiences.

2)Sense of identily In a global economy, a product that can differentiate itself from the competition is usually the most successful. Attention to a unique historic story can help differentiate a community from its competitors.

3) Sense of Evolution People want to experience a community that is neither stuck in the past, nor dedicated to only what is "current." Using a historic perspective to frame modern economic development can help a community achieve the proper balance of past and present.

Ken

Old Dawgs comment's are to the largest extent what I am refering to and how the most effective means of hitting them from the reports is the preservation and recreation of our heritage.

Appreciate your perspective of good design, but also believe that a good design in the wrong place is also ruining a good design.

There are NO silver bullets and you have heard me say that many times, but in choosing an effective direction to pursue and put the effort into to get the best result the information and evidence in the above reports brings alot to the table.

My opinion

[moahunter]

^what do you mean by a design "direction" though?

There are examples of cities that have been destroyed that have been "rebuilt" in one design "style". For example, Napier in New Zealand was rebuilt entirely in Art Deco, after being wiped out in 1931. There is talk of a design theme for Christchurch (having also just had its downtown destroyed).

I'm not convinced it makes sense for a City like Edmonton though, maybe particular neighborhoods or precincts, but we have all sorts of plans like that already (downtown plan, quarters plan, churchill plan, jasper plan, etc), and design guidelines (e.g. mature infill guidelines). Sounds terribly like another excuse for more committees, and consultants and... when really, I think Edmonton needs more of the "sleeves rolled up, just build it" mentality.

[EveB]

My take on the heritage vs new building has more to do with the fact that the architectural styles that we admire in Europe evolved during a period when all transportation was slow (horses and walkers). Their street design ditto. So developing pedestrian lifestyles just follows. It's got little to do with the fact that the buildings are old, but more that they are small and well-connected with each other to correspond with how people used to live in the cities. Marketplaces are interspersed with residential because people used to shop every day for that day's food supply. In many parts of London, in fact, many people didn't even have kitchens as we know them and would buy cooked food from the local vendors.

Our city designs (at least since the fifties) have been based on the car model where people travel distances so you have special purpose neighborhoods. Some for residential and some for shopping and some for office towers and warehouses. It would take a lot of retro-fitting to develop the sort of integration that we admire so much but it can be done. But we don't live like urban medieval people. There is more going on than buying our daily bread in the market every day. Mere mimicking of these styles will not give the result that is planned. There is a lot that can be learned however, about mingling residences, necessary shops and workplaces. If you want to make a car-free lifestyle possible, you have to remember that in the pre-car days few people walked for miles every day (a few did but it wasn't usual).

It's about scale. I'm not sure that tall anonymous towers are what it is about though that does increase density. In fact, most of the really cool neighborhoods I have lived where there is lots of street life and I know all the shop keepers tend to be places like the Broadway/Nutana area I lived in in Saskatoon. A few new buildings, to be sure, but mostly smaller structures. A lot of attention has to be paid to the ground level which is what people experience on the street. The impressive towers are important for the residents and the people who publish post cards.

Also, I've lived and worked in heritage structures. One of the places I lived in Saskatoon was the very first purpose-built apartment house. It was wonderful in that it was very human scale and I could dry my clothes on actual clothes lines in the backyard. But the floors creaked badly and I don't think I could power all my electronics these days with the very few outlets that were available. The place I worked was nice in that the windows opened and all that. But the marble stairs were worn into irregular shapes and there were no passenger elevators. With my disability, it made going from place to place an exercise in terror.

I guess my point is that we should hang onto the lessons we can learn from what was done in the past without succumbing to pointless nostalgia.

Eve

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

...

Appreciate your perspective of good design, but also believe that a good design in the wrong place is also ruining a good design.

...

without splitting hairs too finely, "a good design in the wrong place" is an oxymoron. you can't split apart design and place.

unfortunately, that sometimes places additional pressure on older buildings as the place around them changes over time - for better or worse - but that's where reuse and repurposing and bonusing and density transfers can be utilized to balance some of those pressures from a city's perspective.

but that's sometimes the nub - it's too easy to focus on the project(s) one by one whether it's an office or a residence or an arena or a museum or an lrt line without ever stepping back to focus on city building, not just project building. there is a big price to pay for that, even when the project(s) don't get built as any review of all of those permitted but unbuilt dc2's would confirm.

[Thomas Hinderks]

EveB

Our city designs (at least since the fifties) have been based on the car model where people travel distances so you have special purpose neighborhoods. Some for residential and some for shopping and some for office towers and warehouses. It would take a lot of retro-fitting to develop the sort of integration that we admire so much but it can be done. But we don't live like urban medieval people. There is more going on than buying our daily bread in the market every day. Mere mimicking of these styles will not give the result that is planned. There is a lot that can be learned however, about mingling residences, necessary shops and workplaces. If you want to make a car-free lifestyle possible, you have to remember that in the pre-car days few people walked for miles every day (a few did but it wasn't usual).

I think the reports acknowledge and cover what you are expressing.

Utilizing heritage buildings and/or recreating them is part, the other is in re creating the
intimacy of the areas that was present in their heyday and in time the resulting mix.

Smaller more diverse buildings reflecting their time, less imposing, more open, narrower street zones with wider sidewalks etc.

Recreating the heritage, not just the structures.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Ken

but that's sometimes the nub - it's too easy to focus on the project(s) one by one whether it's an office or a residence or an arena or a museum or an lrt line without ever stepping back to focus on city building, not just project building.

We agree

In using or recreating the heritage zones (for lack of a better term) it is more than a single project...it is city building, as I read the information, and does take time.

But the effort certainly seems worth it per the links.

[GreenSPACE]

Originally Posted by kcantor

my two cents is probably a bit different perspective. i won't disagree with the pros and cons of heritage buildings per se - or ignore the pros and cons of new construction per se - but i do think the discussion and the underlying assumptions are more than a bit skewed.

the real discussion from my perspective has nothing to do with heritage vs new or traditional vs cutting edge. it does however, have everything to do with good design vs bad. having recognized that, one of the things that makes us enamoured with our heritage buildings is that, for the most part, those with good design are the ones that have survived and those without it have had ample opportunity to be replaced. there is no question that we have lost some wonderful and irreplaceable "good ones" as well - particulalrly, but certainly not exclusively, in edmonton - but that is a different discussion that includes things like reuse and repurposing in addition to "aesthetics" (it matters not what they look like either heritage or new if they are abandoned and left alone either inside or out more than they are used). many of these reports focus on the successes - regardless of what the success should be attributed to - and omit those that don't support their goals.

by the same token, while time has allowed the cream of our older stock to rise to the top, new development - which still includes the bad with the good - has not had that same benefit. but just as all old development was not all good, all new development is not all bad.

good design, whether it's art or furniture or industrial or building or planning, is good design irrespective of how old it is or isn't and we need to focus on good design, not how old things are. it is also worth remembering that most of what is held up - particularly in north america - as heritage is in fact not particularly old at all and not that long ago would have been considered "new" and not "heritage".

lastly, edmonton has a better recent history than most give her credit for in participating in and supporting a number of "main street" storefront and facade programs both along jasper and in jasper east village (now the quarters) including some of those linked here. and while they can be quite successful on an individual builidng basis (and you can still see some of them today if you know which ones to look at), of themselves these programs are not stand alone silver bullet solutions for everything (per my earlier note about paying attention to the case you want to make and omitting what doesn't support it even if that's sometimes simply a matter of not knowing what didn't work elsewhere vs being bombarded with things that "did").

to pick up on old dawg's comments, heritage is important but we have to get past individual site/building/project completion and spend more time on city building and knitting them together...

Pretty good summation of my thoughts as well.

History is not just nostalgia for a particular type of building that used to exist. We've lost some built form but have hopefully learned our lesson.

We have lots of history downtown - whether in built form, arts, cultural, or otherwise. It's the heart of our city's history.

[GreenSPACE]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

Ken

We agree

In using or recreating the heritage zones (for lack of a better term) it is more than a single project...it is city building, as I read the information, and does take time.

But the effort certainly seems worth it per the links.

I think sometimes our 'disjointed' urbanism or lack there of is a result of developers and the City not taking a larger view in terms of city building. Private investment has a huge role here. I wish sometimes they would take their role more seriously in Edmonton. You can make money and do it right at the same time - leave a positive legacy for the city, be a city builder.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Private investment has a huge role here.

Glad you brought it up, the reports show that in the case studies a very high level of private investment.