Old does not always mean historic.
In municipalities like Airdrie and Rocky View County, local councils must always weigh the hopes and dreams of developers versus the expectations and demands of citizens who may oppose such developments.
It’s problematic enough if it is an older private residence being considered for demolition, but its even more problematic when those structures have some stature in the public realm of the community.
This sentiment was easily seen in the recent public debate surrounding the fate of the Airdrie United Church, for instance.
However, what residents must keep in mind in such debates is the public utility in keeping a such a structure around – with its sagging foundation, its internal pipes shot, its electrical system a fire hazard waiting to happen – is most often very limited. Particularly when the owners can’t pay for such high repair costs, or can build something new for almost the same price.
To be honest, it’s usually much cheaper to simply demolish and start over than to fix what cannot be easily fixed for a cost that cannot be borne.
Is it better to have a “historic” building sitting unused and moldering in the middle of the community while its owners let it rot, or build something exciting and new which may be able to be there for generations to come and reach the venerable century mark itself one day?
Just because a building is old does not mean it has value in itself.
If such heritage buildings are treasured, and are truly important to the community, it falls to the entire community to foot the bill to preserve them. Not simply pass bylaws forbidding change, or complain and say the current owners shouldn’t have the right to do anything with the older properties they own under any circumstances.
All that does is result in empty ruins. Ruins that rot until they finally collapse, or until an unlucky fire takes them one night.
Where’s the historic value in that?
