Raise the Hammer

Sean, I'm never a fan of façadism as a first choice. I prefer it, however, over demolition. I don't want replication either. That's true Disneyfication. Like what LiUNA and Larry DiIanni wanted for the Lister Block.

Although we both know that we're largely in sync on this whole debate, where you and I may disagree is when we mix respect for heritage with respect for the environment.

When interiors are gutted entirely (plaster wall, ceilings, floors, joists, etc) and replaced with everything new, including new drywall, in my view that has very little to do with respect for heritage. When you walk inside a building that has its original facade but once inside, has absolutely nothing original to make it any different from a building of the same dimensions that was erected 5 minutes ago, then what we have is a kind of facadism (albeit using 4 walls two of which in the case of urban commercial properties are usually party walls and never seen).

I applaud the work at modernizing old buildings so they continue to live, but I would never applaud that as heritage preservation. Let's say that ceiling heights were maintained in a new structure behind an old facade, but the floors and walls had been replaced and the buildings connected, would that be much different than gutting the interior completely but maintaining the bricks on the sidewalls and replacing the entire interior structure and then covering them with drywall? A little different, but not by much. This is much like what has happened to many historic homes in Toronto (Cabbagetown and Rosedale come to mind). Outside they still look pretty much like they always did, but inside they all look the same. Pot lights for days. Seas of drywall. Brand new floors and baseboards and ceiling trim. Etc. That ain't heritage. I'm not upset that it happens, just pointing out what it is and what it isn't.

Having said that though, if your focus is on environmental factors as they relate to the modernization of an existing structure, I agree that it's so much less wasteful to modernize the shell than to simply demolish the building. What would be even better in my view is if all of the elements outside and inside the structure were maintained and to the extent possible or desired, restored and not replaced. As you know, the plaster walls in my building are original (1883), even if a bit rough. I would no more think of removing the plaster and replacing it with drywall than I would removing the pressed metal ceiling on the main floor, also original and a little rough.

I just want to keep the two ideas (respect for heritage and respect for the environment) separate for purposes of this discussion. Please believe me when I say that both are worthy of debate. Including for this one.

Comment edited by H+H on 2013-07-08 15:27:38