Heritage compromise was the right decision
The most difficult government decisions typically involve competing interests grounded in values.
When one interest wins, another loses. Positions harden and groups divide. Understandably, losers don’t like to see their values overridden by the values of others. When both interests win, perceptions of shared losses and gains ease the passage to community acceptance and reconciliation. This is the art of compromise – a course best followed when opposing groups have dug in their heels – and favoured by philanthropist Andrew Carnegie who once argued that “all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle.”
So it is with the positions put by opposing sides in the pending demolition of the Pig’s Ear and Black Horse buildings flanking the spectacular Morrow Building on George Street, a stone’s throw from City Hall.
There is no doubt that the heritage of the two Second Empire style buildings is valuable. The buildings are living evidence of the passage of time and the evolution of place. Old is the mother of new and the educator of the multigenerational. Heritage presents us with the breadth and continuity of experience that commends city life. In practical terms, the buildings distinguish themselves from bland modernity, offering unusual and affordable spaces. They serve artists and non-traditional users who have limited live/work choices – advancing public goals for creativity and equity.
The city’s own 2012 Culture Plan says it plainly: we are to “build on the city’s past heritage work through continued development of policy and regulatory frameworks ... to protect Peterborough’s historic buildings and landscapes.”
On the other hand, heritage buildings are inefficient. They generate less income than their modern counterparts and can be more expensive to operate and upgrade. For their owners, that combination often results in gradual decreases in financial viability and investment value. That’s when a sale for the purpose of demolition and redevelopment becomes attractive. Subject to the posted rules of the game, we cherish the idea that owners of buildings have the right to sell and gain from their properties as they see fit.
In dealing with its most contentious issues, city council tends to favour a hard line over compromise, the consequence being a divided and sometimes alienated community. The never ending battle over the police budget is a case in point. The parkway might have had easier passage had there been a compromise proposed for the Jackson Park Bridge. Casino opponents might have had some of their concerns eased through a cityorganized discussion with the casino proponents.
Last week, city council switched gears and took a compromise approach to the threatened demolition of the two heritage buildings by directing city staff and the developer to explore viable alternatives for heritage preservation. Good for them. That compromise approach opens the door to the creation of new and highly desirable downtown housing as well as a genuine, albeit imperfect form of heritage preservation.
The new buildings should be designed in ways that are compatible with the height, setbacks, fenestration and horizontal lines of the adjacent Morrow Building. More importantly, however, they should smartly incorporate substantial elements of the heritage facades they are replacing. A little lobby display of dead bricks under glass won’t cut it. Great developers elsewhere have proven that they can rise to such an old/new design task and have been financially rewarded for doing so.
Council has given us the opportunity to find the compromise between the interests of good business and good heritage and we should act on it. The city, meanwhile, should urgently get on with the business of designating all the heritage buildings it truly wants to save.