Do we want façadism to be the new normal?

I read with dismay in Friday’s Times Colonist about the demolition of the Duck’s Hotel on Broad Street, with the retention of only a six-foot strip of the façade.

I agree with some letter-writers in Saturday’s editorial page that this approach to heritage conservation is the wrong approach, and is a slippery slope, the notion that façades can just be replicated or saved, and everything else demolished.

The Bay Centre mall, the Sussex Building and three new projects on Fort Street all come to mind.

I’m sure this approach makes it much simpler and cheaper to construct a new project and provide uninterrupted parking below, by completely removing the inconvenient portions of the building.

As Ian Sutherland, who has rehabilitated and owns two heritage-designated buildings in the downtown, notes in your original article, other buildings have been restored without resorting to demolition and increases in density, and “they produce a good return.”

I’m sure the new seismic code is more restrictive than the last one. At the same time, my sense is that they have a talented design team working on this project, and that they are more than capable of coming up with a solution that is more respectful of the original structure.

We need to draw a line in this city, or we’re going to lose everything that is unique about our Old Town.

What makes our buildings special is that they are real, and once they’re gone, they can’t be replaced. And then what will we have to attract tourism, for instance?

This façadism is better suited to Disneyland or Las Vegas. As Pam Madoff was quoted as saying in your Friday article: “it starts to look a little bit like a theme park.”

Do we want this façadism to be the new normal?

Doug Scott Victoria