The Heritage Fallacy

The term ‘heritage’ has been used in the last decade or so to describe buildings whose stylistic underpinnings hearken back to virtually any architectural period prior to the 1930s. Although more or less used by lay people as an overall description of older buildings, even some professionals are now using the term in an effort to be able to communicate to the public on their terms, instead of educating the public as to the true diversity of our historic past.

The ‘heritage style’ typically combines unrelated design elements from multiple historical styles, producing a composition that is can be disproportionate, eclectic and without any specific meaning, all qualities that traditional styles have generally steered away from.

The term ‘heritage’ has been commoditized, not only in buildings, but also in many other areas of our consumer society. You can buy heritage furniture and heritage foods, including heritage meat (the meat’s heritage descriptor undoubtedly casts suspicion over the meat’s best before date!).

Automobile manufacturers have also gotten into the act. Even though the term heritage is not always stated, it is certainly implied with vehicles such as the Chrysler PT Cruiser and the Ford Mustang. Both these vehicles have been consciously designed based on older automobile designs, without relation to current or just past styles of vehicles. This seems to be a particularly North American phenomenon, similar to the ‘heritage’ building phenomenon it imitates.

One might argue that the European designed new Volkswagen Beetle follows this trend, but in fact, the new Beetle is really an evolution of the former design. Indeed the old Beetle has been continuous production since it was designed in the 1940s, and just recently ceased production. Even the new Cooper Mini is an evolution of its former design, with no intermediate designs for the model that have been thrown out in favor of past styles.

New buildings constructed after WWII were generally designed in the International Style, which began in Europe in the 1920s. This style shed much of the ornament and other superfluous decoration that had lost meaning to the collective public because of an ever shrinking world and a mixing of cultures. It looked forward to new materials, new designs and new ways of living and working. Over time, parts of this building style continued to be subjects of innovation, but became largely mechanistic and mass-produced, which for some, lost the humanistic element.

As a reaction, the Post-modern Movement attempted to regain some of the humanistic elements of prior styles instead of evolving the International Style. This was done by re-introducing ornament and even whimsy into building massing and surface treatment, but usually without specific meaning. This style was widely adopted, not because of its quality or cultural significance, but largely because of its potential for mass consumerism, even more so than the International Style.

After a relatively short while the mass consumerism truly took over, and so the style became a new vernacular, what we now know as the ‘heritage style’.

What has this ‘heritage style’ become? It is not really an architectural style, as it is without educated intent to further the process and methodology of building and cultural sign and symbolization. It refers to buildings without specific meaning, usually mediocre craftsmanship, and only vague aesthetic references to past architectural styles; vague only because something determinate would be too difficult and costly, and would take too much attention for the general public to grasp.

Unfortunately, much of the public views the heritage style as a decent (albeit quick) version of past styles. As noted however, it is not, especially considering the appropriated past styles are usually from Caucasian cultural bases, and do not represent the multi-cultural world within which we live. There in lies the fallacy. The further the heritage style evolves in our current society and culture, the less and less connection it will have with those who inhabit it.

David Poiron

2005.11.13

Residents Before Tourists.

It is interesting to note the level of interest the citizens of Nanaimo have shown in the topic of "downtown", and what can we do to save it. People have suggested farmer's markets, festivals, and the like, to spur activity. To be sure these are all positive events. But in all the reading of articles and letters, one thing is apparent: many people seem to feel that more activity will come from the so-called visitor, the tourist, those on the outside, whether or not through the proposed Third Street connector. This does not address the root of the problem. What is needed for activity in downtown Nanaimo, like in any city, is for the residents to live there. As far as I'm concerned, those living in north Nanaimo may as well be from Parksville or Campbell River. They may have some affinity with Nanaimo, but do little to enhance the livability of its central core. It is a matter of proximity. If one could live downtown, then walking to the library, to the bank, to the grocery store, (all everyday activities) would be what brings activity to downtown. At this point in time we act as if downtown Nanaimo should be a theme park or some great destination. What kind of destination is it if people do not even want to live there: performing their daily activities there? A city is for its citizens first, and the tourist second. Of course to live downtown you require housing, something that is sorely missing now. But in time, hopefully, the planners in this city will put a renewed emphasis upon increasing the presence of multi-level housing in the downtown core, right alongside (or preferably, on top of) the specialty shops and public markets that people are expecting of their city.

David Poiron

1998 March 09

More Thoughts on Downtown

The following is a guest column written for the Harbour City Star. Words in italics were part of the original column but were edited out:

After reading Nick Kelly’s guest column , “Nanaimo can’t seem to get the the hang of a good down town” in the Thursday, December 4th edtion of the Harbour City Star , I feel compelled to further the discussion. Mr. Kelly’s makes a number of good points in his column, but there are a number of issues that should be pointed out in order to understand our present situation more fully.

To begin, it must be said that the reason for our dire condition is primarily a lack of educated planning. Over the years, the City of Nanaimo has grown in area to an extent that far exceeds any reasonable use by its population: in other words, this city is not dense enough to be able to afford the amenities that are usually associated when one thinks of the word “city”. In fact, this city, with all its open areas can hardly be described as urban at all. Historically, there has been a clear break between the urban and rural landscape, but so is not the case today, and this costs us dearly.

The amount we spend on horizontal infrastructure (roads, pipes, electrical lines, etc. - most of which is buried) is out of proportion to what we spend on vertical infrastructure (primarily buildings - that which we actually see), and for this we are all the poorer. This comes about with the North American concept of suburbanization, something Nanaimo certainly has fallen victim to. With the increase in population that Nanaimo has recently had, we should have easily been able to afford the new theatre, a new pool, and even a new city hall. But our tax dollars continue to go underground, fuelled by our “right” to live more than ten feet apart to from our neighbours.

And so what about the downtown? As a result of the uncontrolled expansion, the ability to live and work within walking distance of one another is diminished, if not eliminated. And so one is left with a dying urban core, again, typical in this automobile-driven continent. But all this is obvious, or is it? You would think that planning would prevail with so much poor precedent here in North America, but the real issues just aren’t being dealt with.

1983: this is the date Mr. Kelly cites as when the city was in a similar condition. Thus, the process of revitalization of Nanaimo’s downtown core began. And what has been the result? Well, a bit of brick paving, some paint, a few awnings and the so-called “heritage district” designation, all in an effort to attract people back downtown. To be sure there has been a plan behind all of this but one that in my opinion is ineffective and only deals superficially with the real planning issues. And the “heritage district” is proof of that. This district is intended to create a themed atmosphere in which every building has a “heritage” look to it, whether buildings are new or old, whether they have any authenticity or not. This is not only a narrow vision of our downtown, but one that falsely represents our true ties to our collective history. We should definitely be preserving our historical buildings and other important landmarks, whatever their time period, but we should not dilute their importance by building knock-offs in order to attract business through a theme park, recreating a past that never existed.

Unfortunately, some examples pointed out by Mr. Kelly in his column, notably Coombs and Whippletree Junction, are examples of such and by no means constitute a vibrant inner city. If someone wants their building to look old for whatever reason, that is fine, as long as they put some reasonable effort into historically correct materials and details (for Nanaimo, and not some other location - whose history are we talking about here, anyway?). But on the other hand if the building is to be of a contemporary design, that should be equally valid: mandating a particular style of building represents a lack of design imagination and certainly misses the point in terms of planning.

The ills of the downtown are tied to the entire city and are not easily remedied, especially in its piecemeal condition. A city and its downtown have always been based on culture and commerce, both which are lacking here and have been relegated to the outskirts of the city, destroying any focus for the entire community. As Mr. Kelly points out, the new theatre is only a destination but with little support: people will get in and get out as fast as they can. It is not enough to create a place where the tourist dollar will flow, again a superficial reaction: the city must first and foremost be a place for the citizens to participate in and enjoy, otherwise there is no point. And right now their participation is anywhere but downtown. It is in their automobiles, driving from place to place in an overextended city; it is in the seemingly public but actually private (and air conditioned) malls; it is in their homes, far removed from the daily activities of others.

So where do we begin? Well, Mr. Kelly has more good points: less regulation and less taxes in the downtown area, an effort to entice a broader range of services for the downtown. But what is especially needed are people and some reasonable density for a city. There have been efforts to increase the amount of people living close to downtown, such as the development at Cameron Island (I am not advocating that we build 26 storey towers everywhere, but four storeys would be fine), which is a step in the right direction. And when they finally move the industrial area south of Harbour Park Mall, presumably to Duke Point, that would make room for more badly needed central area housing.

But the question of density still has to be addressed. I’m sorry to say it but people have to start living a little closer together if we are to afford the great amenities that we expect out of a city. There is too much wasted space that we pay for through increased horizontal infrastructure. Certainly, an adequate amount of sound buffering and fire resistance can be put into a shared wall that is much cheaper than placing two dwellings ten feet apart with all of the insulation and exterior finish and wasted exterior space that is required otherwise. An analogy can be made that Nanaimo is like a young couple who is just starting out but has financed a large house, a number of cars, as well as other expensive gadgets, instead of living within their means and expanding their boundaries only when they can afford to do so.

An example of where the current attitude has failed is the new City Centre Square that has been built on Terminal Avenue, across from the Mrs. Riches Restaurant. This building is one storey, all retail (half vacant I might add), and with parking out in front: in other words, a strip mall. This is completely inadequate if you want to build a sustainable downtown. This building should be four to six storeys (little chance of blocking precious views here so why not build a little higher?); a mixture of retail / office on the first floor, office on the second and residential above that; and finally parking in a dedicated parking structure somewhere in the neighbourhood (just down the street). Thus, morphology, spatial patterning and density in two- and three-dimensions, as well as typology, the kind of occupancy and use of particular buildings and areas, should be the focus for our planning effort; certainly not the mandated stylistic façades that have been thrust upon us so far.

Unfortunately, a better downtown will be a long and winding road as our vacancy rates are high and our population isn’t high enough and cannot stand to be taken out of their north Nanaimo suburban habitat. But planning is an ongoing process and we must treat downtown as if it were literally our heart, the central focus of all activities. Until we do so, we will be living as though this were a bunch of small, interconnected villages at best, each trying to outdo the other for retail dollars and stylistic prestige, and paying for it because of the massive infrastructure overload. This isn’t the “Village of Wellington” or the “Town of Woodgrove”: this is the City of Nanaimo, so lets start to act like it.

David Poiron

1997 December 30, Harbour City Star, p. A4, V. 2, No. 12

Mediocre Planning and Development

City Centre Square, being built near the Chevron service station on Terminal, is the latest development that adds to the spatial confusion of our city by using a name that comes from nowhere and consequently means nothing. It is typical in the world of strip shopping mall in that it uses the term 'square' to try to instill a sense of place where there inherently isn't one. In the same manner when developers use the term 'plaza', which is a Spanish derivation of square, the misuse of the term square conjures up notions of a public place where all members of society are free to do as they choose. When faced with reality, a privately owned strip shopping mall that is the backdrop for a parking lot, this collective memory couldn't be any more distorted. How can a place be called a square when not only does no public space exist, but where the whole basis for visiting is experienced through almost exclusively non-pedestrian means, the automobile; where one cannot think of spending a pleasant summer afternoon but only visit as a brief stopover between tasks? If the term ‘square’ and other terms like it that were used to describe the particularity of places in our built environment can all of a sudden be used to describe any place, as seems to be the case today, then what meaning does it have, and so why then use it? (Incidentally, the term ‘city centre’ is also a red herring—no pun intended—as the area under the development is reclaimed land from the sea and was formerly a stinking tidal pool which the city wasn’t terribly proud of: some ‘centre’.)

It is typical today for marketers and developers, who are for the most part uneducated in both the history of the city and of building in general, to be making decisions that so greatly affect our built environment. These people consistently try to place historical references (which of course is today's current fad) on new projects and in areas where such histories did not and could not possibly have existed, all in the name of invoking some nostalgia in potential patrons and in turn the turnover of their free-flowing dollars. Through this manipulation the public is coerced into believing in a sanitized version of our past, which in fact was altogether different from what is portrayed. And so, through the compounding effect of more and more of development of this type, we in fact loose the so-called history that many of these for-the-love-of-money developments are unfaithfully recreating.

So where are the professionals with all the knowledge about the history of buildings and the city, the society in which we live, and the application of these into built form: the architects? It is a sad fact today that many architects have been lured into this refabrication of our city (and our past) by developers and others (like city planning departments and design panels) who either because of good or bad intentions believe that to mimic some version of the past, whether authentic or not, is better than facing the design challenges that exist for us today. Indeed, the preservation of existing buildings is commendable, as it preserves a past that actually existed for future generations. Even to design ‘in context’ with respect to basic form, scale, and perhaps materials seems reasonable. But to design environments which incorporate historic ornament and word association for their own sake shows a complete lack of creativity and willingness to confront today’s reality: this type of development is escapism in the Disneyland/consumer sense and is a cowardly response to the challenge facing us.

It is time to stop hiding mediocrity behind the mask of ignorance and begin living in a real city: if I wanted to live in a theme park I would have moved to Florida or California years ago.

David Poiron

1997 December 04