Used to be "Investigation of original paint colors on wooden windows"
Ken writes:
"I think it also has to do with removing the stigma of class heirarchy from
historic preservation so that a larger number of people feel
that their
heritage is acceptable."
That's on one side of the argument. On the other, people
have been educated to think of heritage as neat, clean, certainly not scary.
As an example, "the Shipyards" the last interesting part of
Whitehorse, has just met with the wrecker's ball (front end loader,
actually). It was a residential area downstream from where the Yukon River
sternwheelers overwintered. Seasonal workers for the White Pass and Yukon
Route company would occupy various little shacks while employed maintaining
the boats. When the river boats shut down in the 50's, the community lived
on, as low cost housing (no expense to government whatever) for a wide range
of very interesting folk. Lately the city has become interested in
developing (read sterilizing) the waterfront, and as nobody had title to
their properties, gave them all the boot. They've kept four of the most
significant buildings, and their plans appear to amount to boarding them up,
chucking a few other old buildings they don't know what to do with in there
too, and creating a lovely heritage village.
Everything that was interesting, sustainable, alive and
messy about this community is gone. What is left is an orphaned collection
of shacks that will no doubt become such a burden on the city that they'll
come up with an excuse to nuke them too. This has been allowed to happen
because the average voter is embarrassed by the weeds and rusty cars and
dogs, and doesn't get that this too is part of "heritage".
As a sociological aside, the people who in many cases had
lived in Shipyards for decades without any government support have now
become dependant on the system, as they've been forced into official low
cost housing (low cost to whom?)
Am I ranting?
|
