Article content continued

Demolition by neglect is a real and well-observed phenomenon

The direct blame for demolition by neglect goes to the developers and property owners — the people doing the neglecting. On the other hand, it’s worth remembering that it’s the heritage designations themselves (or at least, the strict restrictions that they impose on property owners) that provide the perverse incentive for the abandonment in the first place.

It’s not an unexpected result when you think about it. Heritage designations are a crude attempt at legislating particular historical, cultural and esthetic values. But historical, cultural and esthetic values are intensely personal. You can’t legislate a reverence for Queen Anne revival style any more than you can legislate a fondness for kale.

Tastes and values can be encouraged; they can’t be forced. When you try to force them, you end up making things worse.

Tastes and values can be encouraged; they can’t be forced

Take the house currently languishing in the Annex. If it was going to go, better it should have gone quickly with an efficient tear-down rather than be left to fail slowly, potentially inviting mess, trespassers and animal infestation to the area.

Preservationists would say, but such a house shouldn’t go at all. We must protect our heritage. The key is stricter enforcement. Crack down further on the owners. Yet it’s unclear why preservationists’ values — and ideas about what’s important in some imagined collective heritage — are the ones that should rule the day.

If a historical property can fetch way more money as a new condo building than it can in its current incarnation, that’s more than just evidence that developers are greedy opportunists. It’s an indication that on the whole, the property is valued more highly as a residential tower.