Historic district more than the sum of its parts

Date: December 22, 2006
By: William Neville

WINNIPEG can be a curious place when it comes to standing in defence of its own self interest. We have many institutions in the city, including the media, the Chamber of Commerce and other business-oriented groups, that seek to encourage business and development in Winnipeg, and which are usually quick to decry political and governmental actions they judge detrimental to the city's interests. Accordingly, in the current controversy over the Canadian Wheat Board, given the fact that the board has its headquarters here and that other grain-related organizations may be located here because of the board, one might have expected some analysis and discussion of the potential impact of its demise on the economic well-being of the city. Yet, strikingly, most of the media and these other bodies have been pretty silent about the possible economic and employment issues facing Winnipeg if the Harper government successfully dismantles the wheat board.

A similarly curious issue is currently simmering over a proposal to demolish several old and small buildings to provide additional parking adjacent to the St. Charles Hotel. This might be thought small beer -- no slight intended to the St. Charles as a venerable watering hole -- and that is part of what makes our indifference curious. The St. Charles is located within the boundaries of the Exchange District. In 1997, after years of effort locally and nationally, the Exchange District was declared a National Historic District by the federal government. It achieved this recognition because the district encompasses a large, highly concentrated and substantially intact collection of buildings reflecting a significant Canadian commercial district of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In its designation as a National Historic District, Winnipeg's Exchange joined a rather select company in Canada, which included the old City of Quebec and Lunenburg, N. S., both of which are also recognized internationally as World Heritage Sites by UNESCO, with all the benefits of international recognition of these as tourist sites.

In the years following national designation there were various suggestions and efforts to have the Exchange District designated as a World Heritage Site. On its face, the case for doing so was not entirely without merit. World Heritage designation does not, however, depend just on the objective merits of the site in question. What is also considered is the evidence that the jurisdictions involved, whether national or local, are committed in both policy and resources to preserving, maintaining and promoting the site. In short, the relevant government must be prepared to act as good and responsible stewards of the resource in question. When, in 2004, the Canadian nominees for World Heritage status were announced, the Winnipeg Exchange was not on the list. One can only speculate -- but it is not uninformed speculation -- that the stewardship of the City of Winnipeg was found wanting, both in the Exchange and with regard to other significant heritage buildings elsewhere in Winnipeg . In the intervening years a number of campaigns to save such buildings -- Eaton's being the outstanding example -- had failed; and the laxity in maintaining preservation standards required in the Exchange has been eroding rather than enhancing its character.

It is in this context that the proposed demolition acquires significance. The buildings in question consist of a house, built in the 1870s and two smaller, attached buildings in the 1920s. The house is the second oldest structure in the downtown and is the sole surviving example of a residence in what was a residential area before the growth and expansion of the commercial district. The house, together with the two later buildings, illustrate two things: The evolution of the district; and the existence of small businesses coexisting with and supporting large ones. They speak, in short, to some of the very phenomena that went into making the Exchange worthy of national designation.

This week, Daren Jorgenson, one of the Canadian pioneers in the Internet pharmacy business, came to the defense of these buildings. Jorgenson has added a significant new voice to this discussion. Not only is he a successful entrepreneur, he has bought property in the district and is committed to preserving its character through sympathetic redevelopment of existing buildings. He argues that two of the three buildings could and should be saved and proposes, indeed, that the house be converted into a tourist information office.

Jorgenson argues that losing part of our built heritage for the sake of adding 10 or 15 parking spots is bad public policy, and he is right. He is right because there are within a block radius of the St. Charles probably more than 1,000 parking spaces; he is right because though the buildings are not monumental they are part of the district's fabric; he is right because the Exchange has a National Historic designation conferred on the basis of an understanding that the local authorities realize the significance of this great resource and on that basis are committed to maintaining and preserving it.

Such designations are not conferred frivolously, but neither are they necessarily permanent: The time may come when failures to protect and preserve the Exchange will become the basis of a reassessment of the designation itself. And what defence will be offered for demolishing the buildings and, to that extent, diminishing the district? The defence will be that it was done for parking spaces, a defence that can only lend itself to ridicule. Winnipeg may have a curious understanding of where its interests lie, but it needn't go the extra mile to make itself look ridiculous.

wnwpg@mts.net