One of the reasons I moved from Vancouver to Scotland was because I was sick of doing stonework on multimillion+ mansions. I work in Conservation here. It pays…well it pays like shit. But I get to work on buildings with proper history. We, North Americans, have a tendency to just knock things down instead of maintaining them.
I think it’s really important that we maintain significant structures. Personally, I agree with you. 24 Sussex should be relegated to a museum. It should be restored, maintained, but it’s no longer suited to task.
Architecturally significant and historically significant are totally different things. It was offered as a PM residence for less than 100 years, but it’s almost 160 years old, and that should count for something in and of itself.
Isn’t it also riddled with asbestos?
One of the reasons I moved from Vancouver to Scotland was because I was sick of doing stonework on multimillion+ mansions. I work in Conservation here. It pays…well it pays like shit. But I get to work on buildings with proper history. We, North Americans, have a tendency to just knock things down instead of maintaining them.
As an example, the oldest building in Vancouver is only 15 years older than the house I live in here…
I think it’s really important that we maintain significant structures. Personally, I agree with you. 24 Sussex should be relegated to a museum. It should be restored, maintained, but it’s no longer suited to task.
I think it might be asbestos-free now - they’ve spent the last few years gutting the place.
But yeah, I don’t think I’d support tearing it down, despite the fact that the house itself supposedly isn’t considered architecturally significant.
Architecturally significant and historically significant are totally different things. It was offered as a PM residence for less than 100 years, but it’s almost 160 years old, and that should count for something in and of itself.