University of Calgary

PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies Legacy Theses

2001

The adaptive re-use of heritage buildings

Bacon, Kirk

Bacon, K. (2001). The adaptive re-use of heritage buildings (Unpublished master's thesis).
University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/19336
http://hdl.handle.net/1880/40863
master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
The author of this thesis has granted the University of Calgary a non-exclusive
license to reproduce and distribute copies of this thesis to users of the University
of Calgary Archives.

Copyright remains with the author.

Theses and dissertations available in the University of Calgary Institutional

Repository are solely for the purpose of private study and research. They may
not be copied or reproduced, except as permitted by copyright laws, without
written authority of the copyright owner. Any commercial use or publication is
strictly prohibited.

The original Partial Copyright License attesting to these terms and signed by the
author of this thesis may be found in the original print version of the thesis, held
by the University of Calgary Archives.

The thesis approval page signed by the examining committee may also be found
in the original print version of the thesis held in the University of Calgary
Archives.

Please contact the University of Calgary Archives for further information,

E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (403) 220-7271
Website: http://www.ucalgary.ca/archives/
 The University of Calgary

The Adaptive Re-use of Heritage Buildings

by Kirk Bacon

A Master's Degree Project submitted to the Faculty of

Environmental Design in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Planning.

Calgary, Alberta.
April, 2001.

(c) Kirk Bacon 2001

ABSTRACT

THE ADAPTIVE RE-USE OF HERITAGE BUILDINGS

By Kirk Bacon
Supervisor: Tom Harper
February 13, 2001

Adaptive re-use is renovating a building to accommodate a new use. This is a

common means of preserving our heritage buildings by providing economically
viable alternatives to vacant deteriorating structures, underused structures, or
building demolition. Examples of adaptive re-use are the conversion of old
warehouses into residential units or the conversion of old homes into places of
business. In the context of a changing urban fabric, adaptive re-use allows old
buildings to be retained and to continue to play a role in contemporary society.

The two primary challenges to adaptive re-use involve (1) economics and (2)
adapting buildings with a sensitivity to heritage. Heritage adaptive re-use projects
have to compete with non-heritage projects and new construction. Heritage
designation, renovation costs, and loss of development potential can all discourage
property owners from undertaking adaptive re-use. Renovation and alteration of
heritage buildings can occur to varying degrees and may not always be kind to the
heritage characteristics of a building. Designation and preservation guidelines can
ensure adaptive re-use is sensitive to the heritage fabric of the building.
Preservation guidelines may, however, need to be balanced with the economic
realities of the particular project.

Municipal heritage policies are created to encourage private sector preservation

efforts. These policies can provide incentives in various forms and they can
address local regulatory obstacles or barriers to heritage preservation and adaptive
re-use.

This study examines various municipal heritage programs, Calgary's heritage

preservation policies, local barriers to adaptive re-use, and how adaptive re-use is
occurring within Calgary. The goal is to make recommendations on how the City of
Calgary can better incorporate our built heritage within our contemporary urban
landscape in a practical and realistic manner.

KEY WORDS: Heritage Preservation, Adaptive Re-use, Heritage Policies,

Incentives, Grants, Tax Incentives, Heritage Designation, Transfer of Density
 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the following people for their assistance and
support with the undertaking of this project:

To Theresa Baxter for getting me started.

To Thomas Harper for stepping in to be my supervisor on short notice,

and for his helpful guidance, support and feedback.

To William Zwerman for his keen interest in my topic and for his critical
and insightful comments.

To all those people who consented to be interviewed by me. Their

contributions and perspectives were invaluable.

To all my friends and family for their support and encouragement.

To my parents, Gene and Betty Bacon, for their love and guidance
throughout my life.

And finally, I need to thank Candace, my wonderful wife, who made a lot
of sacrifices for me and supported me throughout my studies. Most of
all I thank her for her love and patience. I could not have succeeded
without her. (1 love you Candace!)
 Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................... I
Chapter One: Heritage Preservation and Adaptive Re-use
lntroduction ........................................................................
Heritage Preservation ........................................................
What is a Heritage Building? ............................................
Why Preserve Heritage Buildings? ...................................
Heritage Preservation Principles ......................................
Adaptive Re-use .................................................................
Other Benefits of Adaptive Re-use ...................................
Sustainable Development .........................................
Economic Benefits ....................................................
Adaptive Re-use Challenges ............................................
Heritage Character ...................................................
Adaptive Re-use and Economics .............................
Conclusions ...................................................................... 20
Chapter Two: Incentives. Barriers and Policies
Introduction ....................................................................... 22
Why Incentives? ................................................................ 23
Types of Incentives ........................................................... 24
Financial Incentives .................................................. 25
Increased Development Flexibility ............................ 26
Preservation Covenants .....................................
Professional Advice and Support .............................
Public Recognition ...................................................
Leading by Example ................................................
Barriers t o Adaptive Re-use ............................................
Federal Tax Laws ....................................................
Building Codes ........................................................
Approaches t o Adaptive Re-use in other Cities .............
Vancouver ..............................................................
Victoria ....................................................................
Winnipeg .................................................................
Saskatoon ...............................................................
Kitchener ................................................................. 40
Edmonton ................................................................ 40
Conclusions ..................................................................... 43
Chapter three: Calgary Heritage Preservation Policies
Introduction ............................................................ 45
Calgary's Heritage ................................................... 46
Three Levels of Government ..................................... 46
Alberta's Provincial Legislation ................................. 48
 Municipal Government Act .................................
Historical Resources Act ...................................
City of Calgary's Heritage Framework ........................
Heritage Policies .....................................................
Stephen Avenue Heritage Area Program ..............
Transfer of Density Rights .................................
Office Conversion Policy ...................................
The Rest of the City .........................................
Conclusions ...........................................................
Chapter four: Adaptive Re-use Within Calgary
Introduction ...........................................................
Recent Heritage Activity ..........................................
Recent Heritage Lost ......................................
Heritage Preserved ..........................................
Heritage Threatened ........................................
Local Barriers ........................................................
Building Codes ...............................................
Financing and Renovation Costs ........................
Other Barriers ...............................................
Considerations For Future Policy Direction ...............
Management of the Built Form ...........................
City Priorities .................................................
Financial Considerations ..................................
Conclusions ..........................................................
Chapter five: Policy Recommendations
Introduction ..........................................................
Discussion ............................................................
Grants for Building Retention and Re-use ............
Building Code Equivalencies .............................
Ongoing maintenance and fire protection ............
Financial Considerations ..................................
Senior Levels of Government ............................
Conclusion ............................................................
References ..................................................................
Appendices
Appendix A: Key Informant Interviews .....................
Appendix B: Adaptive re-use barriers in selected
Cities ..................................... .....................
 INTRODUCTION

Calgary in the year 2000 is a growing and prosperous Canadian city.

In recent years it has led the province and the country in economic growth, and is
becoming more of a political force on the Canadian landscape as well. This is quite
remarkable for a city that this year will only have been in existence for 125 years (at
least in terms of European settlement). The pattern of development in Calgary over
its history has been one of boom and bust. Presently, we are experiencing good
times and it is hoped that today's more diversified economy will not only secure
continued growth, but will be more resistant to future downturns in the economy.
A negative consequence of rapid growth is the loss of some of our
most significant heritage buildings. During the last economic boom in the 1970's,
whole blocks of heritage buildings were leveled to make way for 'progress'. Since,
then the concept of preserving our heritage has grown and become accepted by
both government and the public. However, in this present 'boom', it is still a
challenge to protect and preserve heritage buildings from the wrecking ball. In the
last few years the city has lost as least nine significant structures due to fire or
demolition and there are several others that are in danger of a similar fate.
One way that old buildings can be saved is to find new uses for them.
This is called adaptive re-use. Adaptive re-use has become a common means of
heritage preservation. Most of the buildings along Stephen Avenue have been
preserved using this method. Adaptive re-use is effective because it keeps a
building occupied. Instead of lying empty where it is in danger of demolition,
deterioration, fire, or vandalism, an old building is reborn as a living, vibrant part of
our contemporary urban environment.
Adaptive re-use of heritage buildings is usually facilitated through a
city's heritage policies. However, often there are policy barriers that prevent
heritage buildings from being profitably used, such as zoning regulations,
redevelopment costs, building codes, and parking requirements

Page 1
 The purpose of this study is to look at the adaptive re-use of heritage
buildings within the City of Calgary, identify any barriers that may exist and propose
policy recommendations that will better facilitate adaptive re-use.
The specific objectives that lead me to this end are:

1. To define adaptive re-use and examine the issues surrounding the

concept.
2. To explore how adaptive re-use is being approached in different
jurisdictions.
3. To understand current heritage policy and adaptive re-use within the
Calgary context.
4. To examine the barriers and constraints that discourage adaptive
re-use.
5. To recommend changes, if necessary, in policy and practice that may
better facilitate adaptive re-use of heritage buildings in Calgary.

Data for this study was collected from two types of sources. The first
was the relevant literature in the form of books, journal articles, policy documents
and media reports. This was done to contextualize adaptive re-use within the field
of heritage preservation, to understand the common obstacles to this type of
development and to examine various policy options. Media reports were used
primarily to follow the specific circumstances surrounding local heritage issues.
The second source of information was key informant interviews (see
appendix A). Interviews were used to supplement the data from the literature and to
provide expert insight into the heritage policies of other cities, Calgary's heritage
policies, and local adaptive re-use projects and issues.
Chapter one looks at heritage preservation and adaptive re-use.
These terms are defined and adaptive re-use is contextualized within the larger field
of heritage preservation. In addition to heritage preservationjustifications, adaptive
re-use can also be justified by reasons of sustainability and economics. The major
issues involved with adaptive re-use are (1) ensuring historically sensitive
adaptations, and (2) economics.
Chapter two examines specifically incentives and barriers. Heritage
policies and incentives are used to encourage preservation. There are several

Page 2
different forms of heritage incentives. A consideration in the formulation of heritage
policies is the identification of any local barriers that discourage adaptive re-use.
The last part of the chapter looks specifically at how different cities are approaching
heritage preservation and adaptive re-use through various policies and how effective
these policies have been.
Chapter three focuses on heritage policy in Calgary. As a city within
Alberta, Calgary has powers and constraints placed on it by provincial legislation.
Within these constraints the city has produced a framework for heritage and has
adopted specific policies to further heritage preservation. These policies will be
examined and evaluated.
Chapter four considers how adaptive re-use has occurred within the
City of Calgary. Specifically, what has been the recent experience in regards to
heritage preservation? This discussion will highlight specific projects, issues and
players within the Calgary context. Also, the local barriers to adaptive re-use will be
identified. Much of this information was obtained through key informant interviews
with nine local heritage professionals. These interviews were conducted with
individuals from the public and private sectors, as well as a member of a prominent
community based preservation group. As a result a variety of perspectives was
represented.
Finally, chapter five concludes the study with the resulting
recommendations and discussion. These recommendations are addressed to
municipal policy makers, heritage planners, owners of heritage properties and
heritage preservation groups. They point the way toward incorporating our built
heritage within the contemporary urban landscape in a practical and realistic
manner. Thus, heritage buildings will be allowed to enrich our landscapes for both
today and tomorrow.

Page 3
 HERITAGE PRESERVATION AND
ADAPTIVE RE-USE

INTRODUCTION

Adaptive re-use is an effective strategy to encourage heritage

preservation through renovating old buildings for new uses. As our cities age and
evolve, the original uses of our old buildings can become impractical. Old schools,
churches, warehouses, hospitals and commercial buildings can become empty or
underused due to demographic and economic changes within our cities. Many of
these threatened old buildings are identified on city inventories as being historically
significant. An alternative to demolishing these buildings is to find new uses for
them.
In addition to heritage preservation there are also environmental and
economic advantages to adaptive re-use. When compared to new construction,
adaptive re-use is more in accordance with sustainable development. In terms of
economics, adaptive re-use can aid in area revitalization and job creation.
There are two main challenges or issues in terms of adaptive re-use.
The first challenge is to ensure that adaptation of a historically significant building is
undertaken with sensitivity to the building's history. The second challenge is to
balance heritage preservation goals with economic realities in order to make the
adaptive re-use of heritage buildings a more attractive development option for
property owners.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION

Heritage preservation is a general term that can also be referred to as

historic preservation or heritage conservation. It is meant to encompass all efforts
to protect, maintain and enhance our heritage resources for future generations

Page 4
(Duguay 1992; Stovel 1996). However, it is not just a question of keeping these
resources in existence. It is important to preserve them in a way that enhances the
memory of the building without mocking or destroying those elements which are
most important to its heritage identity (Stovel 1996). Duguay identifies heritage
resources as those that are handed down from the past (1992). Heritage
preservation and heritage resources are terms that are most commonly applied to
individual buildings or sites, but they can also be applied to heritage areas,
landscapes, individual rooms and small artifacts. While heritage areas and the
specific elements of some buildings will be referred to in this study, the focus will be
on individual buildings and sites. That is, how can the City of Calgary better
facilitate or encourage the adaptive re-use of individual properties by private owners
and developers?

WHAT IS A HERITAGE BUILDING?

In order to better preserve heritage buildings it is necessary to know

what buildings are worthy of preservation. Not all old buildings are historically
significant. Cities can have thousands of old buildings, but not all of them are
important in terms of our heritage. Since the early 1970's, federal, provincial and
municipal governments have started to identify and catalogue historically significant
structures. The Federal Government started the Canadian Inventory of Historic
Buildings in 1970. In 1973, the Province of Alberta created the Heritage Sites
Board. Similarity, the City of Calgary started to catalogue its heritage structures in
1975, and in 1979 published an inventory of its potential heritage sites.
Numerical evaluation procedures are used by most cities to determine
the significance of their heritage structures. For example, Harold Kalman in 1980
developed a numerical evaluation system for use by Parks Canada. In it he
identified five main categories upon which heritage structures can be evaluated:
architecture, history, environment, usability and integrity (Kalman 1980). Each of
these categories has several subcategories with a range of possible numerical
scores. By numerically evaluating each of these criteria, it makes it possible to
prioritize and make preservation decisions accordingly. The buildings with higher

Page 5
total scores are more significant that those with lower scores. While the system
may not perfect and value judgments are still involved, the system is flexible and
can be adapted to a variety of local settings. Both the City of Calgary and the City
of Edmonton have heritage building evaluation procedures based on the one
Kalman developed for Parks Canada. Indeed, Kalman's procedure has become an
international model (Shipley 1992).
For the purposes of this study, I will use the term 'heritage buildings' to
mean those buildings that have been identified as historically significant by one or
more levels of government. That is, any building that is on a government list,
register, or inventory of significant sites. This will include those buildings that have
received heritage designation, along with the majority of them which have no such
protection.
It should be noted that adaptive re-use is not just a heritage
preservation tool. It is a potential option for all older buildings. The
recommendations from this study could in part be applied to older buildings as a
whole. 1 choose to focus on heritage buildings, because the retention of these
buildings has been identified as an important goal by all levels of government and
therefore there is a certain priority to ensuring their ongoing vitality and existence.

WHY PRESERVE HERITAGE BUILDINGS?

So why should we bother to preserve heritage buildings? Will we
really be worse off if they are gone? There are several arguments in favour of
preservation. First of all, heritage buildings are cultural artifacts that provide
physical links to our past. Secondly, they can contribute to a city's unique sense of
place. Finally, heritage buildings are a finite resource; once they are lost they
cannot be replaced.
First of all, heritage buildings are cultural artifacts. They are a part of
our history and part of our cultural development. They provide physical, visible links
to past events, ways of life and people. Heritage buildings give us a tangible
connection to the past because they are a part of our past. We as human beings
value this connection. When we know that a building has been around for a

Page 6
hundred years and that it is a recognized heritage structure, we value it more. It has
worth beyond its property value in that it represents a part of who we are and where
we have come from. Reconstructions or imitations of heritage buildings can never
have this value because there is no authentic connection. Having tangible links to
the past enriches our lives and by preserving heritage buildings we can extend the
legacy of the past into the future. The International Council on Monuments and
Sites (ICOMOS) states: "Imbued with a message from the past, the historic
monuments of generations of people remain to the present day as living witness of
the age-old traditions" and that there is a "common responsibility to safeguard them
for future generations" (Venice Charter 1964, preamble).
Secondly, maintaining a city's link to the past can create a unique
community identity and sense of place. Old buildings and historic districts represent
a city's unique history and development. For example, the buildings along Calgary's
Stephen Avenue represent Calgary's transformation from a small North West
Mounted Police outpost to a turn of the century ranching and railway boomtown with
its impressive sandstone architecture. Imagine Calgary's loss if this Avenue was
not preserved. Luckily it was. Stephen Avenue now stands out as a unique area of
the city that is becoming increasingly popular with new businesses, customers, and
visitors. In a recent article it was reported that Stephen Avenue is "once again the
heart of Downtown" and that "there is, once again, the vitality and liveliness that was
so prominent a century ago" (Stroulger 2000, pg 3).
Thirdly, there is an urgency involved in heritage preservation. We are
losing significant buildings all of the time. Our growing and evolving cities mean that
there are always development pressures exerted on heritage structures. Once they
are destroyed, they are gone forever and for practical purposes, effectively erased
from our collective memory. This is already occurring. In Canada, during the past
three decades, it is estimated that twenty percent of our built heritage has been lost
(Heritage Canada Foundation 1999). For the City of Calgary, it is estimated that
150 historically significant buildings have been lost due to fire or demolition in the
last twenty years (Calgary Herald July 18, 1999). On the present list of Calgary's

Page 7
potential heritage sites there are 389 sites left. So, over the last twenty years
Calgary has lost approximately 28 per cent of its historically significant buildings.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES

Before making any decision on how to preserve a structure you should

know what you are preserving. Lemon writes:

All heritage conservation work, whether it be on a building, monument,

or site, should be based upon and preceded by sufficient historical
research, site analysis and documentation to identify and safeguard
fully the heritage values to be conserved (1989, pg 8).

With proper background research, the historical elements and character of the
building will be identified. That is, those particular elements of the building that
gives it its historical value. Subsequent decisions in the preservation process
should be made to ensure that this character will remain intact. Heritage buildings
that have been identified as such by some level of government already have had
much of this research done. These buildings have already been evaluated on their
heritage value and some of their heritage characteristics have been identified.
The general goal in heritage preservation is to change the resource as
little as possible. This is called minimum intervention. The argument is the more
you change the resource, the more you are changing its historical value. Fitch
states that: "International experience seems to indicate that the more conservative
the intervention, the safer in the long run" (1982, pg 81). This is because more
conservative interventions alter the resource less and are more reversible. That is,
the changes can be undone easier, allowing for the possibility of a higher degree of
preservation in the future. The concept of reversibility is an important consideration
in heritage preservation (Russell 1992). According to the Appleton Charter, the
principle of reversibility protects the integrity of the building, maintains the maximum
amount of options for the future of the resource and allows for the correction of
unforeseen problems (ICOMOS 1983).

Page 8
 Stovel adds that the principle of minimum intervention should take into
consideration the functional goals for the particular building (1996). That is, there
must be a practical element to preservation. The goal is not to preserve everything
is as pristine a fashion as possible. This is impossible. Fitch agrees that heritage
cannot be frozen and that change is inevitable in both heritage resources and in
their urban contexts (1982). Preservation should, therefore, apply policies of
environmental management to the built environment to control the pace and nature
of this change (Fitch 1982, pg 350). Thus, the individual circumstances of each
building must be taken into consideration in order to make practical and appropriate
preservation decisions. That is, one must evaluate the historicity of each building to
ensure that the most important heritage elements are preserved.
There are two major methods of intervention in the preservation of
heritage resources. They are restoration and renovation. They are defined as
follows:

Restoration -- This is returning a building or portion of a building to

the way it was during a particular era or period in history. This
can involve removal of changes to the resource that occurred
after the time period in question, and also replacement of
missing elements that may have been removed. The goal of
restoration is to be as accurate as possible (Duguay 1992).
Renovation -- This is modifying a structure to meet current standards
and to extend the useful life of a building (Duguay 1992).
This can also be referred to as rehabilitation. I will use the terms
interchangeably. The concept of recycling is also used.
Renovation can take two forms. It can either modify a building
for its original or similar use, or it can modify it for a new use.
Adaptive re-use is a form of renovation.

ADAPTIVE RE-USE
Adaptive re-use is a form of renovation. Duguay defines it as
modifying a building for a change in use (1992). Adaptive re-use is an effective
means of heritage preservation and is often the most appropriate intervention. Full
restoration, on the other hand, is often impractical because it is expensive and time

Page 9
consuming. Adaptive re-use is becoming more popular not just with
preservationists, but also with developers.
Adaptive re-use can involve varying degrees of changes to both the
interior and exterior of a building and generally represents a higher level of
intervention than restoration. That is, adaptive re-use usually involves greater
changes to the resource. However, adaptive re-use and restoration are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, a historic home could be fully restored
to how it was when it was originally built, but its use might change to that of a
museum. Also, most adaptive re-use projects will restore the exterior or facade of a
building, while leaving the interior free for more radical changes to accommodate a
new use. This was the case with the adaptive re-use projects along Stephen
Avenue. Other adaptive re-use projects may involve more significant changes and
may alter building exteriors. For example, new additions could be built onto a
building, or a portion of the original structure could be dismantled.
Full restoration is impractical for the vast majority of heritage buildings.
Falkner writes that full restoration of a building inside and out is very time
consuming and very expensive and should be reserved for only the most significant
heritage sites (1977). Moore writes that adaptive re-use is "far more widely
applicable than restoration" (1998, pg 217).
Rather than full restoration, a common more practical means of
preservation is to restore the facade of a building while treating the interior more
flexibly to accommodate a new use. Fitch explains that for most heritage structures
it is the building's role in the streetscape that is often the most important
consideration (Fitch 1982). Restoring the facade can preserve the building's
streetscape character, while adaptive re-use can make the building functional.
Many authors believe that sometimes the only practical way to save a
building is to find a new use for that building (Fitch 1982; Shopsin 1986; Jokinen
1987). Often it is the case that old buildings outlive their original uses. For
example, an old inner city school may no longer be feasible as a school because of
declining enrollment due to the fact that most families are now living in the suburbs.
Similar situations face old warehouses, old churches, run down commercial areas,

Page 10
old institutional buildings, and old homes. In order for these buildings to remain
functional they need to be made economically viable through use. Maintaining a
building's economic viability is a critical element to the idea of adaptive re-use
(Martin and Gamzon 1978; Fitch 1982; Jokinen 1987; Moore 1998).
Ideally from a preservation perspective it is better to continue the
building's original use because that is a more conservative intervention (Lemon
1989; Russell 1992). But, when that becomes impractical or impossible what are
the alternatives? The building can either sit empty or it can be adapted for a new
use. If a building sits empty or underused its owners may just be waiting for an
opportunity to demolish it and build a more profitable structure. Jokinen explains:
"Without a purpose the structure may become a neglected artifact, doomed
ultimately to destruction" (1987, pg 11). Furthermore, one of the principles of the
Venice Charter of 1964, which is an international charter outlining principles for the
conservation and restoration of monuments and sites states: "The conservation of
monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful
purpose" (ICOMOS 1964, article 5).
Adaptive re-use has been a common method of preservation that is
increasingly being seen as a viable option by both preservationists and developers.
Local preservation architect, Lorne Simpson, believes adaptive re-use is the single
most important way of preserving average commercial buildings, because it keeps
them economically viable (Simpson 2000). Moore believes that heritage
preservation and particularly adaptive re-use will be one of the more important
architectural movements for the future (1998, pg 54). Shipley states that adaptive
re-use because of its applicability to modest and even ordinary buildings, is
beginning to be seen as a viable alternative to demolition and rebuild (1992).
Finally, an article in Buildinq Magazine by its editor, John Fennel, states that
adaptive re-use conversions have been a growing part of real estate in recent years,
and will become a much larger part of real estate in the future (1994).

OTHER BENEFITS OF ADAPTIVE RE-USE

In addition to being beneficial to heritage preservation, adaptive re-use

Page 11
has other advantages. When compared to new construction, building renovation is
a more sustainable form of development. In terms of local economies, building
renovation can create jobs, aid in area revitalization, can attract tourism, and
increase the value and tax assessments of the redeveloped properties.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Adaptive re-use is a more sustainable form of development than new

construction. It makes more efficient use of materials, energy, and infrastructure.
According to the United Nations' Habitat Agenda released in 1996:

Conservation, rehabilitation and culturally sensitive adaptive

re-use of urban, rural and architectural heritage are also in accordance
with the sustainable use of natural and human-made resources
(Section IV, C-8).

In terms of materials, the concept of recycling is appropriate.

Recycling buildings has great potential to reduce waste. Recycling creates
efficiencies three ways: (1) by extending the life of the building and the original
resources that went into the construction of that building, (2) by reducing the
demands on our natural environment by reducing the need to extract new materials
for a new building, and (3) by creating less waste. It has been estimated that about
15% of waste in landfill sites is construction waste of which a major component is
from building demolition (City of Winnipeg 1992). Denhez states that this figure is
higher and that one-third of landfill materials in Canada are composed of used
construction material (1997). Regardless of the actual percentage, it is clear that
adaptive re-use uses less materials by creating less waste and by extending the
useful life of a building.
Renovating old buildings is also more efficient than new construction
in terms of energy. There is less energy expended in altering an existing structure,
than building a completely new structure. Not to mention that existing buildings
already represent a certain outlay of energy that was spent to build them in the first
place. This is embodied energy. If the building is destroyed before it actually
becomes unusable, this energy is wasted. So by renovating a building you are not

Page 12
only saving energy in comparison to demolition and new construction, but you are
using the original outlay of energy that went into creating the building more
efficiently by extending the life of that building.
Re-using old buildings also makes efficient use of existing
infrastructure, such as roads, sewers, electricity, and water. Adaptive re-use is
modifying existing buildings that are already serviced by existing infrastructure. By
using existing infrastructure there is no need to extend the city's infrastructure into
the surrounding countryside. This can save money and it can reduce the need for
urban sprawl. Coupled with a strategy of urban infill and intensification, renovation
of the existing building stock can be a crucial element in creating a more compact
and sustainable urban form (Beatley 1995).

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

In comparison to new construction, building renovation is more labour

intensive and thus creates more jobs (Fitch 1982; City of Winnipeg 1992; Rypkema
1995), which is good if the relevant building trades are unemployed. There have
been several studies that have tried to quantify this difference with varying results.
The City of Winnipeg summarizes Canadian studies stating that: "the labour
component of renovation activity is 1.7 to 2.2 times greater than for new
construction" (1992, pg 64). Furthermore, because heritage preservation projects
tend to be on a smaller scale, the projects tend to rely more on local contractors and
craftspeople (City of Winnipeg 1992; BC Heritage Trust website). Thus, there are
added benefits to local economies.
Adaptive re-use has played a part in the revitalization of inner city or
downtown areas. Areas that have a lot of renovated and adapted older buildings
have become revitalized and vibrant retail and tourist areas. Rypkema writes:
"Commitment to downtown revitalization and reuse of downtown's historic buildings
may be the most effective single act of fiscal responsibility a local government can
take" (1995, pg 41). There are many examples of main streets being transformed
and rejuvenated through renovation of their heritage buildings. In the United States
the National Main Street Program has revitalized over 1,500 communities (National

Page 13
Main Street website). In Alberta, the provincial Main Street Program by 1996 had
undertaken the revitalization of 15 main streets across the province, including
lnglewood in Calgary (Conley 1996).
This revitalization can also aid tourism. A city that preserves its
heritage will enjoy tourist benefits. Frommer writes: "Among cities with no particular
recreational appeal, those that have substantially preserved their past continue to
enjoy tourism. Those that haven't, receive no tourism at all" (1988, pg 10). Historic
districts are usually also tourist areas. The past is attractive to travelers and is one
of three main reasons why people travel (Frommer 1988). (The other two main
reasons for travel are relaxation and an interest in natural sites.) Examples of cities
that enjoy significant tourism as a result of heritage preservation efforts include
Savannah, Georgia, and Charleston, North Carolina. Canadian examples would
include Quebec City and Vancouver's Gastown. On a smaller scale, the town of
Lacombe in Alberta has attracted tourists to its downtown as a result of its
successful main street program (Bouchard 1999).
Renovating heritage buildings can improve the value of the property
and increase tax revenue for the City. An old structure that is underused and
deteriorating has little value. Renovation can make the building more attractive for
business and increase the value of the property. When the value of the building
increases, the taxes collected on the building also increase. The City of Calgary in
a recent report showed that the conversion of three warehouses into condominiums
resulted in the assessed value of those buildings increasing by an average of 5.6
times their pre-rehabilitation assessments (1999). The result will be the city
receiving more taxes from these properties.

ADAPTIVE RE-USE CHALLENGES

Adaptive re-use is an effective means of heritage preservation.
However, there are challenges that can affect the usefulness of this tool. Two of the
main issues surrounding adaptive re-use are how to preserve the heritage character
of a building undergoing this type of change, and how to make the historically

Page 14
sensitive adaptive re-use of heritage buildings a more attractive option for property
owners and developers.

HERITAGE CHARACTER

Adaptive re-use can involves significant changes to both the interior

and exterior of a building in order to facilitate the new function and bring it up to
modern building codes. New uses or alterations that drastically change a building's
character or diminish its historical significance should be avoided. Falkner puts it
this way:

Do not diminish architectural detail or humiliate the original principle or

character of the building; do not destroy its integrity; do not alter,
modernize, or add discordant details to the facade of the structure
(1977, pg 121).

Moore calls adaptive re-use projects that are done with little respect for the heritage
characteristics of the building, adaptive abuse (1998). This abuse can be
architectural, the juxtaposition of incompatible styles that makes a mockery of the
old structure, or it can be the inappropriate use of an older structure such as turning
an old church into a disco (Moore 1998).
In determining an appropriate use for a heritage building there are a
three main considerations. A compatible use is one (1) that is sympathetic to the
original use, (2) that fits in with its present urban context and (3) that does not
require radical change to the building.
The adapted use should be sympathetic to the original use, and the
original role the building played in its environment. For example, churches can be
difficult to adapt because of the spiritual component inherent in their character.
What are appropriate uses to put in what once was a spiritual sanctuary? Perhaps
a community oriented use like community services or education would be more
appropriate than say a bar or condo.
A new use should also fit in with the existing urban context. That is,
the new use should also be in accordance with other municipal goals and guidelines
for the area. Such guidelines might have to do with things like appropriate

Page 15
residential densities, appropriate businesses, or the goals of an area redevelopment
plan.
Compatible use also refers to uses that are compatible with the
physical structure of the building. That is, the proposed new use should not require
great changes to the structure. There is a practical element to this. Proposed uses
for a building that necessitate dramatic structural changes will not only jeopardize
the heritage value of the building, but they will also be more expensive (Fitch 1982).
To ensure preservation is carried out with the proper sensitivity to
heritage, most jurisdictions have preservation guidelines in place for how their
heritage resources should be treated. In Alberta, these guidelines usually come into
play when a building becomes designated. So, any building in this province that is
designated either by the province or by a municipality is legally protected from
unsympathetic alterations.
However, the reality is that most heritage resources are not
designated. With development of these properties, governments can try to support
and educate owners. In the case of the City of Calgary, development permits are
monitored on all identified heritage sites. When an undesignated heritage resource
is up for redevelopment the city has an opportunity to provide support and education
to the property owner. This will involve encouraging the designation of the property,
but it will also include supporting the developer (through the heritage planner and
heritage advisory board) to suitably develop the property, taking into consideration
the building's heritage value. The public may also become involved depending on
the building, its history, and the nature of the changes. Owners of undesignated
properties are not legally obligated to follow preservation guidelines, but freely given
professional support, education, and public input may influence critical decisions in
the process.
Often what is required to have more leverage and more influence with
private owners of undesignated properties, is for governments to offer incentives for
heritage preservation and adaptive re-use.

Page 16
ADAPTIVE RE-USE AND ECONOMICS

The feasibility of any preservation project begins and ends with

economics (Jokinen 1987, pg 11).

Most heritage buildings are in the hands of private owners. While

some owners will be sensitive to preservation principles and will redevelop their
properties accordingly, many may not be interested in either renovation or
preservation. Private owners and developers may be reluctant to undertake a
preservation project due to a lack of familiarity with heritage redevelopment,
renovation costs, and due to the fact that heritage designation limits a property's
development potential. Public authorities would like to see all heritage buildings
developed according to the appropriate preservation guidelines in order that
renovation does not detract from heritage, but faced with the realities of private
sector property development, public authorities might be required to compromise
their preservation expectations in order to save endangered structures.
Most developers and owners are unfamiliar with heritage renovation
projects. Most development is new construction. This is what owners and
developers are familiar with. Development requires money and financing. With
financing, anything that is perceived as different from the norm is presumed to
involve more risk. Financing may be harder to get for preservation projects. Also,
from a construction point of view, building a new building is simpler than adapting an
existing one. Again, many developers will want to stay with what is easier. Having
to follow preservation guidelines may also deter some developers who might see
that as more un-necessary government interference or more hassles. Then there is
the issue of costs.
There is a debate on whether heritage renovation is more expensive
than new construction. There is a perception that renovation costs are higher.
Also, because of the nature of renovation, costs can sometimes increase because
of unforeseen problems that may arise during the construction process. However,
some argue that renovation costs, when compared to equivalent new construction,
are similar (US Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1983; Jokinen 1987;

Page 17
Shipley 1992). Others state that renovation can sometimes be cheaper (Jamieson
1982; City of Winnipeg 1992).
Renovation costs are dependent on certain factors. The state of the
existing structure is important. If major structural changes are required then costs
will be more (Shipley 1992). Also, the level to which the structure will be preserved
is a factor. If you are just restoring the exterior while changing the interior, costs
may be less than new construction. This has been the experience of the City of
Winnipeg. With projects that save the shell of the building while gutting the interior,
there was a savings of $10 to $20 per square foot over new construction (City of
Winnipeg 1992). However, if careful restoration of both the interior and exterior is
the goal, then costs will be generally be more than new construction.
The experience of local developers has been mixed. Bryan Mar of the
Palace Development Corporation states that generally preservation projects are
more expensive than new construction (2000). David Neill, on the other hand,
believes that, when all is considered, his renovation of the Alberta Hotel was
cheaper than constructing a new building on the same site (2000). Neil Richardson,
states that renovation costs depend on the structural state of the building, and
believes that if you were going to build new you would not build in the same way
(2000). For example, the Lorraine Apartments have twenty-one inch thick walls. If
you were constructing a new building you would not make the walls that thick.
Lorne Simpson, a local preservation architect, believes the whole renovation versus
new construction comparison is invalid because you are not comparing "apples to
apples" (2000). If you demolish a building and build a new one, the new structure
will be made with different materials, using different methods and will be of an
inferior quality. That is, new buildings are expected to last about twenty years,
whereas older ones can last hundreds (Simpson 2000). Simpson, however, does
believe that costs are perceived to be a barrier to renovation (2000).
Private owners and developers may also be reluctant to pursue
heritage preservation because heritage designation would result in a loss of
development potential. If someone has their property designated, they then have to
follow certain guidelines on how they redevelop the property. Just having to follow

Page 18
guidelines and deal with bureaucrats can be a deterrent for heritage designation in
the eyes of some developers. Also, legal designation means that you cannot
destroy or alter the structure without the permission of the government. The largest
limitation, however, is if the property is on land zoned for higher use. Designation of
such a property could mean giving up significant development potential. Most
owners would not give up that potential because there is a substantial economic
incentive to tear the building down and build to the 'highest and best use' to
maximize profit for that piece of land.
As a result of decreased development potential there is a common
perception that heritage designation also reduces the value of the property
(Rypkema 1995). In the cases where the heritage property is on land zoned for a
much higher density, this is most certainly the case. However, what about other
situations? Is a designated property less valuable that a similar undesignated
property? The assumption that designation reduces property values is beginning to
be questioned. Weiler writes that available research shows that designation has
little impact on the value of heritage buildings (1998). Shipley has shown that in two
Ontario communities, designated properties generally do better than average in the
market place and are also more resistant to the ups and downs of the real estate
market (1992). Studies in New Jersey and Texas show that designated properties
have higher values than similar undesignated properties (Listokin and Lahr 1997
and 2000).
Like any other form of development, heritage preservation needs to be
profitable. Heritage projects must deal with a competitive development market. A
preservation project must make economic sense in competition with non-heritage
developments. Consideration of things such as location and the state of the local
economy may make an adaptive re-use project more or less feasible. Often
significant changes to the resource may often be sought to increase a project's
feasibility. Changes such as building additional density on-site, adding an additional
floor, or adding more entrances may be economically necessary to make the
proposed new use or uses economically viable.

Page 19
 The question becomes, what amount of change to a building are you
willing to accept in order to both preserve the structure and make it economically
viable? Falkner writes, "the renewal and re-use of diverse buildings must be a
series of compromises" (Falkner 1977, pg 126). In cases where the project is in a
depressed area and the public sector is depending on private sector investment to
revitalize the area, the expectation of perfect preservation in light of a private
developer's acceptance of the risk of developing in a depressed area, may be
unrealistic. Graham Bruce writes: "The Community should weigh the costs and
benefits of its authenticity expectations in the light of each building's individual
circumstances; occasionally it may have to accept less than perfect conservation"
(1991, pg 8). Adaptive re-use involves compromise and should be balanced against
the possibility of losing the resource or against losing the potential economic impact
of the proposed new development.
One way that a municipality can have more control over the quality of
preservation, encourage heritage designations, and influence the economics of
specific projects in order to better attract private sector interest in adaptive re-use is
to offer incentives. Incentives will be discussed further in Chapter two.

CONCLUSIONS
Adaptive re-use is an effective, practical and common method of
heritage preservation. It is less costly and much more widely applicable than full
restoration. Adaptive re-use preserves buildings by keeping them in use when their
old uses become impractical. Without a use, a building is only waiting to be
demolished.
In addition to heritage preservation, adaptive re-use can also be
supported by arguments of sustainability, and economics. Compared with new
construction, adaptive re-use uses fewer resources, less energy, and takes
advantage of existing infrastructure. In terms of economics, adaptive re-use can
contribute to area revitalization, increased tourism and increased tax assessments.
The challenges with the adaptive re-use of heritage buildings are to
ensure that adaptation of the building is done with sensitivity to the heritage of the

Page 20
structure, and to balance preservation expectations with economic realities to make
it a more attractive development option to owners. One possible way to attain both
of these goals is through implementation of appropriate incentives for private
developers.

Page 21
 CHAPTER TWO

INCENTIVES, BARRIERS AND POLICIES

INTRODUCTION
All levels of government across Canada have policies in place that
relate to the preservation of our heritage resources. The general goal of these
policies is to encourage preservation of our heritage buildings so that they will
endure for future generations to enjoy.
At the municipal level there is a wide variety of policies and incentives
toward this end. Most of our heritage buildings are in the hands of private owners.
These people may be uninterested or reluctant to preserve their heritage structures.
lncentives are offered in order to make preservation and adaptive re-use more
attractive. Heritage designation is encouraged, as this legally protects the buildings
and will ensure that preservation work will follow the appropriate guidelines.
lncentives can also compensate owners for any loss of development potential they
may experience as a result of designation.
There may be other regulatory factors in adaptive re-use development
that may create barriers that discourage or hinder efforts to encourage preservation.
Heritage policies and incentives should also address any such local barriers in order
to be effective.
To gain a better understanding of the practical range of heritage policy
alternatives, it would help to look at the heritage programs in a selection of
Canadian cities to see how they try to encourage adaptive re-use. Lessons learned
in other jurisdictions may show what policies work better than others. These
lessons will be examined to determine what can realistically be applied to the
Calgary context.

Page 22
 Most governments should try to encourage the preservation of
heritage buildings. The goals and responsibilities of government have come to
include protecting these resources for future generations. Franklin writes: "First
and foremost, governments protect and promote heritage for public benefit and by
public demand" (1998, pg 20).
Preservation policies try to support preservation by two general
methods. One is through regulation. That is, setting down the rules for what you
can and cannot do with heritage resources. However, most of these rules apply
only to those resources that are legally designated. Most heritage resources are not
legally protected and are in the hands of private owners. It would be impractical and
much too expensive for cities to try to designate all local heritage resources on their
own. So the other general method of supporting preservation is to encourage
private owners to voluntarily undertake preservation on their own. This is done by
providing incentives to property owners. Bruce writes that incentives which
encourage and support private preservation are the path to long term solutions in
heritage preservation because they "alter the fundamental economic factors upon
which owners make their property management decisions, and thus encourage
private owners to undertake conservation by their own choice (1991, pg 5)".
Private property owners may be uninterested or reluctant to preserve
their heritage structures because of inexperience with preservation projects,
uncertainty about costs, a loss of future development potential due to designation,
and a related reduction in property values. Incentives are offered in order to make
preservation more attractive and they are also offered as a means of providing
compensation for decreased development rights. Marya Morris defines a heritage
incentive program as "a contract between the building owner and the public outlining
the exchange of public money for care of the building" (1992, pg 3), and outlines the
general purposes of such programs as follows (1992, pg 3):

1. To counter land-use and other government policies that may

work against building preservation.

Page 23
 2. To encourage building renovation.
3. To provide a means by which heritage building renovation
projects can compete with new construction or building
abandonment.
4. To compensate owners for the burden of heritage preservation
laws.

The challenge for governments then, is to find the right incentives or

compensations to accomplish these goals. A major consideration in planning an
incentive program is finding the appropriate level of compensation. Too little
compensation is not an incentive and too much compensation is a waste of
taxpayers' money. It is expected that owners will pay some of the costs themselves
as part of normal maintenance for their building. That is, compensation is a
supplement to the owner's own investment in exchange for the community receiving
a heritage benefit from the work (Bruce 1991). Furthermore, financial incentives
need not be given if zoning adjustments or building code amendments are all that is
needed to make the property financially viable (Bruce 1991).
Another consideration is how to target incentives in the most
appropriate directions to preserve those elements of a building that are the most
important. Incentive programs usually come with a set of conditions stating what
types of work are eligible for public compensation. For example, the Stephen
Avenue Grants Program was for facade restoration. Thus, the primary
consideration was preservation of the historic facades and their contribution to
enhancing the historic streetscape of the area.

TYPES OF INCENTIVES

There is a wide range of incentives that cities can employ to further

their heritage objectives. Generally, incentives commonly involve public monies, but
they can also involve increased development flexibility, preservation covenants, and
other non-financial methods of assistance. The following discussion will focus on
some typical incentives offered at the municipal level. Some of these incentives
may not presently be possible within Alberta, but are possible in other Canadian
cities due to differing provincial legislation. General types of municipal incentives

Page 24
will be looked at and the discussion will include what is possible under Alberta
legislation.

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

These incentives are usually in the form of cash grants, municipal tax
concessions, or loans.
Cash grants are usually payments of monies for all or a portion of
eligible renovations for historically designated structures. In many cases, grants are
awarded on a cost-sharing basis with the public authority paying a fixed percentage
of the eligible preservation costs up to a set maximum dollar amount. This way, the
bigger the project the more money is given. On small projects the grants would be
appropriately smaller.
Tax incentives can take a few different forms. Tax credits reduce the
amount of property taxes paid on recently designated or renovated structures. A tax
freeze keeps property taxes at pre-renovation levels to cushion owners from
increased property assessments and therefore increased taxes after expensive
renovation work. Shipley states that increased tax assessments almost amount to a
penalty to owners that renovate their properties (1992). They spend a lot of money
to preserve the structure and then they are rewarded with higher taxes (Shipley
1992).
Another strategy is to offer owners of heritage properties loans or loan
guarantees to help them access the money they need to renovate their properties.
This is sometimes seen as necessary, as lenders may be hesitant to give money to
heritage projects because of a perception of increased risk. So, to give owners
access to the money they need to start and undertake a preservation project, a
government may provide the loans itself. Sometimes loans may be provided at a
special low interest rate. Or, a government could guarantee loans acquired from
private lending institutions, thus eliminating the risk for those institutions. A
potential negative consequence of loans or loan guarantees is that a government, if
things go wrong, will have to pick up the tab for defaults on these loans.

Page 25
 Both grants and tax incentives are clearly identified as possible
options for Alberta municipalities by the Alberta Historical Resources Act (Section
24(4)). In terms of loans or loan guarantees, the Alberta Municipal Government Act
limits local governments. Under the Act, municipalities can only lend money or
guarantee loans that are made between the municipality and one of its controlled
corporations or with a non-profit organization (Municipal Government Act, Section
264(1-2)). Thus, the only way an Alberta city can offer loans or loan guarantees for
the purposes of heritage preservation is if the party undertaking the preservation is a
non-profit organization. Loans or loan guarantees to private property owners are not
possible.

INCREASED DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY

Increased development flexibility covers a range of incentives. These

regulatory incentives are possible through a city's ability to control and regulate how
development takes places within the city.
One possibility is rezoning. An owner of a heritage property may be
granted the possibility of changing the land designation for the property. An
example is changing the land use classification for a property from residential to
commercial. This makes adaptive re-use possible by allowing the property to be
used for a new use. Bruce explains 'Rezoning is perhaps the most useful way to
promote conservation of buildings that are not close to being economically viable in
their present state" (1991, pg 24).
Another strategy is providing relaxations or exemptions for specific
zoning requirements such as parking or loading requirements. In older areas of a
city, where there is a more pedestrian scaled and compact urban form, it may not be
possible or practical to demand normal zoning requirements such as the provision
of a certain amount of parking stalls or a certain square footage of amenity space.
These requirements may make it impossible for new businesses to set up, or the
requirements might necessitate expensive structural changes to the building that
would make the project financially unfeasible. An example of this type of strategy in
Calgary is the policy of exempting restaurants, drinking establishments, cinemas

Page 26
and theatres from parking requirements in a defined area of downtown, which
includes the Stephen Avenue Mall (Calgary Land Use Bylaw, Section 18(2)).
A third possibility is allowing property owners to build to a higher
density than would normally be allowed on the property. This could involve building
other buildings on the same site or it could involve building additions to an existing
building. A variation of this would be to allow owners of heritage properties to
transfer their density rights. That is, owners would be able to sell their unused
density to other properties within the city. Both of these options would allow owners
to profit from the un-used development potential of their site without demolishing the
heritage building.
All of these options are possible within Alberta. Under section 640 of
the Municipal Government Act, municipalities are empowered to create a Land Use
Bylaw to regulate and control the development of land within the municipality, which
includes regulating changes in land use, establishing and maintaining zoning
requirements, and regulating changes in the intensity of land use. See table 2 -1 for
a summary of financial and regulatory incentives.

PRESERVATION COVENANTS

Preservation covenants can be either a public or private method of

preservation. However, in Alberta there is presently little incentive in preservation
covenants.
A covenant or easement is a voluntary agreement where a property
owner relinquishes certain rights over their property to another party. The
agreement is tied to the title of the property and remains attached to the property
even if ownership changes. With preservation covenants, the property owner can
donate part of their development rights over their property. For example, an owner
may enter into an agreement to ensure protection of the faqade or to protect the
building from other insensitive alterations. Because the covenant is tied to the title
on the property, such protective measures are legally binding on future owners.
In Alberta covenants are provided for in the Historical Resources Act.
Covenants can be made between private property owners and the province, a

Page 27
municipality, the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation, or any historical
organization approved by the province (Historical Resources Act, Section 25.1).
While these agreements are possible, they have not been utilized. This is because
there is not much incentive to do so on the part of private property owners. In the
United States, preservation covenants are a common means of protecting heritage
buildings, because there are tax benefits. In the States, any loss in property value
experienced as a result of a covenant is considered a charitable donation that is tax
deductible (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1991). In the case of a property
that is zoned for higher density than presently exists, the owner is compensated
fairly for giving up his rights to build to a higher density. In Canada, any potential
charitable donation benefit is countered by Capital Gains rules (Godfrey 1996).
That is, the person is taxed on any increase in value the property experienced since
the time the person purchased the property. Preservationists argue that
preservation covenants should be treated like donations of movable cultural heritage
or like environmental covenants, where the donor can realize tax benefits similar to
those in the United States and not have to penalized by Capital Gains rules.

PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND SUPPORT

Governments can also support heritage preservation through providing

professional support and assistance to owners and developers of heritage
properties. On the most basic level, this would include basic awareness programs
to educate the public about heritage preservation, about local heritage resources,
and about local programs and policies. People need to be aware of what heritage
buildings are in the city and what the city can do to help property owners to preserve
them.
Furthermore, many owners and developers are new to the process of
renovating heritage properties. There are extra steps in the development process
and there are different considerations than there are in new construction. Most
places have a heritage department and / or heritage planner to reviews applications
and provide assistance to proposed projects.

Page 28
 INCENTIVE What is it? Possible in Alberta?
-
Grants Money given to property owner to Municipalities enabled to offered
cover all or a portion of eligible grants as compensation through
preservation work Section 24(4) of Alberta Historical
Resources Act

-
Tax A reduction in the property taxes paid Municipalities enabled to offer tax
by a recently designated or renovated incentives as compensation through
l ncentives property for a specific period of time. Section 24(4) of Alberta Historical
A tax credit reduces taxes owed by a Resources Act
specific amount. A tax freeze keeps
taxes at pre-renovation levels.
-
Loans and A loan given directly from a Loans and loan guarantees do not
municipality to a property owner for appear to be permitted under the
loan the purpose of heritage preservation. Municipal government Act (MGA)
guarantees A loan guarantee is the municipality unless they are made to government-
co-signing a loan the property owner controlled corporations or to non-profit
gets through a private financial organizations. (Section 264 of MGA)
- institution.
This is changing the land use Municipalities are empowered through
designation of a property. For section 640(1) of the MGA to regulate
example, the land use designation of and control the development of land,
a property could change from which includes the regulation and
residential to commercial. control of changes in land use.

-
Zoning Specific zoning requirements for a Under their ability to control and
property, such as parking, loading anc regulate development, municipalities
relaxations amenity space requirements could be can establish and maintain the
or eliminated or relaxed to make re-use regulations for these types of zoning
exemptions of the property more feasible and requirements.
practical.
-
Density Allowing a property owner to develop Included in municipalities' ability to
to a higher than normal density in regulate and control development, is
bonusing exchange for preservation. the ability to regulate and control
changes in intensity of use of land

On top of this, an additional strategy would be to implement a special

approval process for heritage buildings, so that the development approvals are
expedited as fast as possible. This could alleviate the fears of some owners of an

Page 29
arduous process and show the city's commitment toward heritage properties by
giving these projects top priority.

PUBLIC RECOGNITION

Governments can also publicly recognize people and organizations

that participate in heritage preservation. This is a means to raise the profile of
heritage preservation, to celebrate and publicize successful projects, and to publicly
show appreciation to citizens that are preserving our heritage. This is a form of
positive reinforcement and it acknowledges the contribution these people make to
the community as a whole.
Some people may be more inclined to undertake such projects if there
is a possibility of public recognition. It may make a person feel good, or in the case
of a commercial company, it might be a way of fostering community goodwill and
good corporate citizenship.

LEADING BY EXAMPLE

Governments can also take a leadership role in the preservation of our

built heritage through how it manages publicly owned heritage buildings. Most
governments own at least a few heritage structures. How they preserve these
structures sends a message to the private sector. If they are properly preserved
and used, this sends a positive message about the city's commitment to heritage
preservation and provides successful examples to the private sector. If on the other
hand, city owned heritage structures are un-used and deteriorating, the message is
less positive. Cities that poorly manage the heritage buildings in their possession
may have less clout when trying to persuade private owners to preserve their
structures.
Municipal governments also have the option of directly purchasing
heritage properties in order to save them and have them properly renovated.
However, this can be an expensive undertaking, which many municipal
governments may not be willing to undertake.

Page 30
 For municipal heritage policies to be effective they will also need to
take into consideration any local regulatory barriers that exist that may undermine
any efforts to encourage preservation. These barriers will vary from city to city.
Different cities will have different experiences, different legislation and different
approaches to development. Local barriers should be identified in order to better
tailor local policies to the local context.
Many potential barriers to adaptive re-use and heritage preservation in
general have already been mentioned. These include, a general inexperience with
renovation projects by property owners, loss of development potential, zoning
requirements, high renovation costs (or a perception of high renovation costs), slow
bureaucratic processes, and getting financing. These are the most common issues
to be addressed by local governments when trying to encourage preservation
through incentives, because municipal governments generally have the power to
influence these issues.
Other potential barriers to adaptive re-use include shortages of skilled
labour, federal tax laws, upgrading old buildings to comply with modern building
codes, a depressed local economy and provincial legislation. Some of these
barriers municipalities may have little power to influence. For example, the state of
a local economy has a great impact on development and can be subject to forces
that are provincial, national and international in scope. Cities naturally undertake
initiatives to improve their economies, but sometimes larger economic trends can
overshadow any local efforts. Furthermore, the size of the city and the scope of its
economy may influence the availability of labour that is skilled in preservation work.
Another example is provincial legislation. It is provincial legislation
that defines what a municipality is and what powers it has. In Alberta, through the
province's Historical Resources Act, cities can designate properties as heritage
resources, but they are also required to provide compensation to the property
owner. This can carry a high price tag. In Alberta this requirement for

Page 31
compensation by municipalities is a potential barrier to locally sponsored heritage
preservation. Most provinces do not require municipalities to provide compensation.
Two other major barriers to heritage preservation in Canada are the
Federal Income Tax Act and building codes. Municipalities have no control over
federal tax laws, other than to lobby the federal government for change. In terms of
building codes, all provincial codes are based on the National Building Code.
However, there is flexibility for municipalities to make special provisions for applying
equivalent codes to existing buildings.

FEDERAL TAX LAWS

A major barrier to building renovation in Canada is federal tax laws.

Federal tax laws actually create disincentives for building renovation in Canada
(Godfrey 1996; Edmonton Journal Oct. 31, 1997). Financial disincentives for
building renovation are created through the terminal loss provision and through
Revenue Canada's interpretation of renovation costs.
Old buildings are considered depreciable assets. That is, assets that
consistently decrease in value each year. Building owners are allowed to deduct
building depreciation from their income each year. The problem arises when an
owner considers selling this building. Overall real estate tends to appreciate or gain
in value rather than depreciate. The selling price of the building will be more, often
much more than the depreciated book value of the building. If the owner sells, he /
she will have to pay back to Revenue Canada the depreciation deductions that the
owner previously claimed. Thus, there is no incentive to sell, because there is a
financial penalty in doing so. This issue came up in Calgary when David Neill
offered to buy the endangered Lougheed building. The owners of the Lougheed
were considering the offer until they understood the tax implications (Neill 2000).
So there is no benefit in selling an old building, but there is a benefit in
demolishing it. This is terminal loss. That is, an owner who destroys the building is
able to deduct from his / her income the rest of the book value of the building as a
loss. Thus, demolition leads to a financial benefit to the owner.

Page 32
 The way that renovation costs are interpreted by Revenue Canada is
also a problem. They can either be considered capital or current expenses. Current
expenses are those that are a part of routine maintenance and upkeep. Owners are
able to deduct the full amount of current expenses from their income in the year the
work occurs. Capital expenses are anything that is considered a betterment of the
property. This work can only be deducted at four percent per annum. Revenue
Canada tends to see building preservation as capital costs (Godfrey 1996).
Preservationists argue that heritage preservation should be considered current
expenses as this would result in a much greater financial benefit for owners and
would make building renovation a much more attractive prospect (Chouinard and
Franklin 1997).

BUILDING CODES

Building codes can constitute a considerable barrier to adaptive re-use

by adding time and expense to a project, and potentially threatening a building's
significant heritage features. Building codes are regulations meant to ensure that
buildings are constructed to meet certain standards in terms of safety, health and
access. They are designed and intended for new construction. However, existing
buildings, whenever they undergo a change in use or undergo a major renovation,
are required to be brought up to modern building code standards.
Complying with modern building codes can be a significant barrier to
adaptive re-use. Denhez writes that, "one of the worst problems facing the re-use of
heritage buildings has been the National Building Code" (1991, pg 26). Old
buildings were constructed using different materials and dimensions. Meeting
modern building codes may require considerable structural changes, such as
enlarging entry-ways and hallways, enclosing staircases and replacing structural
wood floor systems with more non-combustible materials (Hansen 1984). This is
expensive and could mean the project becomes financially unfeasible due to
technical problems.
A complicating factor is trying to apply these modern codes without
compromising the heritage nature of the building. Structural and other code

Page 33
required changes might endanger a heritage building's significant spaces, features
and finishes (Lemon 1989).
To help accommodate the heritage and structural circumstances of
old buildings, there is the possibility of applying equivalent code standards.
According to the National Building Code (NBC): "An equivalent to any requirement
of the NBC is considered to have been achieved if the level of safety provided is
identical to that which would have been achieved if the requirement of the Code had
been met" (National Research Council of Canada 1993; pg 7).
The application of these equivalencies can also be a problem. They
are up to the discretion of individual code inspectors who may be unfamiliar with
older structures and unwilling to stray from normal practices (Barber 2000). Or, the
negotiation between a property owner and municipal authorities for how to apply
equivalencies may add considerable time to the renovation process with no
assurance that the sought for equivalencies will be accepted.
One place that has successfully dealt with the problem of applying
equivalencies is the State of California. They have implemented a comprehensive
set of alternative codes for heritage buildings. This reduces uncertainty for both
individual code officers and property owners, and creates the potential for tangible
cost-savings (California's State Historical Building Code website).
Among the public heritage professionals that I talked to in Calgary,
Edmonton, Vancouver, Victoria, Kitchener, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, all of them
except the City of Winnipeg mentioned that building codes were a significant barrier
to adaptive re-use (see appendix 9). Winnipeg has a strong codes department that
has developed a set of equivalencies. A Winnipeg codes officer prepared a
document on the subject years ago, and more recently the city hired an expert to
prepare another document for them (Bugailiskis 2000).

APPROACHES TO ADAPTIVE RE-USE IN OTHER CITIES

To understand some of the practical applications of various incentive

and support programs for heritage preservation, the heritage policies from a
selection of Canadian cities will be briefly examined. The experiences and lessons

Page 34
learned in other places may provide example of policies that could be successfully
applied to the City of Calgary.
The cities I choose to look at are Vancouver, Victoria, Winnipeg,
Saskatoon, Kitchener and Edmonton. The rationale for city selection was that I
wanted enough different cities to show a variety of different approaches. Also, most
of the selected cities are western Canadian cities, which share a similar historical
time frame and perhaps a more common cultural outlook with Calgary. The
exception is Kitchener, Ontario. I also looked at that city because they had recently
implemented a comprehensive program of adaptive re-use targeted at both heritage
and non-heritage buildings. Overall, the City of Edmonton may provide the best
basis for comparison with Calgary because of a similar size, history, and provincial
legislation. Summary table 2 - 2, will summarize the various cities' incentives.

VANCOUVER

In Vancouver, financial incentives are not offered. Instead they rely on

regulatory tools such as zoning relaxations, parking relaxations, density bonuses,
density transfers and a fast tracking approval process for heritage buildings.
Furthermore, due to recent provincial legislation, Vancouver has an additional
means to protect buildings called a Heritage Revitalization Agreement. Finally,
Vancouver allows for the preservation of its Modern architecture.
Vancouver used incentives such as re-zoning, parking and loading
relaxations, and density bonuses and transfers. These incentives are not directly
financial but they are meant to increase the financial viability of the project through
increased development flexibility or the ability to sell extra density. In some cases
extra density can be banked for sale at a later time. These incentives are
negotiated on a site-by-site basis and are usually given in return for designation of
the site.
Vancouver's focus on density bonuses and zoning relaxations has
been relatively successful. In eleven case studies published by the city, all were
assessed as successful to varying degrees (City of Vancouver 1998). These types
of incentives are effective where there is a demand for extra density as is the case

Page 35
in Vancouver (Bruce 1991). However, in most of the case studies (6 out of 1I),
the
feedback I recommendations suggested that some people would prefer a more
direct form of compensation such as grants or tax incentives (City of Vancouver
1998).
Another tool the city has is the ability to negotiate a heritage
revitalization agreement with a property owner. This tool is the result of new
provincial legislation introduced in 1994. A heritage revitalization agreement is a
negotiated agreement between the city and the property owner. Like designation, it
legally protects the building, but it also has the ability to supersede the normal land
use, siting, and density regulations in order to come to a more flexible incentive plan
to preserve the resource.
Negotiated incentive packages in exchange for heritage designation
and heritage revitalization agreements can be time consuming and complex. In a
few of the case studies published by the city, developers mentioned that the
process was long (City of Vancouver 1998). One developer was perturbed because
the city's green door policy for heritage projects increased his expectations of a
quicker process (City of Vancouver 1998).
Another interesting aspect to Vancouver's approach is the fact that
buildings only have to be more than twenty years old to be considered for the City's
Heritage Register and for heritage designation. This is to recognize and provide for
the protection of Modern architecture within Vancouver.
Density bonusing and transfer may be more applicable and successful
in Vancouver than in Calgary because there is more demand for extra density. In
Calgary's downtown and inner city areas extra density is already widely available
through existing zoning and through easily acquired non-heritage density bonuses.

VICTORIA

The City of Victoria has successfully used both grants and tax
incentives. Their tax incentive program is relatively new and is directly targeted at a
specific renovation expense and also supports a more general city goal.

Page 36
 The grant program has been in existence since 1989. Originally
targeted at the downtown, the program was expanded to citywide application in
1996. Buildings must be designated to receive funds and the program has been
successful in renovating buildings and encouraging designation. During the 1990's
the downtown building grants program has helped 46 buildings and has resulted in
24 designations with a total public input of $1,179,860 dollars (Victoria Civic
Heritage Trust, 2000). The program was for matching grants up to a maximum of
$50,000 for eligible renovation. The maximum grant has recently dropped to
$25,000 due to high demand for limited funds. Victoria's heritage planner, Steve
Barber says the program has been successful because it positively affects the
economics of a project and it is also a psychological benefit to owners because they
can see they are getting help for their expensive project (Barber 2000).
Victoria's tax incentive program has only been in place since 1998.
The purpose of the program has been twofold. First, it is meant to help owners of
downtown heritage properties to convert vacant or underused upper stories to
residential use, thus providing new uses for these buildings. It forms a part of a
wider city policy of increasing the residential population in the downtown (Barber
1998). Secondly, the program is specifically targeted at seismic upgrading, which
has prevented past conversion of these buildings (Barber 2000). It is a complete tax
exemption for up to ten years to recoup the costs of seismic upgrades. Seismic
upgrades are required by the BC building code to make buildings safe from possible
earthquakes. So far the program has been successful resulting in four projects to
date, with three more in the works (Barber 2000). Victoria's heritage planner
believes all seven of these projects would not have proceeded without public aid,
because seismic upgrading costs were a significant barrier (Barber 2000). These
incentives have been used in conjunction with the grant program.
In Victoria both grants and tax incentives have been successful. With
the new tax incentive program, it has successfully removed a significant barrier to
adaptive re-use while at the same time the policy has contributed to other important
municipal goals.

Page 37
WINNIPEG

The City of Winnipeg uses both grants and tax incentives. Grants
have been more successful. Winnipeg also has had a stagnant economy, which
has affected preservation.
The Winnipeg tax credit program has been in effect since 1998. The
credit if for up to 50% of private investment in preservation work for up to ten years.
This program has not been very successful (Bugailiskis 2000). Due to a slow
economy, renovation work may not result in much increase in property value. The
amount of the credit is tied to post renovation increases in property assessment. If
the property value does not increase much there is not much tax relief, and
therefore not much incentive. Also, lending institutions do not recognize these
credits as collateral and property owners who have been eligible have still had
trouble getting financing. Another problem has been net lease rental agreements,
where tenants pay a portion of property taxes. The result can be that the property
owner pays for the renovation, and the tenants get to share in the tax credit benefit.
These types of tenant agreements are also common in Calgary (Informant 2000).
Finally, from the perspective of the city, these incentives are not just deferred
income. Due to the Manitoba Municipal Assessment Act, the municipality must
budget and pay the taxes it forgives on private property and school taxes are not
included in the credit (Bugailiskis 2000).
In Winnipeg grants have been more successful. Since 1986,
municipal and provincially designated properties are eligible to receive grants for
eligible work. The grants are awarded on a 50-50 cost sharing basis up to a
maximum amount of $75,000 for provincially designated sites and $35,000 for
municipally designated sites. Through this program 41 grants were given by 1992
totaling over $1 million (City of Winnipeg 1992). Also, in 1996 all three levels of
government committed a total of $5.5 million for grants towards two programs; one
targeted to the Exchange District and the other toward buildings elsewhere in the
City (City of Winnipeg 1996). Developers like grants because it is easier to get
financing and start work, and the amount of the incentive is more certain than with
tax incentives (Bugailiskis 2000). One problem that is arising with the grants is that

Page 38
owners have started to expect them as a right. The challenge now is how to target
these grants better to the most appropriate projects (Bugailiskis 2000).
The slow economy has inhibited preservation efforts. For building
owners the main priority has been to attract tenants. Thus, preservation work has
focused mostly on building upkeep and space improvement in order to attract
tenants (Bugailiskis 2000). Actual restoration of heritage facades or building
elements has taken a back seat.
In Winnipeg, grants have worked better than tax incentives. They are
preferred by property owners and they can help in getting financing. Finally,
preservation efforts have been inhibited by a slow economy.

SASKATOON

The City of Saskatoon has just started a new heritage program in

1999, which has two levels of incentives and protection. This is a new program that
has benefited six projects to date, three of which have been adaptive re-use
(Hutchings 2000).
The first level of incentives is given in return for designation, or for
properties that are already designated. The main feature of the program is tax
abatements for a maximum of 50% of eligible costs for a maximum amount of
$150,000 over ten years. The city will also partially refund the building permit fee.
The second level of incentives is for properties on the city's
Community Heritage Register. This register is a list of the city's historically
significant structures. Designation is not required to receive this level of benefits,
but the owner must agree to protect the building for a fixed number of years. In
exchange for less protection, the incentives are less. The benefits drop to 20% of
eligible costs to a maximum of $30,000 over ten years, with a partial refund of the
building permit fee. This level of incentives, while still providing some protection to
the building, may be more palatable for some owners who are reluctant to designate
their structures.
The city can also facilitate adaptive re-use through an adaptive re-use
through zoning agreement. Heritage properties are eligible to be rezoned to

Page 39
accommodate new uses. This basically changes the land use designation for the
property. This is a restricted land use change, as the original zoning will return if the
negotiated use stops. This has not been utilized yet, but one project is in the works
(Hutchings 2000).
Saskatoon's new heritage program offers two levels of incentives for
two levels of protection.

KITCHENER

The City of Kitchener in Ontario has taken a more general approach

in which adaptive re-use has formed the backbone of its downtown revitalization
efforts. Adaptive re-use incentives are targeted to both heritage and non-heritage
buildings. The incentives include flexible zoning, parking requirement exemptions,
development fee rebates, and a loan program.
The most successful aspects of the program have been a loan
program and the elimination of development fees for these buildings (Pearce 2000).
The loan program is a revolving fund in which repaid loans go back into the program
to provide funding for new projects. Also, 15% of the amount of the loan is
forgivable. This loan program has worked well, and since some adjustments early
in the program's history, the default rate has been zero (Pearce 2000). The
elimination of development fees also improves the economics the eligible projects.
This program also shows that adaptive re-use has wider application
than just heritage. In Kitchener, adaptive re-use has formed the basis of its
downtown revitalization efforts and their adaptive re-use policies are directed at
heritage and non-heritage buildings alike.
Kitchener shows the successful application of a revolving loan fund to
encourage adaptive re-use. In Alberta, municipalities can only provide loans or loan
guarantees to corporations that they own or to non-profit groups.

EDMONTON

The City of Edmonton has a Historic Resource Management Program

that covers the entire city. In recent years, this program has worked in conjunction

Page 40
with the city's new downtown initiative of increasing the number of residential units
in the downtown. Overall, the City of Edmonton spends more money on an annual
basis than Calgary and its program has resulted in more municipally designated
buildings than the Calgary program.
In 1987, Edmonton created its Historic Resource Management
Program. Owners must agree to have their properties municipally designated to
qualify for incentives. The program began in 1988 and is mostly described as a tax
incentive program, which freezes taxes at pre-renovation levels for a period of five
years. However, the program was created with the flexibility to also offer grants for
a portion of renovation grants in certain cases. The reality has been that most
projects have received grants as opposed to tax incentives. Developers have
preferred grants (Sharma 2000).
As of 1997, the program has benefited 13 buildings in which $4.2
million of the City's funds induced over $58 million in private investment (Fraser and
Kyle 1997). Furthermore, the program has resulted in another four designations this
year (Sharma 2000).
In addition to the financial incentives, the program has other elements
as well. Property owners must negotiate a maintenance agreement with the city to
ensure the ongoing care of the resource. In addition, the city is willing to negotiate
other incentives, on a case by case basis, such as parking, loading and amenity
relaxations, transfer of density rights and consideration of building code
equivalencies.
In recent years the heritage properties in the downtown have benefited
from the city's new downtown plan, which provides financial incentives ($4,500 /
residential unit constructed) for residential development within the downtown.
These incentives have aided in the residential conversion of heritage buildings and
have worked in conjunction with heritage grants for preservation work. Thus, the
city is fulfilling two objectives: providing more housing within the downtown and
preserving heritage properties.
The City of Edmonton provides a good basis for comparison with the
City of Calgary. Both cities are approximately the same size, both are governed by

Page 41
 Vancouver
Density Bonus,
Victoria Winnipeg - Saskatoon Kitchener Edmonton
density transfer,
roning relaxations,
Revolving loan fund
ast track policy for Grants and tax Grants and tax
Incentives heritage projects incentives incentives
Tax incentives and elimination of Grants
development fees
and heritage
revitalization
aareements -
11 case studies
1990's: Grants for Provincial / City
eviewed. Incentive 6 projects
46 buildings, Grants (1986-
packages undertaken since 17 properties have
resulting in 24 1992): 41 grants 17 of 20 target
Number of ~egotiatedcase-by
designations. 7 totaling over $1
start of program in
sites have been re-
eceived grants and
projects case. Heritage 1999. Half have have become
~rojectscompleted million. Two tax used.
revitalization been adaptive re- designated.
or in progress due ncentives projects
agreements used use.
to tax incentives in 1998.
in 4 of the cases -
Both grants and The successful
Flexible but time Grants have
tax incentives are adaptive re-use of
Have they :onsuming. Some Grants have been The new program resulted in
working. In some downtown
been would prefer more
cases both
more successful I?as already shown
properties has
municipally
effective? direct financial han tax incentives. results. designated
incentives are helped revitalize
assistance. properties.
received. the downtown.

Density bonuses
work best when The recent t a x The local economy
'rogram has been
there is a demand incentive program has hindered Two levels of Incentives apply to
aided in recent
for extra density. successfully presetvation efforts Incentives given for both heritage and
Comments BC legislation addressed t h e and the two levels of non-heritage
ears by downtown
housing incentive
allows for use of barrier of seismic attractiveness of protection. buildings.
program.
heritage upgrades. tax incentives.
revitalization -
incentives from selet
the same provincial legislation, and both have a similar amount of heritage
resources. In Edmonton, 17 buildings have been municipally designated as a result
of its program. In contrast, Calgary only has a total of 8 municipally designated
properties, and designation is not required to access Calgary's grant program.
Furthermore, Edmonton's annual budget is $285,000 for its heritage grants and in a
couple of occasions extra funding has been approved. In Calgary, the city will
spend $1.4 million on the Stephen Avenue Program (Graham 2000) over
approximately 11 years, making the average annual city contribution approximately
$127,000.

CONCLUSIONS
lncentives are used by municipal governments to encourage and help
private property owners to undertake preservation of their buildings. Usually, but not
always, designation or some other level of protection is required in exchange for
public incentives.
There is a range of typical incentives that cities can offer. This range
of incentives will vary with different provincial legislations. lncentives are usually
seen as providing money in the form of grants or tax incentives, but they can also
involve other measures such as providing extra density and zoning relaxations.
These incentives can and are used to address local regulatory
obstacles or barriers that may otherwise undermine preservation efforts.
Unfortunately, local governments cannot address some barriers such as federal
income tax laws.
Different heritage policies in several of Canada's cities show
specifically how some incentives are used. Successes and failures in these other
cities may provide ideas for the City of Calgary. For example, heritage incentives in
Victoria, Kitchener and Edmonton have successfully supported and have been
supported in turn by other non-heritage municipal goals. In Victoria, they have used
their new tax incentive program to successfully overcome the barrier of seismic
upgrades that was previously making renovation projects economically unfeasible.
Grants have generally been successful in the different cities and in comparison to

Page 43
tax incentives they seem to be more preferred by developers. In Saskatoon, they
offer various levels of incentives for various levels of protection, which may widen
the appeal of preservation. The City of Vancouver, non-financial incentives such as
zoning relaxations and density incentives have been used effectively. Density
bonuses and transfers, however, work best when there is a demand for extra
density. Also, often cities will try to offer a package of incentives. For example, in
addition to the main incentive of a grant or tax incentive, other incentives like zoning
relaxations or permit fee refunds are also considered. Finally, a poor economy, as
in the Winnipeg case, can hinder preservation efforts and the attractiveness of
certain tax incentives.
Chapter three will examine and assess the heritage preservation
context and policies within the City of Calgary.

Page 44
 CHAPTER THREE

CALGARY HERITAGE PRESERVATION POLICIES

INTRODUCTION
The City of Calgary is a relatively young city that has in the past
experienced rapid growth. As in other Canadian cities, rapid growth, urban renewal
schemes, and the passage of time have all contributed to the loss of heritage
buildings. In recent decades all levels of government (federal, provincial and
municipal) have responded to public concern over lost heritage and have
implemented heritage policies. Thus, in any one Canadian city there are usually
three different sets of heritage preservation policies with differing powers and
responsibilities.
In terms of the City of Calgary, the city's ability to preserve heritage is
the result of provincial legislation. Both the Alberta Municipal Government Act and
the Alberta Historical Resources Act provide local governments with valuable tools
to protect heritage. However, they can also impose constraints.
Under this legislation the City of Calgary established a framework for
heritage preservation. This has included identifying Calgary's heritage resources
and monitoring the development of these resources. Within this framework, Calgary
has also developed specific policies that are aimed to encourage preservation.
Most of these efforts have focused on Stephen Avenue. Other areas of the city
have had little or no or access to municipal incentives. These policies will be
examined to determine how successful they have been.
Calgary in recent years has again experienced strong economic and
population growth. Effective heritage policies will be those that preserve and protect
the city's heritage resources in the face of rapid new growth.

Page 45
CALGARY'S HERITAGE
Calgary was founded by the North West Mounted Police (NWMP) in
1875, making the city a hundred and twenty five years old. The original settlement
was just east of the NWMP fort. However, the coming of the Canadian Pacific
Railway in 1883 resulted in the heart of the community moving west toward the new
railway station. This is where Calgary's downtown developed along Stephen
Avenue. Stephen Avenue became known for its impressive sandstone buildings,
earning Calgary the moniker of the "Sandstone city".
Since it was founded Calgary has grown dramatically and today is
Canada's fourth largest city with a population of almost 850,000 people (City of
Calgary Census, 1999). As recently as 1946, Calgary was home to only 100,000
people. Growth in Calgary has been dramatic. With urban renewal and new
developments in the 1960's, whole blocks of old buildings were taken down to make
way for such buildings as the Calgary Convention Center, the Calgary Board of
Education, the YWCA and the Main Public Library (Dempsey 1994). Dempsey
reports that the attitude at the time was: "Out with the old and in with the new"
(1994, pg 133). There was little consideration given for heritage buildings. This
started to change during the late 1970's within Calgary as people started to voice
opposition to the loss of heritage buildings, and heritage preservation legislation at
all levels of government were beginning to be introduced.
In recent years the City of Calgary has continued to see strong
population growth due to a healthy economy. Today, Calgary is one of Canada's
major economic centers. A strong economy will continue to lure newcomers to
Calgary and by 2024 the city population is projected to be about 1.25 million (City of
Calgary 1998). One of Calgary's challenges for the future will be to protect its
heritage resources as the city continues to grow, prosper and face strong
development pressures.

THREE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

In Canada there are three levels of government: federal, provincial

Page 46
and municipal. All three of these levels have their own set of roles, powers and
policies in terms of heritage preservation.
The federal government focuses its heritage building preservation
efforts on those buildings that it owns. Our national government owns over 60,000
buildings across the country, of which almost 5,000 have been evaluated for their
heritage significance and about 1,I
00 have been designated as Federal Heritage
Buildings (Parks Canada website). Included among these designated buildings are
buildings of national historic significance such as those buildings at our National
Historic Sites and the Parliament Buildings. Also included are various military
buildings, office buildings, lighthouses, research facilities, penitentiaries and park
warden's cabins.
Heritage designation at the federal level occurs at two levels. Any
building 40 years old or older is eligible to be evaluated. Buildings that warrant it are
recommended for designation either as a Classified Building or a Recognized
Building. Any proposed changes to a Classified Building must be submitted for
review to the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office. For Recognized Buildings,
any proposed demolition or disposal must be submitted for review to the Federal
Heritage Buildings Review Office.
The federal government also affects preservation across the country
through its income tax laws. We have seen in the previous chapter how terminal
loss and the treatment of renovation expenses can act as disincentives to heritage
preservation. However, federal tax legislation also has the ability to positively affect
preservation efforts. In the United States, a 20 percent federal income tax credit is
available to property owners who renovate certified historic structures (United States
National Park Service website). This has resulted the renovation of over 27,000
historic properties across the United States since 1976 (National Park Service
website). There is no reason why the Canadian government cannot implement a
similar program and presently efforts are being made in this direction. Last
September in Calgary a National Heritage Canada conference was held to explore
the possibilities for a national income tax credit program for heritage building
renovation.

Page 47
 Provincial governments have a dual role in preservation. They have
their own heritage policies, but in addition they define the parameters of how
municipalities can protect heritage. Provincial governments focus their preservation
efforts on those buildings that are historically significant to the province as a whole.
This includes encouraging preservation in smaller municipalities and rural areas that
may not have a local preservation program. In terms of larger municipalities, there
may be a large overlap between buildings of provincial significance and those of
municipal significance.
Municipalities get their powers from provincial governments.
Provinces define what a municipality is, what powers a municipality has and what
the responsibilities of municipal government are. In contrast to federal and
provincial levels of government, municipalities are severely restricted in their
available resources. Both the senior levels of government have vast taxation and
legislative powers that city governments do not. Municipal government can usually
only raise money by means of property taxes, business taxes and user fees. This
has traditionally been insufficient for municipal needs and cities are highly
dependent on various grants from senior levels of government.

ALBERTA'S PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION

In Alberta the two documents that determine municipal preservation
powers are the Municipal Government Act and the Historical Resources Act. The
Municipal Government Act determines how municipalities can manage land use and
development, and raise revenue. The Alberta Historical Resources Act provides for
the management and preservation of heritage buildings by both the province and its
municipalities.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Municipalities are creatures of the province and have only as much

power as the province gives them. Alberta's Municipal Government Act (MGA)
defines what a municipality is, and outlines all the powers and responsibilities given
to Alberta's cities and towns. Included in these powers is managing land use and

Page 48
development, and taxation powers.
Part 17 of the MGA regulates land use planning. This includes the
requirement of drafting a Municipal Development Plan which addresses future land
use and growth within a municipality and which may state the municipality's goals
and objectives. Also, this part requires the creation of a land use bylaw, which
"may prohibit or regulate and control the use and development of land and buildings
in a municipality" (Section 640(1)). This mandates the municipality to do things like
dividing land into land use districts, outlining the permitted or discretionary uses for
these districts, establishing zoning regulations, and establishing the processes for
land development. It is under this part of the MGA, that municipalities can create
incentives such as rezoning, zoning relaxations, and density bonuses or transfers.
Municipalities have limited sources of funding. They can raise
revenue through property and business taxes and through user fees, fines and
permits. Added to this are any grants the municipality may get from higher levels of
government. With this, a city is required to pay for city's administration,
infrastructure and public services. Municipal funding is tight with much competition
for limited dollars, which means funding for such things such as heritage
preservation may be relatively low on a city's priority list. A present funding issue for
Alberta's two major cities, Calgary and Edmonton, is how to pay for much needed
road and public transportation infrastructure to accommodate growing populations.
Given the constraints of municipal finances, these two cities are dependent for most
of this transportation money on the provincial government.

ALBERTA HISTORICAL RESOURCES ACT

The Alberta Heritage Act (since renamed the Alberta Historical

Resources Act) was passed in 1973 giving the province and municipalities the
mandate and power to protect and preserve heritage resources. This is primarily
done through officially designating heritage buildings.
The Act covers designation of heritage resources by both the province
and by municipalities. Designation is legal protection of a heritage building from
demolition or unsympathetic alteration.

Page 49
 The province has the power to designate any historic building the
preservation of which is considered to be in the public interest (Alberta Historical
Resources Act, sections 15.1 and 16.1). There are two levels of designation; as a
Provincial Historic Resource and as a Registered Historic Resource. Of the two,
designation as a Provincial Historic Resource is the stronger level of protection.
Owners cannot make any changes to the resource without the prior written
permission of the province. However, this level also provides greater financial
incentives. Provincial Historic Resources are eligible to receive up to $75,000
during a five-year period to pay for preservation work on a 50-50 cost sharing basis
with the owner of the property.
Provincial designation at the second level, as a Registered Historic
Resource, means owners are obligated to inform the province of any proposed
changes to the building. After which, nothing can be done for a period of 90 days
while the province reviews the proposals. This is done so that the proposed
changes can be properly reviewed and appropriate recommendations can be made
to the owner. The property is also assessed as to its suitability for the next level of
designation. This level of protection is eligible for only $25,000 over a five-year
period for preservation work on a 50-50 cost share basis.
The Historical Resources Act also gives municipalities the power to
designate heritage buildings. Once a building is designated, changes cannot be
made to the building without the approval of the city. However, the critical difference
between provincial and municipal powers of designation is that municipalities in
Alberta are required to pay compensation to property owners who may experience a
decline in property values as a result of designation. The province, on the other
hand, can designate properties without having to pay compensation. Generally, the
province will not exercise this power against the wishes of a property owner. A
recent exception to this was the provincial designation of the Palace Theatre over
the objections of the owner.
The requirement for municipalities to pay compensation for heritage
designations is a strong constraint. In the City of Calgary, the city's heritage planner
believes this requirement has in a practical sense prevented the city from legally

Page 50
protecting properties through designation (Robert Graham 1992). If a property
owner wants to demolish an undesignated heritage building and the province is
unwilling to designate it, the only options for the city to protect it are to designate the
building themselves or to purchase the building. Both options can potentially be
very expensive. This is especially true if the building lies on land that is zoned for
much higher use. Municipal compensation would have to take into account the loss
of development potential. The same goes for purchase of the property. That is, the
property would carry a high price because of its development potential.
The Lougheed building in Calgary exemplifies this problem. (The
Lougheed building is discussed at greater length in Chapter Four). As the building
is on land zoned for a much higher density than what the present Lougheed building
represents, the owners want to take the building down and replace it with a 22-
storey office tower. Legally the province could do this without paying a cent of
compensation and the owners of the Lougheed building could do nothing about it.
However, as the province has refused to designate the building, the City of Calgary
itself now faces community pressure to preserve the structure. The city will likely do
nothing because the costs of both purchasing the property and designating it will be
too steep for the municipal coffers to handle.
Alberta is one of only two provinces in Canada where municipalities
are required to compensate owners for decreases in property values due to
designation. (British Columbia is the other province.) However, in British Columbia,
owners have to apply for this compensation within a year of designation and the loss
in property value must be clearly demonstrated (Province of BC, 1995).
Getting back to Alberta, the requirement for municipal compensation
can be relinquished if the property owner signs a waiver. That is, the property
owner voluntarily accepts municipal designation. An example of this in Calgary is
the Tribune Block, which also received a Stephen Avenue grant. Thus, while the
building owner waived their right to compensation they did receive an incentive for
the preservation work. There are no examples of someone waiving their right to
compensation in the absence of an incentive.

Page 51
 Incentives can be used to encourage designation. Municipalities are
empowered under the Historical Resources Act to provide compensation to owners
through "grants, tax relief or any other means (Historical Resources Act, section
24(4)). In other words, through an agreement with a property owner a municipality
can offer grants or tax relief in exchange for designation of the property. This can
be used as an incentive. That is, if you designate your property and restore the
facade, the city will contribute to renovation costs or provide some other means of
compensation.

CITY OF CALGARY'S HERITAGE FRAMEWORK

Responding to the new provincial heritage legislation and community
interest in heritage preservation, the City of Calgary published its Municipal Heritage
Conservation Framework in 1978. This document recommended that a municipal
heritage program be set up with the goals of identifying and evaluating the city's
heritage resources, and of raising public awareness of heritage preservation (City of
Calgary 1987). Included in this framework were the creation of a Heritage Advisory
Board and the position of Heritage Planner. Also this framework has to operate in
politicized environment that includes many different viewpoints, values, interests
and relationships.
Evaluation and identification of the city's heritage resources began in
1979 when the city started its list heritage resources called the Inventory of Potential
Heritage Sites. They also have since implemented an evaluation procedure to
assess the heritage value of different buildings. The city's inventory includes the
word 'potential' because most of these sites have not been designated as heritage
resources and therefore are not legally protected. Presently the list contains 389
sites, of which, 69 are designated by the Province and 8 are designated by the City.
The lnventory is divided into three categories labeled A, B, and C. The
A list contains the most unique and significant sites, the B list contains the next
most important sites and the C list contains the remaining sites. Buildings in all
three categories, however, have been recognized as significant and worthy of
preservation.

Page 52
 The city framework also includes the position of a heritage planner, a
heritage advisory board and a municipal heritage properties authority. These bodies
are responsible for how the city approaches development of its heritage resources.
The heritage planner reviews all development permits affecting sites
on the Inventory, acts as a liaison between different city departments, city council,
the public and other interested parties, and answers inquiries from the public. In
addition, the heritage planner implements, evaluates and creates the city's heritage
policies.
The Heritage Advisory Board advises city council about all
preservation matters and promotes public awareness of preservation issues. The
board also reviews development permits submitted on potential heritage sites,
evaluates policy, presents interpretive plaques for heritage sites, and presents
awards for preservation. In addition when circumstances warrant, the board can
refer threatened sites to the province for consideration as a Provincial Historic
Resource and may also ask the province to consider requesting a Historic Impact
Assessment from the owner of the threatened property. A Historic Impact
Assessment freezes development on the site until the assessment is completed to
the satisfaction of the province.
The Municipal Heritage Properties Authority was created to raise funds
for the preservation of heritage buildings as a registered charity under the Charities
Act. In October 2000 the Municipal Heritage Properties Authority and the Heritage
Advisory Board merged to create a new body called the Calgary Heritage Authority.
This body assumed the responsibilities of the two previous bodies in addition to
assuming a property management role (Graham 2000).
Finally, like any other type of development, heritage preservation is
subject to political influences. It is the elected members of city council that
approves municipal policy and decides when to use the city's power of designation.
Members of city council are the decision makers. However, city council is
concerned with all aspects of municipal governance and must weigh many different
viewpoints. Decisions on heritage preservation have to be weighed and prioritized
along with all other municipal goals and influences. Depending on the political

Page 53
circumstances, heritage preservation issues may or may not carry much weight with
city council.
In terms of heritage preservation, there are several political realities
that may have to be dealt with. For example, council decisions are not made in a
vacuum. They are influenced by their constituents; be it the citizenry at large, vocal
community groups, the media, developers or other business interests. Within each
of these groups or influences there are also differing and often conflicting opinions
and priorities. For example, while there may be several developers within the city
that care about heritage preservation, many do not. Some people may see
preservation as sentimentalist and a barrier to growth and progress. Similarly,
preservation policy can be seen by some as unwanted government interference.
Other things that may affect decision-making are relationships with senior levels of
government, re-election aspirations, interest groups, individual relationships, and the
state of the economy.
Money, economic development and municipal prestige also affect
preservation. Sometimes grander projects can over-ride preservation concerns.
The Convention Centre development was a huge investment for the city, intended to
help add to the city's ability to attract major national and international conferences
such as the World Petroleum Congress. Interestingly, this development brought up
conflicts within the city administration itself. On one side the city and the province
were pressuring the private developer of the adjoining hotel to better preserve
heritage, while on the other, the city was willing to accept repeated cost overruns
and the destruction of two city owned heritage buildings in order to see the project
completed.
Lastly, the community is an important factor in preservation.
Preservation is done for community benefit and Calgary's citizens should be able to
participate and voice their opinions in terms of heritage. Sometimes community
political action is necessary and recently there has been several community
heritage organizations formed which have positively affected.how preservation has
occurred within Calgary (see Chapter Four).
Now, I will examine more closely the specific heritage policies that

Page 54
have been implemented by the City of Calgary and assess their effectiveness.

HERITAGE POLICIES

The bulk of Calgary's preservation policies have been targeted toward

the downtown core of the City. In this area of the city there are two types of
incentives. There is (1) the Stephen Avenue Grants Program and (2) the ability to
transfer density rights. In other areas of the city there is less municipal support for
heritage. These policies will be evaluated on an individual basis, and Calgary's
overall heritage preservation program will be assessed.
As a general approach when dealing with the development of heritage
buildings in the City of Calgary both building code equivalences and zoning
relaxations are considered when appropriate on a case-by-case basis (Graham
2000). Also, restaurants, drinking establishments, cinemas and theatres are
exempt from parking requirements along Stephen Avenue.

STEPHEN AVENUE HERITAGE AREA PROGRAM

Stephen Avenue is the historic downtown core of the city. After, a

major fire in 1886, construction on the avenue used mainly sandstone; hence
Calgary is sometimes referred to as the Sandstone City. Revitalization and
preservation on the Avenue has been an objective of the city for decades (Graham
1992). City efforts in the area include recognizing it as a special heritage area,
sunlight requirements that limit building heights on the south side of the Avenue, the
implementation of a transfer of density rights program (which will be discussed
later), a 1985 market study, the creation of the Stephen Avenue Mall Authority to
manage the mall, and streetscape improvements in 1989.
Then in 1991, the city partnered with the province to fund the Stephen
Avenue Heritage Area Program. The Program provides grants for up to 50% of
facade rehabilitation and restoration costs to owners and lessees of properties in the
Stephen Avenue heritage area. Owners are not required to designate their buildings
in order to receive these grants, but they are required to follow provincial guidelines
for rehabilitation. This program is administered by the Stephen Avenue Heritage

Page 55
Area Society and is funded jointly by the City of Calgary's Downtown Improvement
Fund and the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation. The city's total financial
contribution to the program will be $1.4 million (Graham 2000). The Stephen
Avenue Grants Program is almost complete. It will continue for another year or two
until the remaining buildings have been rehabilitated.
The Stephen Avenue Heritage Area Program has been successful.
Currently, 28 out of a possible 32 buildings have been renovated, most of which
Calgary's Heritage Planner characterizes as adaptive re-use (Graham 2000).
This success seems to be the result of a few different factors. The
program helped spur development, there has been increased interest from the
private sector in heritage buildings and in the downtown, and finally Calgary has
benefited from a booming economy.
This grants program helped spur renovation development on the
Avenue. Although the program started in 1991 but the grants were not taken
advantage of until 1994. In that year property reassessments significantly reduced
the value of Stephen Avenue properties. Reduced property assessments translated
into reduced property taxes, which then made renovation on Stephen Avenue more
feasible (City of Calgary 1999). The city's heritage planner believes that the grants
program in concert with the 1994 reassessment was a successful combination
(Graham 2000). The province provided half the funding for this program and the
province's restoration advisor for the area also believes the program has been a
successful in spurring redevelopment (Basso 2000). The watershed project on the
avenue is believed to be the adaptive re-use of the Bank of Montreal Building into
retail use (Calgary Herald March 22, 1999; Simpson 2000). After this property was
bought and renovated others followed. A heritage architect who worked on 21
projects on Stephen Avenue believes that these public grants were needed to
encourage redevelopment (Simpson 2000).
Another factor for the success of this program according to Calgary's
Heritage Planner is that owners on the Avenue were willing participants (Graham,
2000). Developers were interested in investing on the avenue. One developer
stated that the area has been made more attractive because of recent streetscaping

Page 56
improvements, and the increased interest brought to Calgary's downtown due to the
developments of Eaton Center, Eau Claire and Bankers Hall (Neill 2000). Another
developer has expressed the view that heritage buildings are in demand right now
(Richardson 2000). In fact Richardson believes that it is this interest in heritage
buildings among developers that has made the Avenue a success and not city
policies (2000). Developers invest when project economics are favourable. The
developer of the Palace Theatre and the Norman block stated that the grants do not
really affect project financing, but they offset some of the costs of facade restoration
(Mar 2000). It is interesting to note as well, that not all projects received public aid.
Some went ahead without it.
Calgary has in recent years had a very strong economy. This has
been luring people and businesses to the City and the downtown. Development in
the downtown has been very strong with new condominium projects, new hotels, a
new convention centre, and new office towers. A recent newspaper article reported
that Calgary leads the nation in overall construction activity, with increases in
residential, commercial and industrial activity (Calgary Herald September 6, 2000).
The booming economy has no doubt contributed both to the increased
attractiveness of the downtown and the increased viability of development along
Stephen Avenue.
One concern about the Stephen Avenue Program is that owners were
not required to have their properties designated in order to receive funds. They just
need to adhere to provincial guidelines for rehabilitation. The city's heritage planner
states that this may have made owners less anxious about preservation (Graham
2000). The result is that many of the buildings on the Avenue are still not legally
protected despite significant public investment in these structures. As a result there
is the possibility that at some point in the future someone could still demolish these
buildings. Zoning in the area allows for higher density than the existing heritage
buildings. While buildings on the south side of the Avenue are limited to about three
or four stories due to sunlight requirements (City of Calgary, 1996), the north part of
the Avenue has no such protection. Current zoning allows for the construction of
buildings to three times the site area. Alternatively, developers have the option of

Page 57
building according to a bonusing system (Calgary Land Use Bylaw, Section 42.4
(c)). With existing non-heritage density bonuses maximum achievable densities can
range from 7 to 15 times the site area (City of Calgary, 1996). The city's heritage
planner noted that some Stephen Avenue properties may face development
pressures in about twenty years time when many of these buildings will need to be
renovated again (Graham 2000). However, both the province's restoration advisor
and the city's heritage planner believe that the success of the avenue and
community pride in the area may prevent such occurrences (Basso 2000; Graham
2000). Basso adds that both levels of government have invested in the avenue and
that they may step up to protect that investment if the need arises (2000).

TRANSFER OF DENSITY RIGHTS

In the Core Area Policy Brief, the sale and transfer of density rights are
provided for in downtown Calgary (City of Calgary 1982). Much of the downtown is
zoned for higher use than presently exists. This includes heritage properties in the
downtown. The owners of these heritage properties can sell their unused
development potential to other properties for heritage preservation purposes. This
removes the disincentive to keep the building by making it possible for property
owners to profit from their unused density without having to demolish their property
and build new. Requirements of this density exchange are that the heritage
property becomes designated and that the proceeds from the unused density go
toward preservation of the heritage structure.
The success of this incentive has been low: it is seldom used. This
incentive has only been utilized twice (Calgary Herald July 5 1999). This incentive
depends on their being a demand for increased density. A City of Calgary report
states that the effectiveness of the policy is especially limited in depressed
economic times when there is no demand for new ofice space. The report states:
"Although a useful mechanism, it cannot be relied upon to provide a reasonable
economic incentive to owners of heritage property across the spectrum of an
economic cycle" (City of Calgary 1999, pg 5)."
The incentive was used for the first time in 1979, and it has taken until

Page 58
1999 and a booming economy to be used again. The TransCanada Pipelines tower
will be two stories taller as the result of obtaining density from both the Knox United
Church and the Muttart Art Gallery. These two buildings became designated as a
result of the transfer of density rights, giving the city a total of eight municipally
designated structures.
Even with the present strong economy, the applicability of this
incentive is limited. Bruce states that this type of incentive works best when there is
demand for extra density (1991). Recently, a city alderman has questioned the
policy, stating that it is not an incentive because city council keeps approving higher
and higher buildings (Calgary Herald Jan 16, 1998). Also, much of Calgary's
downtown and inner city are zoned for higher use than presently exists. Thus, extra
density is easily available without heritage density bonuses.
Some developers have also questioned the policy's usefulness. One
developer stated that it applies to such a small area of downtown that it is hard to
take advantage of (Richardson 2000). Another developer stated that chances to sell
extra density are rare (Neill 2000).
Overall, the effectiveness of this tool is limited. As recent experience
shows, it has only been used twice in almost twenty-five years. In comparison, the
Stephen Avenue Program has benefited almost thirty buildings over the last six
years. Transfer of density rights can be useful in particular circumstances, and
should continue to be a part of the city's heritage tool kit. It has resulted in the
designations of three heritage buildings, thus ensuring their ongoing protection.

OFFICE CONVERSION POLICY

This is a policy that exists in a few of the inner city Area

Redevelopment Plans (ARP1s). It enables A and B list heritage residences to be
converted to office use. Buildings in the A and B categories are automatically
eligible and category C buildings are considered on a case-by-case basis. These
buildings, which are on land that is zoned for residential use, still have to go through
the land use amendment process to rezone the land for commercial use.

Page 59
 This policy has enabled the conversion of a half dozen homes in
recent years (Graham 2000). This allows heritage homes to be converted and re-
used and while maintaining the residential streetscape. This is a good alternative to
vacant structures and keeps these buildings viable. An example of this is the
conversion of the Nellie McLung house to office use. Rezoning is an easy way to
facilitate re-use without any cost to the city.

THE REST OF THE CITY

The focus of the City of Calgary's heritage preservation efforts has

clearly been Stephen Avenue and the surrounding downtown core. Stephen
Avenue has approximately 32 buildings on the city's inventory of potential heritage
sites. The inventory has a total of 389 sites located throughout the City. There are
also other areas of the city with heritage value, such as Bowness, Inglewood,
Rouleauville, Bridgeland / Riverside, Mount Royal, Connaught-Beltline, Mission, and
Victoria Park. In addition there are other heritage resources spread throughout the
city.
The only other area of the city that has received any incentives for
preservation is Inglewood, which has benefited from a successful provincial main
street program. The city only provided administrative assistance in Inglewood.
Furthermore, like the Stephen Avenue Program, the lnglewood Main Street Program
is wrapping up. It will end in June 2001, with the adaptive re-use of the National
Hotel probably being the last project (Conley 2000).
In the Warehouse District /Victoria Park area the city has made small
contributions to the sidewalk and streetscaping improvements initiated by the
Victoria Crossing Business Revitalization Zone along Ist street S.W. between 12th
and 14th Avenue (Victoria Crossing Newsletter July 2000; Informant 2000). This
has helped make renovation of the Louise Block more attractive and profitable
(Informant 2000). Similar improvements are planned for the future along 11th Ave.
The only other available incentives to Calgary's heritage properties
have been the possibility to access provincial funds through provincial designation.

Page 60
 Some people think there should be policies that cover more of the
City. For example, one developer thought that the transfer of density rights policy
could be extended to include areas outside of the downtown (Richardson 2000), and
a Provincial Restoration Advisor thought the City could do more in other areas of the
City (Basso 2000). Another informant agreed that incentives in other areas of the
city were a good idea (Informant 2000). The President of the Alberta Preservation
and Rebuilding Society stated that there is more to Calgary's heritage than just that
small part of downtown (LaPorte 2000). Surely, with both the Stephen Area
Program and the provincial lnglewood Main Street Program set to be completed
within the next year or two, there is the opportunity to fill the vacuum by
implementing a program that could address the needs of heritage resources in other
areas of the city. The City of Calgary itself has been undergoing a study regarding
possible new heritage policies. A report with recommendations was supposed to
have been out in the fall of 2000. This, however, did not happen and the city is still
awaiting new heritage policy direction.
A municipal tax incentive is something that has been mentioned quite
often as a means to encourage preservation in Calgary. Four local informants
(Basso, Richardson, Graham, and LaPorte) suggested that some kind of tax
incentive program should be implemented. Simpson also suggested that a tax
incentive program would be a good idea for the rest of the city, but added that in the
interest of fairness a tax incentive program should be directed at recycling buildings
in general and not just heritage buildings (Simpson 2000). Municipal tax incentives
have been suggested in the media as well (Calgary Herald January 16, 1998;
Calgary Herald July 18, 1999). The tax incentive example that has usually been
referred to is the program in the City of Edmonton. However, despite the fact that
Edmonton's program is described as one of tax incentives, there is the option for
developers to receive grants instead. As has already been shown, in practice
almost all property owners in Edmonton have opted to receive grants for their
heritage work. In reality, Edmonton's program is a grant program. One informant in
Calgary stated a preference for grants because net lease agreements, which are

Page 61
common in Calgary, can reduce the attractiveness and fairness of tax incentives for
property owners (Informant 2000).

CONCLUSIONS

The City of Calgary is both enabled and constrained by provincial

legislation to protect our heritage resources. The Municipal Government Act and
the Historical Resources Act give Calgary the powers to influence preservation and
to offer incentives. However, the Historical Resources Act imposes a key limitation
on the city with its requirement for municipalities to compensate property owners for
municipal designation. In the absence of provincial designation, if a particular
property owner wishes to demolish their heritage building, the city can prevent the
demolition only through potentially great expense.
The Stephen Area Grants Program has been the city's most
successful. Almost all of the buildings along the Avenue have been renovated.
Public and private sector informants believe incentives were necessary and have
contributed to the success of the avenue. Even if the grants do not make or break a
particular project, they have allowed for the sensitive restoration of the facades and
they have shown public commitment to the area. With a little help from the
economy, a vibrant downtown and property reassessments in 1994, Stephen
Avenue has become the jewel of Calgary's downtown.
One down side to the Stephen Avenue Program is that most of these
buildings remain undesignated and therefore unprotected legally. Encouraging
preservation should also include designating buildings so that they will be preserved
and protected into the future. However, I agree with the argument that this Avenue
and the buildings on it are now a source of community pride and identity. In the
future, if a building were to be threatened there would be both public sector and
community opposition. Preventing demolitions though would still require the political
will to designate the threatened property by either the provincial or city governments.
Other city programs include the transfer of density rights in the
downtown core, and the inner city office conversion policy. The transfer of density

Page 62
policy is not an effective tool to promote widespread preservation in Calgary.
Application of it is limited to a small area of downtown, and due to current zoning
within the city and the up and downs of the economy the occasions when this extra
density is in demand are rare. The city's office conversion program in inner city
neighbourhoods is a simple and cost effective way to preserve structures through
allowing them to change land use designations. This program has been well used
in recent years.
Finally, with both the Stephen Avenue Program and the province's
lnglewood Main Street Program wrapping up, there is an opportunity for the city to
address other areas of the city or the city as a whole. Possible changes to heritage
policy suggested by informants included incentives for other areas of the city, wider
application of the transfer of density rights policy, and a municipal tax incentive.

Page 63
 CHAPTER FOUR
ADAPTIVE RE-USE WITHIN CALGARY

Calgary has seen a lot of development activity in recent years. This

has been both beneficial and detrimental to preservation within Calgary. The
heritage buildings that have been lost recently have been victims of either fire or
development pressures. A lot of the successful preservation activity has taken the
form of adaptive re-use. Successful preservation has occurred not only on Stephen
Avenue but also in those areas of the city without any financial incentive programs.
A growing private sector and community interest in heritage has had a positive
impact on heritage preservation in Calgary. Buildings that are presently threatened
could be candidates for adaptive re-use, and would benefit from policies and
attitudes that would better encourage adaptive re-use.
Determining heritage policy direction will require the identification of
the local regulatory barriers that may discourage adaptive re-use development.
Also, there are other potentially important factors in determining future heritage
policy direction. Included in this would be considering how to manage the changing
inventory of Calgary's heritage resources over the long term, other municipal
policies and financial obligations.

RECENT HERITAGE ACTIVITY

The overall experience of heritage within the last few years has
generally been good, but there have been some high profile setbacks along the way.
Through the combined efforts of the city, the province, the private sector and
community groups many buildings have been preserved and re-used. However,
some buildings were lost due to development pressures and fire. What is more
unfortunate is that the city itself has been the cause of some of these losses. The
factors helping to save our built heritage include an interest by developers in

Page 64
heritage, a strong economy, community involvement and the Stephen Avenue
grants program. Buildings that face an uncertain future do so because of costs,
zoning and disuse. See table 4 - 1 for a brief listing of some of the recent heritage
activity.

RECENT HERITAGE LOST

In the past few years the City has lost of several of its heritage
resources to both fire and new development. Fire has claimed the Buena Vista
Mansion, the Father Lacombe House, and the Strong House, and while these are
regrettable losses, they are not the result of conscious decisions to eliminate
heritage buildings in favour of something new.
The Acadia Apartments were destroyed to accommodate an
expanding grocery store. An historic bomb shelter at a golf course was demolished
make way for an expanded clubhouse. The Dafoe Residence was destroyed to
make way for condominiums. These were all private developments. Realistically, in
the absence of incentives to preserve buildings, the city has few options to prevent
private owners from destroying their heritage buildings. The city can either
purchase and preserve the property on their own, or they can designate the
property. Both of these options are expensive.
The city itself is responsible for some more losses. City hall has
chosen to demolish three heritage buildings. Mewata Stadium was demolished to
make way for the City's new Millennium Park. In addition, the Crown Building and
the Western Outfitters Building were demolished to make way for the expansion of
the municipally subsidized Convention Centre expansion.
This has led to media reports questioning the commitment of the city
to heritage. In two recent articles in the Calgary Herald regarding the expansion of
the Convention Centre, the point was made that the developer was doing more to
preserve heritage than the city was (Calgary Herald March 14, 1998; Calgary Herald
May 1, 1998). The title of one of these articles was, "Private Sector Saves, City Hall
Destroys" (Calgary Herald March 14, 1998). In the Convention Centre expansion,
the city destroyed two buildings and significantly altered a third. In contrast, the

Page 65
Heritage Preserved
Stephen Avenue 28 recent projects, most of which are adaptive re-use
Examples include the Palace Theatre, the Alberta
Hotel and the incorporation of four heritage buildings
into the new convention center
Office conversion policy Half dozen homes converted to office use in recent years
Transfer of Density Knox United Church and Muttart Art Gallery designated
lnglewood Over 15 projects completed
Examples include the Burn Block, the Faces Block
and the Seablom Block
CFB West The province has designated 12 building on site
Elizabeth House Now a 6-bedroom care facility for single pregnant and
parenting teens
Shaarey Tzedec, House of Converted into condos
Israel
Imperial Tobacco Converted into condos
JH Ashdown Warehouse Converted into condos
Hudson's Bay Warehouse Converted into condos
Louise Block Converted into retail and office space
Tivoli Theatre Converted into retail space
Lorraine Apartments Being converted into office space
lLang House l~onvertedinto club house for condo project
ILougheed House he house and surrounding gardens will be restored
Anderson Apartments ~enovatedfor condo use
Heritage lost
Father Lacombe House Destroyed by Fire
Buena Vista Mansion Destroyed by Fire
Strong House Destroyed by Fire
Mewata Stadium Destroyed by city to make way for new park
Destroyed by city to accommodate new convention
ICrown Building
center
Destroyed by city to accommodate new convention
IWestern Outfitters Bldg.
center
Dafoe Residence Destroyed to make way for condominiums
Acadia Apartments Destroyed to make way for grocery store expansion
Shananappi Bomb shelter Destroyed to make way for expanded club house
Heritage threatened
Lougheed Building Owners are thinking of destroying it to build a 22-story
office tower
St. Mary's School It is empty and unused. Its future is uncertain
St. Patrick's R.C. Church May be demolished to make way for condos
Wesley United Church May become unused
~ e m o r i aPark
l Library l ~ beaclosed ~
Table 4 - 1: Recent Preservation Activity

Page 66
developer saved four buildings and incorporated them all within their Hotel
development on the site.

Hotel 1 Convention Centre Development: Five building preserved

and two destroyed. A strong streetscape remains.

With the Crown building, the city not only took it down, it refused an
offer from a private developer to save it. The developer wanted to buy it, move it to
an adjacent property, and re-use it as commercial space (Zwarun 1999; Richardson
2000). This, after the city spent $435,000 to purchase the building and then started
renovation work on it (Calgary Herald July 10, 1997). What the city did do was
spend another $100,000 to save the facade of the Crown building and put it in
storage (Calgary Herald July 18, 1999). Placing the facade in storage does little to
preserve the structure. It is removed from the street and removed from where
people can see and experience it. Moving the building was opposed by city council
who did not want the building occupying space in Olympic Plaza, and the move was
opposed by the Famous Five Foundation because they wanted five bronze statues
put on the same site (Calgary Herald July 10, 1997). Richardson, the developer,
argued that the building would be placed in an area of Olympic Plaza that was
presently fenced off and used for storing equipment, and that there was room for
both the building and the statues in the plaza (Calgary Herald July 10, 1997).

Page 67

-
 The city has also been criticized because the Neilson building, which
is on the city's A list of potential heritage sites, was altered too much in the
Convention Centre development (Calgary Herald May I,1998; Andrews 2000). Neil
Watson, chairman of the Heritage Advisory Board was quoted in the Calgary Herald
as saying that: "What is called the Neilson Block today will cease to exist and it's
one of the jewels of a block of historic buildings on Stephen Avenue (March 28,
1998)."
The city should show better stewardship of those heritage resources
that it owns. City owned heritage buildings should be preserved as examples to the
private sector. The president of the community based Alberta Preservation and
Rebuilding Society believes that the city needs to take a stronger stance in favour of
heritage (LaPorte 2000). It sets an unfortunate example to the private sector when
city hall chooses to destroy heritage buildings. Not only that, but the city loses
credibility with property owners when it is trying to encourage private sector efforts
toward preservation. The developer who wanted to purchase and move the Crown
Building flatly stated that the city does not value its heritage buildings (Richardson
2000). If the city wants to better encourage heritage preservation and adaptive re-
use they need to practice what they preach and they should assist the efforts of
developers like Richardson who are interested in preserving the city's heritage.

HERITAGE PRESERVED

Calgary has seen a lot of recent preservation activity. Adaptive re-use

has been the primary method of preservation. Along Stephen Avenue the grants
program and a strong economy have encouraged building re-use. What is also very
encouraging in terms of Calgary's heritage is that heritage buildings are in demand
by developers, and that private activity is some cases is driving preservation in the
absence of any municipal incentive programs. Community preservation groups
have also positively impacted preservation.
Adaptive re-use has proved to be a popular and successful method of
heritage preservation within Calgary. The city's heritage planner characterizes most
of the Stephen Avenue projects as adaptive re-use (Graham 2000). A similar

Page 68
pattern of renovation has occurred in lnglewood under the province's Main Street
Program. The warehouse district has also seen most of its old warehouses
converted in office, retail and residential use. In inner city neighbourhoods the office
conversion policy has allowed heritage homes to be re-used as office space. Other
recent projects across the city also show that adaptive re-use has been the primary
means of preservation. For example, the Tivoli Theatre has been converted into
retail space, the Elizabeth House has been converted into a home for pregnant and
parenting teens, the Lang House will be re-used as the clubhouse for a large
condominium project and the House of Israel was converted into condominiums.
In addition, at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) West the City of Calgary
along with the province, the federal government and the community have worked
together to create a redevelopment plan for that area. Included in this process was
the provincial designation of a dozen heritage buildings that will be adapted as
mixed-use commercial and residential buildings (Calgary Herald May 25, 2000).
Perhaps the only instance of full restoration in Calgary will be the
restoration of the Lougheed House, which has been declared a National Historic
Site, and its surrounding gardens. The high price tag ($5 million) and long time
frame (2 years) shows why full restoration projects are often impractical and should
be reserved for only the most significant of sites (restoration costs and time frame
from the Calgary Herald, July 10, 2000). An example of continued use renovation is
the renovation of the Anderson Apartments for use as condominiums.
As was seen in the previous chapter, preservation and adaptive re-use
along Stephen Avenue has been successful. This was attributed to several factors
including the Stephen Avenue grants program and a strong downtown economy.
The Avenue has been reborn. A recent article described the revitalization of the last
three to five years as exceeding expectations and that Stephen Avenue is once
again the heart of the downtown (Stroulger 2000). An example of an adaptive re-
use project on Stephen Avenue is the Palace Theatre. This building underwent a
successful adaptive re-use conversion into a nightclub and received an award for
adaptive re-use by the City in 1999 (Calgary Herald July 4, 1999).

Page 69
 I
Palace Theatre: Re-use as a nightclub

The original proposal for the Palace Theatre was to adapt it for use as
a large clothing store. The building was empty after closing in 1990. The clothing
store proposal would have required removal of the balcony to in order to create two
floors of retail space. Strong opposition by both the public and the Alberta
Preservation and Rebuilding Society to these alterations resulted in the province
designating the structure against the wishes of the owners. As a result the clothing
store proposal died. The owners of the Palace were strongly disappointed and
thought that the heritage designation would effectively sterilize the building, thus
preventing its re-use in the future (Calgary Herald March 7, 1996).
However, the Palace was soon successfully renovated by the same
developers as a nightclub. This was a much more sympathetic alteration. The
exterior and much of the interior was restored. A couple of interior compromises
included using gold paint instead of replacing the original gold leaf detailing, and
maintaining the original sloped floor by just building a new one that sits on top of it
(Mar 2000). Because of the opposition of the Alberta Preservation and Rebuilding
Society to the original proposal, and their efforts at pushing for greater preservation
in the nightclub conversion, Bryan Mar from the Palace Development Corporation
identified the community group as one of the barriers to adaptive re-use (2000).
Interestingly, however he also believes that despite the change in plans due to the
designation, the final result was better preservation of the building (2000). The

Page 70
Palace Theatre received a Stephen Avenue Grant for the nightclub conversion.
Although Mar stated that the project was possible without the grants, he thinks that
the grants make it possible to undertake the preservation work on the facades
(2000).
Another high profile project on the avenue has been the Convention
Centre expansion and Hotel development. As was mentioned before, this major
development involved seven heritage buildings. Three (Crown, Western Outfitters,
and Neilson) were owned by the city and four more (Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce, Lineham, Thomson Brothers, and Doll) were a part of the private hotel
development. Both the Bank of Commerce building and the Thomson Brothers
Block were previously designated by the province and would have required
provincial approval for any changes. The developer had to accommodate these two
buildings with the hotel development to the satisfaction of the province. The other
two buildings in the hotel development were not designated. But, the city's heritage
advisory board convinced the developer to change their initial plans in order to
better incorporate and preserve the Lineham and the Doll Blocks as well (Calgary
Herald May 1, 1998). Thus the developer showed flexibility in favour of better
preservation. The city owned buildings fared worse. Two were destroyed and
another exists only as a fa~ade.The Convention Centre development was a city-
subsidized project and it appears that city council was willing to sacrifice some of
the city's heritage to see it realized.
While some may argue that the heritage buildings underwent too much
change (Calgary Herald March 28, 1998), the fact remains that five buildings were
accommodated by the new development as opposed to being destroyed. All the
facades were restored and a strong streetscape remains. It is the interiors of these
buildings that have faced various changes to accommodate the new development
(Zwarun 1999). This development shows a dramatic improvement in how new
development has accommodated heritage buildings compared to similar
developments in the past. When the first Convention Centre was going up in the
197O3s,16 old buildings were destroyed (Glenbow Museum website).

Page 71
 However, another factor mentioned in the success of Stephen Avenue
is the idea that private developers are now interested in heritage buildings. Rob
Graham stated that success on the Avenue is partly the result of willing owners
(2000). A developer, Neil Richardson, believes that heritage buildings are in
demand right now and that is the primary reason for the rebirth of Stephen Avenue
(2000).
This interest in heritage buildings can also be seen in those areas of
the city not serviced by a municipal incentive program. Although one property
(Acadia Apartments) was lost due to development pressures, the warehouse district
has seen a lot of recent adaptive re-use activity. For example, there has been the
recent adaptive re-use conversion of three of the old warehouses into residential
use. The Lewis Lofts, the Hudson and the Imperial Tobacco building are all private
initiatives that were economically viable on their own. The warehouse district will
also see the adaptive re-use of the Pilkington Glass Warehouse into high tech office
use, and the adaptive re-use of the Louise Block. The owners of the Louise Block
voluntarily sought provincial designation to access provincial grants, and heritage
architect Lorne Simpson states that this shows that owners are starting to see the
value of heritage buildings and designation (2000). However, the fact that most of
these buildings have gone ahead without public incentives shows that market forces

Lewis L -7: Warehouse to residential Pilkington Glass rrehouse: High tech office re-use

Page 72
alone have made these developments attractive. The close proximity to Calgary's
strong downtown may have contributed to this. Almost all of the warehouse district
properties are in use.
Private sector interest in heritage properties can also seen through
attempts by private developers to save buildings the city or province would not save.
In other words, when our precious heritage resources have been in danger, it has
been the private sector that has stepped up to the plate and tried to save them. For
example, Richardson offered to buy the Crown Building and move it at his own
expense to an adjacent property. The city instead went along with their original plan
to take it down and put the facade in storage. Another example is the Lougheed
building. In this case two different developers have tried to acquire the property
from its present owners in order to save it. Richardson offered to swap properties
with the owners of the Lougheed (Calgary Herald January 15, 2000), and David Neill
offered to purchase the property from it present owners (Neill2000).
In the past few years there has also been a strong community voice
within Calgary to support heritage. The Alberta Preservation and Rebuilding Society
was formed in 1990 to "save heritage buildings through lobbying, education,
publicity and dialogue with stakeholders" (Alberta Preservation and Rebuilding
Society website). As has already been mentioned, the society contributed to the
designation of the Palace Theatre with their strong opposition to the original retail
proposal. The society has also contributed to the preservation of the Lang House,
and has strongly opposed the demolition of heritage buildings in the Convention
Centre development. Currently, they are active in the efforts to save the Lougheed
Building and St. Mary's School. Also, other community preservation groups have
been active such as the Calgary Civic Trust, the Society for the Preservation and
Restoration of St. Mary's School, and the Save the Grand / Lougheed Committee.
In terms of the Lang House the Alberta Preservation and Rebuilding
had a strong influence in the resulting on-site preservation of the building.
Interestingly, city council originally voted against keeping the Lang House on the
original site (Calgary Herald Jan 16, 1998). A compromise to keep the house on-

Page 73
site to be adapted as a clubhouse for the condominium development was reached
at a later date with input by the Alberta Preservation and Rebuilding Society. The
adaptive re-use of the house will restore the exterior, and much of the interior
(LaPorte 2000). A down side to the project is the house may seem dwarfed and
overwhelmed by the high-rise condominium tower and other nearby developments.

HERITAGE THREATENED

In the news recently there have been a couple of high profile heritage
buildings that have been threatened: the Lougheed Building and St. Mary's School.
Other, smaller profile buildings also face some uncertainty.

Lougheed Building: Threatened by potential high-rise office development

The situation of the Lougheed building highlights some of the critical

issues within Calgary. First of all the building is important to the city's history and as
a result is greatly valued by many. The building was built by one of Calgary's most
prominent citizens, James Lougheed, lawyer, Canadian senator, and grandfather to
one of our greatest Premiers. Over the years the building's offices housed
important Calgary and Alberta institutions such as the Alberta Wheat Pool, United
Grain Growers, the Calgary Board of Trade and the Alberta Progressive

Page 74
Conservative Association under Peter Lougheed. Also, the building housed the
Grand Theatre, which brought many popular performers to the city and was
considered for many years the "cultural heart of Calgary" (Calgary Herald May 29,
1999). In recognition of the building and its role in the history of Calgary, the
building is listed as an A category building on the City's Inventory. Buildings in this
category are those resources that are considered the most unique and notable.
The present battle to save the Lougheed building is hindered by
several factors. First of all, the building is on land zoned for higher use, and the
present owners want to build to that higher use. The existing structure is only six
stories high and the owners want to build tear it down and build a 22-story office
tower. Private developers and a community organization have stepped up and have
tried to save the Lougheed. One developer offered to buy the building, but this was
rejected, because federal tax disincentives made sale of the property unattractive
(Neill2000). There was also an offer by another property owner to swap properties.
This was also refused. A local community group, the Save the Grand 1 Lougheed
Committee, has worked for two years trying to encourage provincial and municipal
actions to preserve the building. The province has twice refused to designate the
building (Calgary Herald June 10, 2000). It now looks like the only way the building
will be saved is if the city itself designates it or purchases it. Designation would
require the city to pay compensation to the present owners. Also, city council has
since rejected a motion to enter into negotiations to buy the Lougheed (Calgary
Herald July 26, 2000). Right now the fate of the Lougheed Building is uncertain.
Another building, St. Mary's School has been vacant since 1995. The
Catholic School Board owns the 1909 building. The main issue has been money.
They do not need the building as a school and they do not want to spend the
millions of dollars it would take for heritage preservation and adaptive re-use. The
school board did enter into a cost-sharing agreement with a non-profit community
group, the Society for the Preservation and Restoration of St. Mary's School, to
preserve the building and re-use it as a multi-use community facility, but the group
could not raise their share of the estimated renovation costs, which were $2.5
million. The community group was able, however, to raise over $300,000 for

Page 75
preservation of the building (Calgary Herald June 28). The Catholic School Board
has since rescinded their application for provincial heritage designation. The

b -A
- ..# s
-
St. Mary's School: Community wants to see it I =-used r q
a
Catholic School Board wants to keep their options open for the building. In case
they sell it, they do not want its value decreased by heritage designation, which
would prevent potential new owners from demolishing the building (Calgary Herald
September 9, 2000). The board is taking one year to decide what they want to do
with the property. So the fate of St. Mary's is still undecided.
There are some other buildings that are threatened with disuse or
demolition. Memorial Park Library was recently threatened with closure due to low
usage. The library received a one-year reprieve from city council that ran out in
November 2000. (City council has since provided ongoing funding for the library,
thus removing the threat of closure). Wesley United Church may face closure due
to an aging and declining congregation. St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church may
be sold and taken down to accommodate a condominium development (LaPorte
2000). All of the above buildings fall outside of Stephen Avenue and therefore do
not qualify for municipal grants. However, both the Memorial Park Library and
Wesley are provincially designated resources. They are protected from demolition
and insensitive alterations, but if they become empty and unused they may be

Page 76
, , L

-
-I
susceptible to fire, vandals or deterioration. Encouraging their adaptive re-use could
protect them from these dangers by keeping the buildings occupied and maintained.

LOCAL BARRIERS
In order to determine viable heritage incentives it is important to know
what the most important local barriers there are to heritage preservation work.
Previous studies have identified past barriers. Some of these have been
addressed, or are no longer an issue, and some continue to hinder adaptive re-use.
In 1975, a group of students at the University of Calgary undertook a
study looking at recycling valuable old buildings. This was in response to the
frequent losses of heritage buildings at the time in the face of new developments.
The study concluded that there should be a municipal heritage bylaw, that there
should be a revolving fund to provide low interest loans, that there should be a
municipal tax incentive policy, and that the feasibility of a development transfer
scheme should be studied (Boon et a1 1975). Today, Calgary does have a heritage
preservation program and density transfers for heritage preservation are available in
the downtown. A revolving low-interest loan fund and a municipal tax incentive
program were never implemented.
In 1982, Jamieson and Jamieson carried out a study in Calgary called,
The Problems and Potentials of Recyclinq Older Commercial Buildings in Calqaw."
Looking at specific projects they tried to assess the relative success of these
projects, while at the same time looking at what some of the problems associated
with this type of development were. While it was concluded that the projects were
"generally successful in economic as well as design terms (pg 21),lSthere were key
problems encountered in the undertaking of the projects. These were obtaining
interim or long term financing, long time scales in getting city approvals, meeting
code requirements, and getting appropriate building materials and skilled labour (pg
21). Also, some developers indicated a need for compensation, or low interest
loans to facilitate these types of projects (pg 21).

Page 77
 In the year 2000, building codes, getting financing, and renovation
costs are still significant obstacles to adaptive re-use. However, getting skilled
labour and materials, and a long approval process are not major barriers.

BUILDING CODES

Building codes are a major issue in adaptive re-use within Calgary. Of

nine local key informants, three (Graham, Basso, and Richardson) identified
buildings codes as a barrier to adaptive re-use. Two others (Simpson and LaPorte)
stated that building codes were perceived to be a barrier. And another informant
stated that codes were not really an obstacle but the issue of handicap accessibility
was a challenge and that his company got a provincial relaxation for this (Neill
2000).
Whenever a building undergoes a change in use or undergoes
significant renovations, it has to be brought up to modern safety codes. Depending
on the nature of the code upgrades needed, this can add considerable expense to
renovation costs. Heritage buildings can get equivalencies for some codes, but this
is a process of negotiation with the city. Individual code officers often do not have
experience working with heritage structures and do not have the confidence to
approve equivalencies. The city does have a senior codes officer, and if needed
code decisions can be appealed to the province for a final decision. However, this
would lengthen the process. One developer has chosen not to appeal a municipal
code decision that he lost because he was too far along in the process (Richardson
2000). Modern access and fire codes also made the incorporation of heritage
buildings into the convention center expansion and hotel development a challenge
(Andrews 2000).
The president of the Alberta Preservation and Rebuilding Society
believes that building codes are perceived to be barriers by developers, but that
what is needed is more awareness and creativity (LaPorte 2000). Heritage architect
Lorne Simpson, also believes that building codes as an obstacle to renovation is
sometimes just a perception (2000). That is, in the eyes of developers it is
perceived as an obstacle. Because it is a process of negotiation they see it as

Page 78
another step or hurdle. Simpson thinks building codes for heritage buildings can
sometimes be easier than other buildings, because there exists the possibility to get
relaxations or equivalencies (2000).
One thing the city could do to address this issue is to create a set of
equivalent codes and establish some expertise in adapting modern codes. This way
equal standards of safety would be attained, with both potential cost savings and
savings to the heritage fabric of the buildings in question. Also, if the city did this it
could do much to eliminate perceptions that building codes are insurmountable
technical problems. Perceptions that building codes are an obstacle can be just as
much of a problem as the codes actually being a problem. Perception of difficulties
can deter people from attempting heritage renovation projects. Municipalities have
the flexibility to apply equivalencies. One city, Winnipeg, has established both a set
of equivalent codes and a strong codes department. In this city, according to its
heritage planner, building codes are not a barrier to adaptive re-use (Bugailiskis
2000).

FINANCING AND RENOVATION COSTS

Financing, renovation costs and getting tenants are linked issues.

Financing was mentioned as a barrier by four local informants (Richardson, Neill,
Basso, and Graham). To get financing one may need to get tenants lined up before
hand to satisfy the lender. Tenants may be reluctant to sign on if a lending
institution is showing reluctance. Also, just the fact that heritage projects are
different and maybe unknown entities to some people, these projects may be
perceived as higher risk by lending institutions (Simpson 2000). One developer has
had his project repeatedly delayed due to financing issues (Richardson 2000).
Another developer states that financing is extremely difficult and that the number of
lending institutions that are willing to fund these types of projects are dwindling (Neill
2000).
Renovation costs can be high. Both the City's heritage planner
(Graham 2000) and the province's restoration advisor (Basso 2000) state that costs
are a barrier for adaptive re-use. However, none of the private sector informants I

Page 79
talked to identified costs as a barrier. For the private sector if a project makes
economic sense, it will proceed. As was shown in Chapter One, the experience of
local private developers in terms of comparing the costs of new construction to
heritage re-use projects is mixed. There is no consensus as to whether renovation
projects are more or less expensive than similar new construction, and actual costs
have a lot to do with the state of the building in question and the level of
preservation sought. However, one developer noted that costs could be more
difficult to handle for the smaller property owner who has owned a building for a long
time and now finds it needs major work (Mar 2000). A significant amount of upfront
money is needed to start the work and getting financing may further complicate
matters.

OTHER BARRIERS

Preservation guidelines and designation can also discourage some

owners from undertaking adaptive re-use. The requirement to follow provincial
guidelines for preservation comes into play if the building is designated or if an
owner accepts a Stephen Avenue Grant. Guidelines are there to make sure
preservation is undertaken with the appropriate sensitivity to the heritage
significance of the building. Graham believes that preservation guidelines may be a
barrier (2000). Architect Lorne Simpson does not think preservation guidelines are
an obstacle but he thinks that guidelines are perceived to be a barrier by those who
are not experienced working with heritage buildings (2000). Another informant
stated that the biggest obstacles in his eyes were inexperience and learning the
constraints of a heritage project, but that the architect, the heritage planner, and the
heritage advisory board were helpful (Informant 2000).
There are some other specific barriers mentioned by some informants.
The City's Heritage Planner, for example, believes that the Historical Resources Act
is a barrier because it requires municipalities to provide compensation for municipal
designation (Graham 2000). Thus, the city is reluctant to designate because there
will be a high price tag in doing so. LaPorte, president of the community based
Alberta Preservation and Rebuilding Society stated that there needs to be a

Page 80
stronger will or desire to save old buildings in this city by both property owners and
the city (2000). Mar from the Palace Development Corporation mentioned that
special interest groups were a barrier (2000). Specifically, he meant the Alberta
Preservation and Rebuilding Society, which was partially responsible for provincial
designation of the Palace.
Interestingly, nobody cited a long approval process as a problem in
Calgary. In fact, some thought the process was almost easier for heritage buildings
(Mar 2000). Approvals can be delayed, however, by building code issues.
The adaptive re-use of the Lorraine Apartments illustrates some of the
difficulties of adaptive re-use within Calgary. The building is on the City's A list of
potential heritage sites and will be converted to office use. The building was
damaged by fire in January 1998. It was bought by a local developer and
renovation of the building was originally supposed to start in November of 1998 to
be complete by the summer of 1999. The project has now (late summer 2000) just
started to get underway. The project was initially delayed with problems in getting
financing. Richardson, the developer, stated that it is hard to convince lenders and

! -- -CI

Lorraine Apartments: Re-use into offices

Page 81
tenants of the building's potential, considering the present state of the building and a
lack of successful similar projects to point to (Richardson 2000). Another issue in
the development has been building codes. The developer wanted to add a fifth floor
to the four-story structure to make it more profitable. The problem was that the
building has a wood framed interior and according to the building code, wood
buildings are only allowed up to four floors. The developer offered to do both the
fourth and fifth floors with a steel frame and also offered to exceed fire-rating
requirements (Richardson 2000). The city refused this even through the developer
was going to make the building functionally safer than required by code. He
therefore, must keep the building at four stories. He is proceeding with the project
and will not appeal the decision to the province because he is too far along the
process. The decision will make the building less profitable. Richardson has had
offers from the adjacent property to buy the building so they could level it and put in
a parking lot. Richardson is a preservationist, but if he was not, I think this building
would have been lost. It would have been much easier for him to turn a quick profit
and sell the building or to destroy it and build new.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE POLICY DIRECTION

In addition to present policy evaluation and an examination of existing

local barriers, there are other things to consider in shaping heritage policy direction.
For example, how will Calgary's urban form continue to change and thus affect its
heritage resources? And, how can we best manage this change? Also, if there are
other major municipal goals or policies that can possibly support heritage goals,
these should be examined. Finally, a future incentive program will likely demand a
financial commitment from the city.

MANAGEMENT OF CALGARY'S CHANGING BUILT FORM

Both the city and its heritage resources will change over time. The
urban form of Calgary is continually changing. The city will continue to grow and
expand, while at the same time existing areas will age and evolve. Within this
context, individual buildings will continue to outlive their original uses. Over the

Page 82
years some heritage buildings will inevitably be lost, but hopefully the vast majority
will survive and be re-used. The city's present strong growth will continue to exert
pressure on the city's heritage. The actual number of heritage buildings that
survives into the future will depend on how we manage these finite resources.
Heritage preservation is not about freezing buildings in time, but of
adapting to changing times and keeping our significant buildings relevant in the
urban landscape. Fitch states that management of our heritage resources should
seek to manage the pace and nature of changes (1982). Adaptive re-use can be a
means of achieving this end. Old buildings can change uses to adapt to the
changing urban form. The benefit to the community is that these buildings remain a
viable part of the urban form, reminding us of past while still functioning in the
present.
Over the years the city's collection of heritage resources will change
as some buildings are inevitably lost and others are added as buildings age and
become eligible. Presently buildings must be at least 45 years old to be considered
for the city's inventory of potential heritage sites. In the near future, examples of the
Modern movement in architecture within Calgary will be included in the inventory.
Up to now the city has chosen to focus its preservation efforts on the
downtown area of Stephen Avenue. This area was a priority of the city for a long
time and with good reason. The buildings and the streetscape of the Avenue are
invaluable to Calgary's heritage. Now, however, the area is successful and most
buildings have been recently rehabilitated and the facades restored.. The city has
almost 400 heritage resources identified on its inventory. The Stephen Avenue
grants program accounts for about 33 of these. What about the rest? Management
of the totality of Calgary's heritage has not occurred. Furthermore, the grants
program will end when renovation on the Avenue is complete within a couple of
years. No program is presently in place to replace it. Now that the most pressing
heritage areas in Calgary have been addressed, should not the focus now be on the
city as a whole?
Management of our heritage resources should be an ongoing program
and should include general maintenance of heritage buildings. Both the Stephen

Page 83
Avenue program and the lnglewood main street program were for a limited time
frame. Even those heritage structures that have been renovated recently, including
those on Stephen Avenue, will require more renovation work at some point in the
future as these buildings continue to age. Heritage policies are not just a matter of
fixing the present problems; it is a matter of managing the city heritage resources on
an ongoing basis. Such a policy should also provide for ongoing maintenance.
Bruce writes: "The best form of conservation is preventative maintenance -- not
allowing problems to develop to the point where major repairs are needed (1991, pg
8). One form of preventative maintenance could be fire prevention. Recently, three
heritage buildings have been lost due to fire, and a Calgary Herald article stated that
over the last 20 years about 150 historically significant buildings have been lost due
to fire or demolition (July 18, 1999).

WHAT ARE SOME CITY PRIORITIES?

There may be ways that heritage policies can take advantage of other
municipal policies or efforts. In Edmonton, Victoria, and Kingston, heritage policies
have worked in conjunction with other municipal goals. In Edmonton, grants for
downtown residential development have also aided in conversion of downtown
heritage properties. In Victoria, the residential tax incentive program for heritage
properties has worked toward the municipal goal of increasing downtown residential
populations. In Kingston, a program to revitalize the downtown through adaptive re-
use has applied to both heritage and non-heritage buildings.
Is there any potential for heritage in Calgary to support other municipal
goals? Two areas that the city is investing in are the Victoria Crossing Business
Revitalization Zone and the East Village of downtown. With Victoria Crossing, the
city is making a small contribution to streetscaping efforts. Both the city and the
local Business Revitalization Group want to make the area more attractive to both
businesses and residents. In the East Village, private developers and the City are
presently trying to turn a preliminary revitalization proposal into a comprehensive
urban plan to be presented to city council possibly in May of 2001 (Calgary Herald
October 28, 2000). If heritage incentives were available in these areas, it would

Page 84
create an added incentive to develop there. Thus the city could aid both area
revitalization and protection of heritage; heritage and non-heritage initiatives working
in concert may be more effective than either on their own.
Like the cities mentioned above, Calgary is interested in encouraging
more residential use in and around the downtown. According to Calgary's Municipal
Development Plan, the city wants to both encourage housing in the downtown and
to slightly increase residential densities in existing neighbourhoods (City of Calgary
1999). The overlap between these goals and Calgary's heritage is that most of the
city's heritage resources are located within the downtown and its surrounding inner
city areas. Encouraging adaptive re-use of heritage resources could encourage
more residential conversions.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Any new heritage policy within Calgary is going to require funding. In a

couple years the city's commitment to the Stephen Avenue program will end and so
will the financial input to that program. The city could just re-direct similar funds into
a new program. The city has contributed $1.4 million for the Stephen Avenue
program, which translates into an annual contribution of about $127 000 per year.
This is a similar contribution as grant programs in other cities. During the 1990's,
Victoria spent about $1, I 80,000 on its downtown grants program (Victoria Civic
Heritage Trust 2000), which translates into about $1 18,000 per year. Winnipeg's
grant program for designated buildings paid out over $1 million over seven years
(City of Winnipeg 19W), making the annual contribution about $143,000. From
1987 to 1997, Edmonton spent $4.2 million (Fraser and Kyle 1997), but extra
funding was created for two projects. Edmonton's normal annual budget for its
grant program is $285,000.
So a new heritage program need not require a greater financial
obligation on the part of the city. However, if more money were spent the city would
obviously have more leverage to encourage preservation. In most areas of the city,
there have been no municipal financial incentives, so any new program would
improve that situation. Any incentive program should only cover preservation work

Page 85
and should supplement the property owner's contribution. For larger projects
additional funding could always be added. After all, if the city was able to find over
half a million dollars to buy the Crown Building, take it down and store its facade,
perhaps it can find similar funds in the future for important preservation projects.
Another factor in Calgary is that there is strong private and community
support for heritage. Heritage properties are more in demand by private developers,
and both the private sector and community groups have been involved in trying to
preserved presently threatened buildings. This is something that's becoming more
common. Bruce writes that: "This growing private sector recognition of the
feasibility of rehabilitation and restoration creates a new opportunity for a local
community to achieve its heritage objectives through the use of relatively modest
incentives and support" (1991, pg 5).

CONCLUSIONS
Adaptive re-use has been a successful means of heritage preservation
in all areas of the city. This includes Stephen Avenue where the city has
concentrated its preservation efforts and in other areas of the city not covered by a
municipal incentive program.
The private sector and community organizations have made significant
contributions to heritage preservation and have tried to save threatened structures.
Community groups have protested demolitions and insensitive alterations, have
influenced the designation of the Palace Theatre, helped preserve the Lang House
on its original site, have raised money for preservation and have tried to mobilize
efforts to save significant buildings like the Lougheed Building. Private developers
also have shown more interest in heritage buildings and in some cases have gone
further than the city in terms of trying to support heritage. In fact the city has been
criticized for destroying heritage buildings in its possession. The city should show
more leadership and stewardship of the city's heritage resources if it really wants to
encourage preservation of our past.
The major local barriers to adaptive re-use within Calgary have been
building codes, financing and renovation costs. Other barriers mentioned by key

Page 86
informants were preservation guidelines, the need for a greater will to preserve by
both the city and developers, and inexperience.
With the Stephen Avenue program winding down, there is an
opportunity to redirect municipal efforts and finances to other areas of the city.
Included in this is the possibility of encouraging ongoing basic maintenance and fire
protection of these resources. There may be potential for future heritage policy to
help encourage area revitalization and increasing downtown and inner city
populations.

Page 87
 CHAPTER FIVE
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY OF
CALGARY

INTRODUCTION
Calgary is ready for new directions in heritage policy. The Stephen
Avenue Grants program is almost complete and so is the province's lnglewood Main
Street Program. Developers and property owners are starting to value heritage
buildings. Also, community involvement in heritage has become stronger. In terms
of commitment to heritage, some might argue that the city has been the weak link in
recent years due to city hall decisions to demolish several heritage buildings.
However, with renovation on Stephen Avenue wrapping up, the city too is exploring
new policies for heritage preservation. The city has a responsibility to preserve the
city's heritage for the betterment of the community at large, and the city should
develop new heritage policies to fulfill this responsibility.
The purpose of this study has been to examine adaptive re-use of
heritage buildings within Calgary from the point of view of municipal policy,
regulatory barriers, and what is actually happening in terms of heritage activity. The
outcome of this is the following policy recommendations for the City of Calgary.
The main recommendation is that the city should implement a citywide
heritage management program. This should seek to encourage the preservation
and maintenance of all heritage resources on the city's inventory through financial
incentives, removal of barriers to adaptive re-use, and ongoing maintenance. In
addition to maintaining the city's density transfer program, the office conversion
policy, and the willingness to consider zoning requirement relaxations on a case-by-
case basis, the following elements should be a part of the program:

1. Incentives should be offered in the form of grants for building retention

and re-use in exchange for municipal heritage designation.
2. Building code equivalencies should be researched and developed.

Page 88
 3. Basic ongoing maintenance for both designated and undesignated
resources should be encouraged.

These recommendations are meant to be general in nature to indicate in broad

terms what direction city policy should move toward. The finer details of actual
financing, scope, and operation of the program would need further study.
Finally, on a supplementary note, I will briefly comment on how local
preservation efforts can be strengthened by changes in legislation at the provincial
and federal levels. In terms of the Alberta government, the province can either
eliminate the requirement of compensation for municipal designation or they can be
more willing to designate on their own when the municipality requests it or when
designation is beyond the means of the municipality. In terms of the federal
government, changes can be made in the Federal Income Tax Act and a national
heritage renovation tax incentive could be implemented.

DISCUSSION

The city should implement a citywide heritage management program.

Previous heritage policies have clearly focused on one area of the city. This area
has been renovated and is a success. The province has also helped revitalize the
lnglewood area. However, other heritage areas and other heritage resources
scattered throughout the city have not had the benefit of a heritage incentive
program. Some of these areas have been relatively successful in the absence of
incentives, but losses have still occurred. Public incentives do encourage
preservation, and a city wide incentive policy for heritage could also support area
revitalization in areas like Victoria Park and could support more residential use in
the downtown and inner city areas.
Furthermore, a citywide policy would apply to all types of heritage
resources. That is, not only commercial buildings, but also residential, industrial,
religious, institutional and warehouse properties. All these buildings are
representative of different facets of Calgary's history and taken together they
represent a broader picture of Calgary's past. They are all important resources
worthy of preservation.

Page 89
 Resources outside Stephen Avenue have not had access to a
municipal incentive program. Municipal encouragement of preservation of all of
Calgary's heritage resources has not occurred. When new developments have
threatened heritage resources outside of the Stephen Avenue area, the city has had
nothing to offer property owners to encourage building retention and re-use. With
the Stephen Avenue program nearing completion the city has an opportunity to
direct similar resources to aid the preservation of the city's other resources.

GRANTS FOR BUILDING RETENTION AND RE-USE

Grants should be given to encourage private property owners to retain

and re-use their heritage buildings. To encourage long-term preservation and
protection, municipal heritage designation should be a condition for receiving a
grant. Although municipal tax incentives were suggested by many key informants
and the media, the experience of other cities shows that grants may be more of an
incentive and may be preferred by property owners. Financial incentives in the form
of grants would help address the barrier of renovation costs and financing.
Designation of heritage resources should be encouraged in order to
protect these buildings for future generations. Municipal designation provides legal
protection for heritage resources from both demolition and the possibility of
inappropriate alterations. Grants can be a way to encourage owners to voluntarily
submit to public protection of their heritage resource for the benefit of the
community as a whole. Presently, only the transfer of density program requires
properties to become designated. And as we have seen, because opportunities to
transfer density have been so rare, this policy has only resulted in three municipal
designations over the course of almost a quarter century. Calgary as a whole has
only eight municipally designated buildings. Edmonton in contrast, which does have
a city wide incentive program that requires municipal designation, has designated
17 buildings as a result of its heritage program. Furthermore, because more people
in the private sector are seeing the value of heritage buildings, perhaps official
heritage designation will be seen more as a positive thing that maintains property
values and that conveys a particular image and quality.

Page 90
 A municipal tax incentive is something that has been mentioned quite
often as a means to encourage preservation in Calgary. Four local informants
(Basso, Richardson, Graham, and LaPorte) suggested that some kind of tax
incentive program should be implemented and one other (Simpson) thought maybe
a tax incentive program aimed at both heritage and non-heritage buildings was a
good idea. Reports in the media have also called for a municipal tax program like
the one Edmonton has. However, as has already been shown, Edmonton's
program is in practice a grant program, because developers have preferred this type
of incentive.
Another complication with tax incentives arises with property owners
that have net lease agreements with their tenants, which are common in Calgary.
With this arrangement, tenants pay their proportional share of the property taxes.
Thus, if the property owner invests in facade restoration, under a tax incentive
program, the tenants (who did not contribute to renovation costs) would share in the
tax benefit. Grants on the other hand would go solely to the property owner.
There are other examples why property owners may prefer grants over
tax incentives. In many cases the attractiveness of a tax incentive depends on the
amount of the post renovation assessment. In a slow economy these assessment
increases may not be much and therefore would not result in much of an incentive.
Furthermore, the value of a grant is usually clearer than a tax incentive. As well, in
Calgary both the city and property owners have prior experience with grants through
the Stephen Avenue program.
Finally, grants would be a way of partially addressing the issues of
renovation costs and financing. Grants are a way to offset some of the financial risk
to private owners and to provide community contribution to their project. Also, in
areas of the city that are economically more risky for private developers to invest in,
it is important and significant to get public assistance to help the project and also
revitalize the area. In terms of financing, as the experience of Winnipeg shows,
grants may be seen as a more valid form of collateral for property owners seeking
financing as opposed to tax incentives.

Page 91
BUlLDlNG CODE EQUIVALENCIES

The city should establish a set of equivalencies for applying the

building code to heritage buildings. Buildings codes are a significant barrier within
Calgary. A set of equivalencies would give individual code officers the confidence to
approve alternate methods of code compliance. This could facilitate the adaptive
re-use of heritage buildings by reducing the length of the building code negotiation
process, by potentially reducing renovation costs, by protecting the heritage fabric of
the structure, and by easing the concerns of property owners that building codes
may provide insurmountable obstacles to adaptive re-use of their building.
The city could either establish a set of alternative codes in partnership
with the province, or it could do so on its own. The city has the power to approve
equivalencies. There are existing examples of code equivalencies to building on.
Winnipeg is a model. And the State of California also has a comprehensive set of
alternatives. Calgary does not have to re-invent the wheel, but can model their
equivalencies on already established models. By having a set of alternative codes,
individual code officers could then develop the confidence to allow equivalence
methods of code compliance for heritage buildings. Finally, code equivalencies
have a potentially wider application than just heritage. All existing buildings could
benefit from clear confident alterative methods to ensure the same levels of safety
that may produce both cost and time savings.

ONGOING MAINTENANCE

The city should explore ideas in how to encourage ongoing

maintenance and fire prevention for heritage buildings. Better ongoing maintenance
of heritage resources is a way to ensure that they last as long as possible and that
will decrease the need for expensive major repairs down the road. In terms of
buildings that become municipally designated though a grant program or through
transfer of density rights, a maintenance agreement for ongoing care for the
buildings could be a requirement. In terms of nondesignated resources, the city
could explore ideas like providing some kind of education and information service on

Page 92
how to better care for heritage properties. Or the city could provide maintenance
evaluations for buildings on the city's inventory.
Also, many buildings have been lost to fire in Calgary. The city
should explore ways to address this issue. Heritage buildings that are lost to fire are
gone forever, and the possibility to restore or re-use these buildings is lost. The city
should take a proactive preventative stance to protect our heritage resources from
fire. Possible policies could offer free fire safety inspections to properties on the
city's inventory, and could then offer modest grants to help up-grade the fire
protection of those buildings that require it.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Any new heritage policy within Calgary is going to require a certain

amount of funding. Calgary need not spend more on an annual basis than it has for
its share of the Stephen Avenue program, but it should. Other cities have run
successful grant programs with similar amounts of money. However, it must be
remembered that the Stephen Avenue Grant program was a cost sharing one with
the province. To maintain or improve public preservation funding in Calgary after
the expiration of the program (one cannot assume the province will help with the
costs of a new program), the city should at least double their past average annual
contribution. The more funds directed at heritage, the greater the level of incentive
that can be offered. Thus, the city would have more leverage to influence private
sector development decisions and to better encourage long-term heritage
preservation through municipal designation.
What is most important, however, is that the city shows a commitment
to heritage. Budgets can change either up or down depending on the need or
political climate. Given the level of private and community support for heritage,
there is the opportunity to meet preservation goals with modest grants. Also,
council could always approve extra funds for those projects where the need is great.
Although the will of city council to protect heritage may be suspect, private and
community interests may be able to exert political pressure on council in some
cases. With the extent of private and community involvement in heritage within this

Page 93
city, I am confident no building that is considered highly valuable to our heritage will
go quietly or unopposed.
Finally the city could potentially affect adaptive re-use economics
though other elements of the program. A strong codes department with a set of
alternative codes could reduce both time and expense. And, by encouraging
ongoing maintenance it may be possible to reduce renovation costs for property
owners in the long term.

SENIOR LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

Finally, local preservation efforts could be substantially enhanced if

changes were made at provincial and federal levels of jurisdiction.
In Alberta, municipalities are severely constrained by the Alberta
Historical Resources Act. Municipalities must pay compensation for designating
buildings. Alberta is one of only two provinces with this requirement. In other
provinces, heritage designation is a legitimate planning tool that is akin to
downzoning. In order to assist municipalities to better protect heritage, the province
should eliminate this requirement. That way, buildings like the Lougheed Building
will get the protection they deserve. Both the community in Calgary and the City of
Calgary want to see the building preserved, but the financial costs of designation
are an obstacle. Alternatively, the province could be more willing to designate the
building itself in cases where there is strong municipal and community support for
preservation. The province has in the past designated buildings against the wishes
of the property owner (although very rarely) and should be willing to do so in the
future. After all provincial designation is supposed to be based on the preservation
of a building being in the public interest. In the case of the Lougheed Building,
public interest has been clearly voiced by both the community and the City of
Calgary.
At the federal level, disincentives to preservation that arise out of the
Federal Income Tax Act should be addressed. Also, the Canadian government
could follow the lead of the United States government and offer tax incentives for
heritage building renovation.

Page 94
 There are three changes to the Income Tax Act that the federal
government can make to better encourage preservation. First, they can change the
terminal loss provision so that there are no longer financial incentives that
encourage heritage building demolition over the sale of a building. Second,
renovation costs for heritage buildings should be considered current expenses as
opposed to capital expenses. Thirdly, charitable donations in the form of heritage
buildings or preservation covenants should not be subject to Capital Gains. These
changes would each remove significant barriers to heritage building preservation.
The federal government could also implement a federal tax incentive
for heritage building renovation. Eligible buildings could be those that are identified
as being significant by any level of government and should include both designated
and undesignated buildings (although some form of designation should be a
requirement of receiving the incentive). The U.S. federal tax incentive program has
been very successful and a similar Canadian program should be able to spur
heritage renovation activity across Canada.

CONCLUSION
Heritage resources within the Cit] 1 have done well in recent
years. Strong support for heritage by the private sector and the community has
been a major factor. While the city has done well with its Stephen Avenue program,
it has a responsibility to provide better leadership and stewardship in terms of
heritage buildings. By implementing a citywide management program for heritage,
that includes financial incentives in the form of grants, building code equivalencies,
and encouragement for the ongoing maintenance of heritage resources, the city can
more effectively fulfill their responsibility to support heritage and complement the
efforts of the private sector and the community. Furthermore, senior levels of
government can take actions to remove significant obstacles to heritage
preservation and can take steps to better encourage preservation.

Page 95
 REFERENCES
Andrews, Lorraine D. "Changing the Face of Calgary: Heritage Architecture of the
Past and for the Future". Leqacv. Summer 2000. Pgs. 14-17.

Alberta Preservation and Rebuilding Society.

wwwmem bers.tripod.com/-alberta_preservation

Barber, Steve. "Tax Incentives for Residential Conversion". Heritaqe. Fall 1998.
Pgs 20-22.

Barber, Steve. Key lnformant Interview. June 12, 2000.

Basso, Rino. Key lnformant Interview. June 29, 2000.

Beatley, Timothy. "Planning and Sustainability: The Elements of a New

(Improved?) Paradigm". Journal of Planninq Literature. Vol. 9, No. 4, May
1995. P ~ 383-395.
s

Boon, C. et al. Recvclinq Valuable Buildinss. University of Calgary. Faculty of

Environmental Design. 1975.

Bouchard, Gilbert A. "Romancing History: Lacombe Embraces the Economic

Benefits of Historical Development". Alberta Venture. October 1999.
P ~ 71s -74.

British Columbia Heritage Trust. "Respecting Our Past, Preparing for Our Future".
www.heritage.gov.bc.ca/trust/respect/invest.htm
Bruce, Graham P. Carrots: Methods for Local Government to Give Assistance to
Heritaqe Pro~ertvOwners in British Columbia. Draft. Victoria: Queen's
Printer for British Columbia, 1991.

Bugailiskis, Giles. Key lnformant Interview. June 27, 2000.

Calgary Herald. "Palace Theatre Deal Falls Apart". March 7, 1996. Pg. B5.

Calgary Herald. "Famous Five Foundation opposes building relocation". July 10,
1997. Pg. B2.

Calgary Herald. "Revelry Returns to Palace Theatre". January 16, 1998. Pg. B1

Calgary Herald. "City Board Wants Halt to $150M expansion: Plans Fail to
Adequately Protect Heritage Buildings, says Members1'. March 14, 1998.
Pg. B6.

Page 96
Calgary Herald. "Loss of Historic 'Jewel' Mourned". March 28, 1998. Pg B2.

Calgary Herald. "Private Sector Saves, City Hall Destroys". May 1, 1998. Pg. B1.

Calgary Herald. "Move into Bank Building a Sound Decision: Heritage Structure
Home to Music and Electronics Outlet". March 22, 1999. Your Downtown,
Pg 15.

Calgary Herald. "The Lougheed Building: A Cultural Icon Deserves a Better Fate".
May29, 1999. Pg. 06.

Calgary Herald. "Heritage Awards Honour Initiatives". July 4, 1999. Pg. E2.

Calgary Herald. "Air Rights Give City Tower a Lift". July 5, 1999. Pg. 66.

Calgary Herald. "Save Heritage, Urges Lord". July 18, 1999. Pg. A1 3.

Calgary Herald. "Swap Would Allow Preservation of Doomed Downtown

Landmark. January 15,2000. Pg 83.

Calgary Herald. "Province Spurns Second Bid to Save Lougheed Building". June
10,2000. Pg B3.

Calgary Herald. "Drive to Save St. Mary's $2.2 million Short: Heritage Designation
Sought". June 28, 2000. Pg B5.

Calgary Herald. "Ottawa Antes Up For Lougheed". July 10, 2000. Pg. B l .

Calgary Herald. "Lougheed Group Not Giving Up". July 26, 2000. Pg. B3.

Calgary Herald. "Calgary Construction Leads the Nation". September 6, 2000.

Pg. A3.

Calgary Herald. "Bishop's Tone Irks Historical Board". September 9, 2000. Pg B2.

Calgary Herald. "East Village Home to $10 Billion Revival Plan". October 28, 2000.

City of Calgary. A Decade of Heritage. 1987.

City of Calgary. Core Area Policy Brief. 1996.

City of Calgary. The Calsaw Plan: Municipal Development Plan. 1998.

City of Calgary. Commissioners' Report to the Standins Policy Committee on

Finance and Budget. 1999.

City of Calgary Census. 1999.

Page 97
City of Calgary. Inventory of Potential Heritage Sites. Compiled on January 20,
2000.

City of Calgary. City of Calgary Land Use Bylaw 2P80. 2000.

City of Winnipeg. Heritage Support: Policies and Programs. 1992.

City of Winnipeg. 1994-1996, The Years Past: Report of the City of Winnipeq
Historical Buildinqs Committee. 1996.

City of Vancouver. Case Studies in Heritage Revitalization. 1998.

Chouinard, Carole and Douglas Franklin. "Workshop # I -- The Income Tax Act:
What are the Problems? What are the Alternatives?" in Liqhteninq the
Burden: Taxation, Regulation and Heritage Property. The Heritage Canada
Foundation 1997 Annual Conference October 1997. Ottawa, Ontario. Pgs
16-17.

Conley, Merinda J. "What's Happening on Main Street? Visit 14 Alberta

Communities to Find Out." Legacy. Autumn 1996, Pgs 8-14.

Conley, Merinda. Key Informant Interview. June 21 , 2000.

Dempsey, Hugh A. Calgary: Spirit of the West. Saskatoon: Fifth House Ltd, 1994.

Denhez, Marc. "Marc's Heritage Update". Citv Magazine. WinterISpring 1991.

Denhez, Marc. The Heritaqe Straterry Planninq Handbook. Toronto: Dundurn

Press, 1997.

Duguay, Gary. Heritage Notes # 3: Definitions of Preservation Terms. Edmonton:

Department of Culture and Multiculturalism, 1992.

Edmonton Journal. "Ottawa Incites Heritage Loss: Tax Law Encourages

Demolition." October 31, 1997. Pg. A14.

Falkner, Ann. Without Our Past? A Handbook for the Preservation of Canada's
Architectural Heritage. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977.

Fennel, John. "Minding YourARC'sn. Building Maaazine. SeptemberIOctober

1994. Inside front cover.

Fitch, James Marston. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built

World. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982.

Franklin, Doug. "The Role of Government in Heritage Preservation". Heritaqe.

Spring 1998. Pgs 20-21 .

Page 98
Fraser, Duncan and Diane Kyle. "Workshop #4 -- Working with Reality at the Local
Level: Municipal Taxation and Regulation". in Lightening the Burden:
Taxation, Regulation and Heritaqe Property. The Heritage Canada
Foundation 1997 Annual Conference October 1997. Ottawa, Ontario. Pg
20.

Frommer, Arthur. "Historic Preservation and Tourism". Preservation Forum. Fall

1988. P ~ s .10-12.

Glenbow Museum website. www.glenbow.org/histcal/stephen.htm

Godfrey, Sheldon J. "Taxing Heritage". Heritaqe Canada. SeptemberlOctober

1996. P ~ s17-1
. 9.

Graham, Robert. "Stephen Avenue Heritage Area". IMPACT. May 1992: Pgs 5-6.

Graham, Robert. Key lnformant Interview. May 23, 2000.

Hansen, A. T. "CBD - 230. Applying Building Codes to Existing Buildings".

Canadian Buildinq Digest. January 1984.

Heritage Canada Foundation. Response to the Federal Cultural Policy Report of

the Standinq Committee on Canadian Heritaqe. Canada Heritage
Foundation, 1999.

Hutchings, Jacqueline. Key lnformant Interview. June 28, 2000.

ICOMOS. The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and
Restoration of Monuments and Sites. 1964.

ICOMOS. The Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built
Environment. 1983.

Informant. Key lnformant Interview. July 13, 2000.

Jamieson, Walter and Carol Jamieson. The Problems and Potentials of Recyclinq
Older Commercial Buildinqs in Calgary. Calgary: University of Calgary, 1982.

Jokinen, Eric P. Canadian Heritaqe Preservation. Edmonton: Lone Pine

Publishing, 1987.

Kalman, Harold. The Evaluation of Historic Buildinqs. Ottawa: Minister of the

Environment, 1980.

LaPorte, Patti. Key lnformant Interview. July 27, 2000.

Page 99
Lemon, Robert. Rehabilitation Principles and Guidelines. Victoria: British
Columbia Heritage Trust, 1989.

Listokin, David and Michael L. Lahr. Economic lmpacts of Historic Preservation in

New Jersey. New Jersey Historic Trust. 1997.

Listokin, David and Michael L. Lahr. "Economic lmpacts of Preservation in New

Jersey and Texas". Preservation Forum Journal. Summer 2000. Pgs. 57-
64.

Mar, Bryan. Key lnformant Interview. June 14, 2000.

Martin, Thomas J., and Melvin A. Gamzon. "Economics and Process." in Adaptive
Use: Development Economics, Process, and Profiles. Washington: Urban
Land Institute, 1978.

McGeough, Gerry. Key Informant. July 2000.

Moore, Author Cotton. The Powers of Preservation: New Life for Urban Historic
Places. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

Morris, Marya. Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation. Chicago: American

Planning Association, 1992.

National Main Street Program. "Economic Statistics"

www.mainst.org/about/numbers.htm

National Park Service. "Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives"

www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/tax/tax-p. htm

National Trust for Historic Preservation. Establishinq an Easement Program to Protect

Historic, Scenic and Natural Resources. Washington D.C.: Information Series
No. 25, 1991.

National Research Council of Canada. Guidelines for Amlication of Part 3 of the

National Buildinq Code of Canada to Existinq Buildinqs. Ottawa: National
Research Council of Canada, 1993.

Neill, David. Key lnformant Interview. June 28,2000.

Parks Canada. "Federal Heritage Buildings".

www.parkscanada.gc.ca/federalhb/english/Pfhbtxt-e. htm

Pearce, Wayne. Key lnformant Interview. June 29,2000.

Province of Alberta. Historical Resources Act. Consolidated May 26, 1998.

Page 100
Province of Alberta. Municipal Government Act. Consolidated May 9, 2000.

Province of British Columbia. Heritaqe Conservation: A Community Guide. 1995.

Richardson, Neil. Key lnformant Interview. June 20, 2000.

Russell, Karen ed. Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Designated Historic

Resources. Edmonton: Alberta Community Development, Historic Sites and
Archives Service, 1992.
Rypkema, Donovan D. "Economics and Historic Preservation." Historic
Preservation Forum. Winter 1995, pgs 39-46.

Sharma, Om. Key lnformant Interview. July 19, 2000.

Shipley, Robert. Exploring the Value of Heritaqe Properties. Waterloo: University

of Waterloo, 1992.

Shopsin, William C. Restorinq Old Buildings for Contemporary Uses: An American

Sourcebook for Architects and Preservationists. New York: Whitney Library
of Design, 1986.

Simpson, Lorne. Key lnformant Interview. July 10, 2000.

Smith, Baird. "National Benefits of Rehabilitating Existing Buildings." Readinqs in

Historic Preservation: Why? What? How? Norman Williams Jr., Edmund H.
Kellogg, and Frank B. Gilbert, eds. New Brunswick: Rutgers - The State
University of New Jersey, 1983.

State of California. "California's State Historical Building Safety Code: General

Information". www.dsa.dgs.ca.gov/SHBSB/shbsb-general.asp

Stovel, Herb. Federal Heritage Buildinqs Review Office: Code of Practice. Minister
of Supply and Services Canada, 1996.

Stroulger, Maureen. "The Old & the New Meet on a Revitalized Stephen Avenue".
Your Downtown. A Publication of the Calgary Herald and the Calgary
Downtown Association. Summer 2000.

United Nations. Habitat Agenda. June 1996.

United States Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. "Adaptive Use: A Survey

of construction-Costs". In Readinqs in Historic preservation. Why? what?
-
How? Norman Williams Jr., Edmund H. Kellogg and Frank B. Gilbert,
editors. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers -The State University of New
Jersey, 1983. Pgs 244-255.

Victoria Civic Heritage Trust. Victoria's Heritaqe Prosrams. 2000.

Page 101
Victoria Crossing Business Revitalization Zone. Victoria Crossins Newsletter. July
2000.

Weiler, John. "Dollars & Sense: The Economics of Conserving Built Heritage."
Heritaqe. Summer 1998. Pgs 17-20.

Zwarun, Suzanne. "Calgary Construction Heats Up". Heritaqe. Fall 1999. Pgs.
20-22.

Page 102
 APPENDIX A

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

During the course of this study informal interviews were conducted with
heritage professionals. Information from these interviews was used throughout the
document.
For chapter two, interviews were held with heritage planners from a
selection of cities. The purpose of these interviews was to gain insight into how other
cities were approaching adaptive re-use, how successful or not their policies were, and
to identify common barriers to adaptive re-use. The following municipal heritage
professionals were contacted

Steve Barber, Heritage Planner for the City of Victoria

Gerry McGeough, Heritage Planner for the City of Vancouver
Giles Bugailiskis, Senior Planner (Heritage) for the City of Winnipeg
Jacqueline Hutchings, Heritage Coordinator for the City of Saskatoon
Wayne Pearce, Loans 1 Incentives Coordinator for the City of
Kitchener
Om Sharma, Principal Planner (Urban Design and Heritage) for
the City of Edmonton

To better understand the Calgary situation in terms of heritage

preservation and adaptive re-use, interviews were held with local professionals. These
professionals came from the private sector, the public sector and the community. The
following people were contacted:

Robert Graham, Heritage Planner for the City of Calgary

Rino Basso, Restoration Advisor with the Province of Alberta
Merinda Conley, Program Chief for Alberta's Main Street Program
Bryan Mar, Director of Marketing for the Palace Theatre
Development Corporation
Neil J. Richardson, local lawyer and developer
David Neill, President of Encorp Inc.
Lorne Simpson of Simpson-Roberts Architectural Interior Design
Inc.
Patti LaPorte, President of the Alberta Historical Preservation &
Rebuilding Society
Anonymous Informant *

Note * All informants were given the option of allowing their names, job titles or
organizations mentioned in the study. One informant chose not to be named. That
informant will be referred to generically as (Informant). See the consent form on page
107.

Page 103
lnformal Interviews

The interviews were informal. They were exploratory interviews to

gain an understanding of the participants' perspectives / opinions toward the adaptive
re-use of heritage buildings. General questions were brought to each participant, but
discussion was not limited to these and subsequent topics and issues were discussed
as they came up.
Furthermore, as interviews were held with a variety of different
people (heritage planners from other cities, local developers, local public heritage
professionals and with a community heritage professional), general interview questions
varied depending on who was interviewed.
The following are some general questioned that were asked of
various professionals:

HERITAGE POLICIES
1. How much does the City spend on its heritage program each year?

2. How many adaptive re-use projects have benefited from city policies?

3. Would these projects have gone ahead without public aid?

4. How much private investment has been created by publicly aided adaptive
re-use projects?

5. What is the most popular incentive that the city offers, that is the incentive that is
utilized in the most projects?

6. Why is this policy used the most?

7. How do you think this policy or policies could be improved?

8. Overall, have the adaptive re-use projects, you are familiar with, struck a good
balance between heritage preservation objectives and the economic
objectives of the individual owners?

HERITAGE PROJECTS

1. How many adaptive re-use projects have you been involved with?

2. What were your main two motivations in renovating a heritage property?

Heritage preservation
Investment potential
Good location
Character of building
Development costs less than new construction

Page 104
 Good fit with proposed business
Other

3. What type of public incentives or relaxations did you receive for this project, if
any?
Grants
Density Transfer agreement
Building code equivalences
Increased flexibility in land use
Zoning relaxations
Other
None

6. Would this project have been possible without these incentives?

7. Which incentive or relaxation was most useful to you?

3. Have this 1 these projects been economically successful?

4. Would you undertake a similar project again? Why or why not?

BARRIERS
1. In the adaptive re-use projects you are familiar with, what are the three most
important obstacles that have to be overcome? Rank in order from 1 to 3.
Acquiring financing from lending institutions
Lengthy development approval process
Building preservation guidelines
Building codes
Zoning requirements
Renovation costs
Finding skilled labour
Other

2. Do you have any suggestions how a city could address these barriers?

3. What are the three (rank in order from 1 to 3) most important barriers that may
prevent or discourage owners or developers from even considering an adaptive re-use
project?
Federal Tax laws that favour demolition
Zoning that allows for more intense use of the site
A preference for new construction
Lengthy development approval process
Building preservation guidelines
Inexperience with renovation projects
Perception of high renovation costs

Page 105
 Building codes
Zoning requirements
Finding skilled labour
Other

4. Do you have any suggestions how a city could address these barriers?

IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

1. Are there any existing ideas or policies you are aware of that could better encourage
adaptive re-use?

2. Do you have any other ideas?

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?

1. Are there any issues or questions that I have missed?

2. Is there anything else you would like to say?

Page 106
Consent Form
Master's Degree Project: Adaptive Re-use of Heritage Buildings
Researcher: Kirk Bacon
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of
informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and what
you participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here,
or information not included here, please ask. Please take the time to read this form carefully
and to understand any accompanying information.
The purpose of the research is to understand the process of adaptive re-use of heritage
buildings, identify any barriers to adaptive re-use that may exist and to suggest policy changes
that may improve that process. This research will be completed in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for a Master's of Environmental Design (Planning) degree at the University of
Calgary. The results of this research may provide for improved preservation of our heritage
buildings.
You have been asked to participate in this study on the basis of your professional knowledge
of heritage preservation, adaptive re-use projects or city planning. Participation will consist of
an informal interview that will take approximately one hour of your time. Furthermore, I may
contact you at a later date to ask follow up questions, to confirm some information or to get
feedback. There is no risk in participating and there is no remuneration.
Data from this interview will be recorded on paper and disk to be used by the researcher
alone. Your name, job title and organization will remain confidential if you wish. Information
will be stored and kept by the researcher for a period of five years after the completion of the
study. In storage the data will be coded so that it cannot be linked to a particular participant.
The researcher alone will have access to the information.
Do you agree to have your name, job title and/or organization mentioned in the study?
Name? (Yes 1 No) Job Title? (Yes / No) Organization (Yes / No)
circle initials circle initials circle initials
Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the
information regarding participation in the research project and agree to participate as a
subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or
involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw
from the study at any time. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial
consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your
participation. If you have further questions concerning matters related to this research, please
contact:
Kirk Bacon
(403) 253-5350
Email: [email protected]
If you have any questions concerning the ethics review of this project, or the way you have
been treated, you may also contact the Office of the Vice-president (Research) and ask for
Karen McDermid, 220-3381. If you have concerns about the project itself, please contact the
researcher.

Participant Date
A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference.

Page 107
ADAPTIVE RE-USE BARRIERS IN SELECTED CITIES
The heritage planners 1 interviewed from different cities were all asked to
identify the most important obstacles to adaptive re-use in their city. Specifically the
question was:

1. In the adaptive re-use projects you are familiar with, what are the three most
important obstacles that have to be overcome? Rank in order from 1 to 3.
Acquiring financing from lending institutions
Lengthy development approval process
Building preservation guidelines
Building codes
Zoning requirements
Renovation costs
Finding skilled labour
Other

NOTE: Not all heritage planners interviewed ranked their responses.

Victoria: 1. Building codes

2. Land zoned for higher use

Vancouver 1. Renovation costs

2. Appropriate match of new use with nature of existing
building
Building codes

Edmonton Economic viability of project

Building codes
Renovation costs (depending on condition of building)

Kitchener 1. Preservation guidelines

2. Lengthy development approval process
3. Building codes

Saskatoon 1. Building codes

2. Lack of knowledge 1 experience by property owners
3. Finding skilled labour

Winnipeg Acquiring financing from lending institutions

Economy in Winnipeg (downtown malaise)

Calgary Building codes

Preservation guidelines (if designated)

Page 108
physical conditions it is possible to investigate the properties of the channel and obtain
some information about its structure. In this chapter we will discuss two key properties of
the channel. gating and blocking.

1.1. Gating
1.1.1. Stochastic nature of gating
For most ion channels the current I fluctuates with time between two discrete
levels. the open level ( I f 0) and the closed level (I=O). This stochastic process of opening
and closing is called gating. Fig.1.2 [French et al., 19861 shows an example of a current
recording from a single ion channel. One notes that current fluctuations are essentially
rectangular in shape ( -several ms ) with extremely small transition times between open
(0)and closed (C) states. The transitions are so rapid (< Ins) that the observed transition
times are limited by the response time recording instruments. According to a common
physiological convention, voltage V is defined as voltage inside the cell with respect to
outside.

Fig.l.2. Single-sodium-channel current fluctuations, taken at -95 mV. Upper level is closed in this
trace. Vertical scale, 2 pA; horizontal scale, 51 1.5 msec. From IFrench et al., 19861

Gating results from changes in the conformation or structure of the channel

protein, but the detailed mechanism, on the molecular level. is unknown. Gating can be
treated within statistical mechanics as a stochastic Markov process (Horn, 1984). In
essence. the channel has no memory. such that the probability of a transition between
conformational states does not depend on the sequence of previous states of the channel.