Clear Full Forecast

Heritage Context Study 'Full of Treasures'-Councillor Wilbur

By 250 News

Monday, September 13, 2010 08:22 PM

Prince George, B.C.- When it comes to making decision on what does or doesn’t have heritage value in Prince George, there first needs to be an understanding of what the community views as important and worth saving.
 
Heritage Commission Chair, Harv Smerychynski says it used to be that "heritage" refered to old buildings that were grand and well maintained, but  which meant little to the average person.  He says  the word "heritage" now means  anything that is  important to  citizens of the community because it  "forms the background to our lives."
 
The Heritage Context Report has been delivered to Prince George City Council.
 
 Paid for by the Provincial Government, this  report outlines community heritage values and sets out a framework to guide how historic places fit into the Prince George’s evolution as well as  recommendations and timelines for implementation .
 
The study presented a long list of places which workshop participants or on line submitters identified as having heritage value. 
 
The list includes:
  • The yellow stairs to the top of Connaught Hill , 
  • Morrison’s Menswear, 
  • the Croft Hotel,
  • the Old Courthouse on Third Avenue ( now the Native Friendship Centre),
  • the archeological sites at the west end of the Simon Fraser bridge and at First and Carney,  
  • Northern Hardware,
  • the Loghouse  Restaurant, 
  • Nechako River crossings,
  • the CN bridge,
  • the cutbanks and
  • the Island Cache.
It is expected the study will be used in the development of the Official Community Plan.
 
"This is long overdue and well done" says Councillor Murry Krause.  Councillor Dave Wilbur says the report is "enthralling" "It is a remarkable report in the  sense of its depth"  He says he's read it three times and each time found new treasures "This is a glass that is full to the brim, a composite of ideas  full of our heritage and guideposts for our future."
 
You can read the full report by clicking here.
 
 

Previous Story - Next Story

Email Email | Print Print | Share on Facebook Facebook | Tweet! Twitter | Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, September 13, 2010 08:22 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Comment Posted by: Harbinger on September 13 2010 8:34 PM
The yellow stairs? Ha ha ha . The sandy side of a hill? Ask the Smithsonian museum for an evaluation, why doncha? Ha ha ha. Funnee! Only in this 'burg.
Comment Posted by: gus on September 13 2010 11:19 PM
Remember, they asked the people.

What they forgot to explain to them is the difference between a landmark and a heritage site.

Conspicuously missing are such sites/buildings as:

1. The location of the First Nations Settlement

2. The location of the "Fort" George Trading Post

3. The river boat landing at the east end of Hamilton Street

4. Hamilton Street as the first "downtown" street of the "Georges"

5. houses of the first mayor(s)

6. location of WW2 prisoner of war camp.

and many more that were key to the formative years.

Log house restaurant, eh? A faux building which is not even the original one since that one burned to the ground.

As Councillor Wilbur said some time ago, on what basis are certain sites/buildings chosen? In this case, it is a popularity contest of fewer than 50 people who happened to show up to a meeting.
Comment Posted by: Oldun on September 13 2010 11:34 PM
Yeh right. This town has no idea how to preserve hertitage buildings that are part of our history. Look at the old liquor store downtown. We saved a few bricks on the front. How about the old Cameron St. bridge, Oh ya, we're going to put a screw or two from the bridge into the new bridge at Cottonwood Park. I would suggest that we take a long hard look at what Ontario does. An old family house from my family still stands and is a protected heritage site. It was built in 1798. No sense of history at all in BC.
Comment Posted by: MiddleGround on September 14 2010 12:42 AM
Well Oldun,

If there was anything standing in our city from 1798, I would fight to protect it too.

Our city was built less than 100 years ago.
It was built out of wood.
Most of it was built on the flood plain, and was flooded regularly.

We have history in our city. The question is what is the best way to preserve it?
Comment Posted by: gus on September 14 2010 1:55 PM
South Fort George was not built on a flood plane. Hamilton Street was/is up an incline.

After the fact I could now interpret history by saying that those people who developed the first of the George's there, and those people who developed the trading post on the other side of the slew knew what they were doing.

They were smart enough not to develop anything in the Nechako River delta. These were people who used rivers for their primary transportation, not roads and not trains.

Nevertheless, there is nothing left of the original main street that was there because they were drawn to the magnet of the railroad and built on land that flooded every now and then.
Comment Posted by: gus on September 14 2010 2:00 PM
BTW, that notion is not be one of the treasures that anyone would find in the context study.

Why not?

Because the collective memory of people has forgotten that or put it on the back burner. It takes historians to dig that sort of thing up and remind people of them.