Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:03:34.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rogers' Chocolates Ltd. and the Corporation of the City of Victoria: A Case Comment on Involuntary Designation and the Conservation of Heritage Buildings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2011

Gillian S. J. Piggott
Gillian S. J. Piggott
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia. Email: gillian.piggott14@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The process adopted by the local government to protect the interior of an old building in Victoria, British Columbia, culminated in a significant compensation award in favor of the building's owner and highlights the shortcomings of a coercive regulatory approach to heritage conservation. This study focuses on the relationship between cooperative resolution of conflicts between the rights of the public to protect heritage buildings and the rights of private property owners to the use of their property without interference, on the one hand, and the long-term utility and conservation of historic buildings and the sustainability of local government heritage programs, on the other. Analysis includes discussion on (a) key issues arising out of an involuntary heritage designation, (b) flexible alternative conservation mechanisms and incentives available to local governments, (c) approaches to conservation of heritage buildings in other jurisdictions, and (d) opportunities for improvement in the local government heritage conservation program.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 225 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashworth, Gregory J.“The Blue-grey Transition: Heritage in the Reinvention of the Tourism Resort.” Paper presented at the annual conference for the European Heritage Association, The Best in Heritage—in Partnership with Europa Nostra, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2004, http://www.thebestinheritage.com/event/library/ (accessed 15 September, 2010).Google Scholar
Ashworth, Gregory J., and Tunbridge, John E.. The Tourist-Historic City. London; New York: Belhaven Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Gregory J.The Tourist-Historic City: Retrospect and Prospect of Managing the Heritage City. Amsterdam: Pergamon Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Castri, Victor. Registration of Title to Land. Scarborough, ON: Carswell, 1987.Google Scholar
Denhez, Marc. “Time for change on heritage conservation of buildings; Question: If most governments encourage people to re-use items as small as pop bottles and tin cans, what is their policy for re-using items as big as buildings? After all, almost a third of landfill deposits are “used construction material.” The Lawyers Weekly 24 (2004) No. 18: 1.Google Scholar
Draper, Adam E. “Conservation Easements: Now More than Ever—Overcoming Obstacles to Protect Private Lands.” Environmental Law 34 (2004): 247.Google Scholar
Haigh, David R. Q.C., Kunetzki, Alicia K., and M.Antony, Christine. “International Commercial Arbitration and the Canadian Experience.” Alberta Law Review 34 (1995): 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Sheila. “Reviewing Conservation Easements & Covenants in B.C.” http://www.landtrustalliance.bc.ca/registry/ (accessed 28 February 2010).Google Scholar
Heritage Conservation Services, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern Territory Government, Australia. “Briefing Notes 2003.” Review of the Heritage Conservation Act 1991, 2003. http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/heritage/manage/pdf/briefingnotes.pdf (accessed 29 March 2010).Google Scholar
Kwasniak, Arlene J. “Conservation Easements: Pluses and Pitfalls, Generally and For Municipalities.” Alberta Law Review 46 (2009): 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewinsohn-Zamir, Daphna. “The ‘Conservation Game’: The Possibility of Voluntary Cooperation in Preserving Buildings of Cultural Importance.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 20 (1997): 733.Google Scholar
Liebs, Chester H. “Listing of Tangible Cultural Properties: Expanded Recognition for Historic Buildings in Japan.” Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 7 (1998): 679.Google Scholar
New South Wales Heritage Office. “A Guide to the Heritage System.” Heritage Information Series (1996). http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/03_index.htm (accessed 28 March 2010).Google Scholar
North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada). “Conservation Easements, Covenants and Servitudes in Canada, A Legal Review, 2004.” http://www.wetlandscanada.org/pubs.html.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission 2006. “Heritage Conservation by Agreement.” Conservation of Australia's Historic Heritage Places, Report No. 37 (2006), 397. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925774 (accessed 29 March 2010).Google Scholar
Serageldin, Ismail. “Cultural Heritage as Public Good: Economic Analysis Applied to Historic Cities.” In Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, edited by Kaul, Inge, Grunberg, Isabelle, and Sternby, Marc A., 240–257. Oxford University Press: New York, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Barton H. Jr. “Conservation Options: Toward A Greater Private Role.” Virginia Environmental Law Journal 21 (2001/2002): 245.Google Scholar
Zweibel, Ellen, and Cooper, Karen J., “Roundtable on Reforms to Tax Incentives.” Presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Land Trust Alliance and Heritage Canada Foundation, Work That Endures—Power to the People Keeping Places Alive, September 26, 2008. http://www.carters.ca/pub/seminar/charity/2008/kjcew0926.pdf.Google Scholar