What is the right way to do heritage preservation? How should you approach an addition to an existing building? I was reminded of this topic this week, which then reminded me of a post I wrote last summer when this issued flared up in Ottawa because of the "Chateau Laurier battle." The takeaway from last year's post was this: "We cannot recreate the past, only parody it." Indeed, the Province of Ontario maintains that "legibility" is an important principle in the conservation of built heritage properties. People should be able to distinguish the new from the old. Don't blur the distinction.

I will also say that in architecture school they instil in you the ideas that buildings should be honest, they should reflect the current milieu, and that materials should be truthful. What this loosely means is that you want to use materials where they are most appropriate and you want to reveal their true nature. Don't pretend that things are something they are not. i.e. Don't be fake. At the same time, I very early on learned that most people don't give a shit about the kind of nuanced and theoretical discussions that happen within architecture schools. They like what they like.

And there's a big segment of the market that wants buildings to look as they did a long time ago. They want tradition. They want historic. Or they at least want some sort of "transitional" style that sits somewhere between old and kind of new. They want architects like Robert A.M. Stern and Richard Wengle, both of which are extremely popular and talented. So really, who am I to judge? As most of you will know, I'm a modernist. I am more interested in the future than I am in the past. But I recognize that the past is important and should not be forgotten. How best to do that is up for debate.

As I was going through this Twitter thread by Alex Bozikovic on the "Château Laurier battle," I came across a great line by Robert Wright: "We cannot recreate the past only parody it." I told him I was going to steal it, but here I am giving him credit.

The controversy in Ottawa stems from the fact that a number of people believe that a modern addition to the Fairmont Château Laurier (which was constructed between 1909 and 1912) amounts to heresy.

Instead, the addition should be designed to match the "Château style" that already exists. There should be no change. As Alex put it, "people want Disneyland."

We've had this very same debate come up on some of our projects, where people -- but notably, not the city -- have asked us to replicate something that was constructed in the 1800's using labor and material techniques that no longer exist.

This is where Robert's line comes in.

Architecture is a reflection of the cultural milieu in which it was designed and built, which is one of the reasons why we sometimes preserve old buildings. They communicate to us a particular moment in time.

The reason architects, designers, and planners so often respond -- negatively that is -- to Disneyland-type architecture, is that it lacks that same authenticity. It's only a simulacra.

It's for this reason that one of Ontario's "eight guiding principles in the conservation of built heritage properties" is, in fact, legibility:

"New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings or structures should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new."

This is not to say that we shouldn't be respectful of the past. Five of the eight guiding principles include the word "respect" in the title. There should be lots of that.

But we would be fooling, and cheating, ourselves if we believed we could mimic the past with any justice. We cannot recreate the past only parody it.

Towards the end of last year I received a one line email from a reader asking me what I thought about Porter (the airline that operates out of Toronto’s island airport downtown).

I followed suit and responded with one line: “I’m a big fan.” I then pasted a few links to posts I had written where I talked about Porter, the island airport, and why I think they are good for Toronto.

It turns out that was the right answer ;)

Because today I’m excited to announce a fun collaboration between Architect This City and Porter Escapes. This weekend I get to explore Québec City and do something I love to do, which is photograph cities, think about cities, and write about cities. (And eat poutine.)

Here are my travel essentials for the weekend (I wish it was a better photo):

The first thing I should tell you though is that Porter Escapes is different than simply Porter. Porter Escapes is their “packaged vacation” company, so it’s designed for people who want a simple way to book entire getaways (flight, hotel, activities, and so on).

In my case, I’m going to be staying at the Château Laurier. I also have a bunch of activities planned out for Saturday during the day. Stay tuned.

I had initially planned to squeeze in some snowboarding at Le Massif and try out the nicely branded train that goes from Québec City right to the mountain. But my back and shoulder are still tender from my spill in Banff.

Still, I hope you’ll follow along on Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, and using #PorterEscapes. And if you happen to be in Québec City this weekend, let’s grab a pint and poutine.

I’ve also been told that Porter Escapes will be launching a special promotion over the next few days for escapes specifically to Québec City.

Note: I’m supposed to tell you that it’ll be at a price point that you should never expect to see again (i.e. it’ll be a steal).

Happy Friday :)