Other century-old buildings in Quebec risk joining the Bignell house in the cemetery of Quebec’s built heritage. Several are in such an advanced state of deterioration that their restoration, already uncertain, would cost the capital too much. The City must apply a “criterion of reasonableness”, believes the advisor responsible for heritage files in Quebec, so as not to embark on crusades that are as costly as they are uncertain.
“On the territory of Quebec City, there are between 15,000 and 20,000 heritage buildings,” sighs Mélissa Coulombe-Leduc. Cases like the Bignell house, we’re probably going to see more of, much to my disappointment. »
This residence in Sillery, standing for more than two centuries, is about to meet a disastrous end. The City recently authorized the demolition of the Bignell house, left abandoned for decades by its owners and by public authorities who acted too little and, above all, too late. His reasons? The cost of its restoration estimated at five million dollars and its very advanced state of deterioration.
“Ultimately, yes, everything can be saved,” adds the Cap-aux-Diamants councilor. But at what cost ? There are between 15,000 and 20,000 heritage buildings on the territory of Quebec City. Is the preservation of this built heritage, and particularly that of privately owned built heritage, necessarily the responsibility of public authorities? »
The City of Quebec and the Ministry of Culture deny having witnessed with indifference the dilapidation of the Bignell house, a building of exceptional heritage value which has remained in its death throes for more than 35 years.
Ultimately, yes, everything can be saved. But at what cost ?
The Ministry of Culture assures that it has “made significant efforts to safeguard the property, in particular by carrying out various studies relating, among other things, to the state of the building. » With the City, the government also tried to “make the owner aware of the preservation of the house” by letter and in person.
“Unfortunately, specifies the ministry, the latter has not shown initiatives to ensure the preservation of the house over the last 35 years. »
“Certain interventions were carried out in 2007-2008 and City initiatives followed to try to protect the building,” indicates Amélie Cauchon, communications advisor in Quebec, without specifying which ones.
In 2019, after “the owner’s lack of collaboration”, the City sent the latter a notice of violation for the “general lack of maintenance”. Two years later, the owner, Denis Jalbert, received a second fine, this time under the sanitation regulations.
These fines, by the admission of councilor Mélissa Coulombe-Leduc, were “completely derisory”. The sun mentioned, in 2021, the sum of $3,750.
More biting regulations
Since the last election, municipal regulations regarding heritage protection have changed and the fines imposed on negligent owners have gained teeth. “They can now reach $250,000,” explains the advisor responsible for heritage at the City.
“Unfortunately,” she adds, “for certain buildings, these modifications came too late. Their deterioration curve is so pronounced that it will not be possible to preserve them. The adoption of these regulations has not stopped or reversed the deterioration of these buildings. »
It is because of this dilapidation that the municipal administration did not use this arsenal to save the Bignell house. The City, assures Mélissa Coulombe-Leduc, is not afraid, however, of taking legal action to force the owners, often well-off, to restore their heritage jewels.
“It’s barely been a year since we had a new regulation with steeper fines and we currently have around ten addresses in Quebec for which we have cases for aggravating factors of deterioration. I cannot give you the addresses because these are judicial cases, but we believe that these cases can set a precedent. »
These legal proceedings, however, concern buildings less deteriorated than the Bignell house, adds the councilor. For heritage buildings that are too damaged to regain their former glory, the City does not intend to spend time and money on costly procedures – and with a hazardous outcome.