Even if the Quebec City Planning and Conservation Commission (CUCQ) decided to authorize the demolition of the Bignell house, one of the oldest in this portion of the city, the Sillery Neighborhood Council (CQS) agreed. opposes more than ever. “I feel like we’re in danger. I thought that Law 69 would have really protected our heritage. This is not the case. We are having treasures taken from us,” pleads to the Duty the treasurer of the CQS, Mary Shee.
In a new unanimous resolution, the CQS reiterates its strong opposition to the demolition of this residence erected from 1795. The signal sent by this authorization endorses, according to the CQS, the idea that the voluntary abandonment of a building could lead to the demolition of what in principle is protected.
The CQS asks “the City of Quebec, the Quebec City Planning and Conservation Commission, the Ministry of Culture and Communications of Quebec as well as all local elected officials to increase efforts to preserve heritage buildings so that more never an exceptional building is demolished due to prolonged negligence of its owners.”
The Bignell house has been abandoned for more than 30 years, even though the situation has been repeatedly denounced by citizens, observes Mary Shee.
Located on the coast in Gignac, set back from the public highway, this residence has long been recognized for its exceptional architecture and its high value.
“The Bignell house is part of our collective heritage, our identity,” insists Mary Shee. “How can an owner erase an element of our history without assuming the consequences? That does not make any sense ! There, we ask the owner, who has never taken care of this house, to demolish it, plug the hole and put in grass! We’re going to tear a page out of our history like that, as if it were nothing. What did we do collectively to let this happen? Everything disappears under the condos! »
A bad signal
The CQS considers that a bad signal is sent blatantly. “We are setting a very bad example. The case of the Bignell house shows that if someone wants to demolish a heritage house, all they have to do is leave it alone and wait… There is no political will in the city regarding heritage. We cannot say: “it’s too late”, as we do, and give up saying that no one is responsible…”
Does the law protect heritage homes well? “No,” says Mary Shee. “We didn’t even have access to the report that led to this decision! What is needed to preserve our heritage? What does it take to leave a mark on our children? Do we need an independent institution to guard our heritage? »
For Luc Trépanier, secretary of the Neighborhood Council and project manager at the Sillery Historical Society, it is indeed “a demolition by abandonment”. “After all the inaction, we find ourselves in front of a deteriorated house and we say that we have no choice in demolishing it. » For him, it is the owner who wins and the public who pays the big price for a long time.
The Coalition for the Historic District of Sillery (CAHDS) as well as the Sillery Historical Society (SHS) join the CQS to deplore the decision taken by the city of Quebec to give up in the face of this site recognized as national heritage . According to the CAHDS, this decision sends the wrong message to owners. It encourages negligence for those who wish to get rid of their property, the collective interest of which is nevertheless obvious.
Towards even worse?
“It’s absolutely a demolition by abandonment,” underlines Jean-Louis Vallée, president of the Sillery historical society. “When the building is worth it, I think we should keep it even if we have to invest to restore it. It’s wood. We agree that it is 200 years old. It moves a lot, wood. If there was normal maintenance, there would have been changes anyway. So to say that we don’t want to restore it because we have to change part of the structure is ridiculous. And we had to wait until 2021 for the owner to receive a fine! »
The city of Quebec has noted on several occasions, over the years, the carelessness of the Bignell house. As early as 2008, during a municipal inspection, the future of the residence was judged to be compromised by the lack of care given to the building. Businessman Denis Jalbert, the owner of Bignell, acquired it in 1987.
“The message we are sending at the moment is not good,” says the president of the Sillery historical society. “It’s a bit as if the city of Quebec and the Ministry of Culture and Communications rewarded an owner for his inaction,” believes Jean-Louis Vallée. “Even though the municipality has the power to require the work and has regulations on the occupation of buildings, it has done nothing. In the end, we tell the owner that he can demolish! So he gets what he wants. Yes, it’s a very bad message we’re sending. We are collectively losing out in this. If this kind of thing is possible — and it is, as this story shows — the city and the Ministry tell us that we are heading towards even worse. What have we done to force this owner to meet his commitments? Nothing. Three times nothing. »
Not enough protection
The city of Quebec claims that since the residence had been located on the Sillery heritage site since 1964, a citation that could have directly protected it had to come directly from the Ministry of Culture and Communications. The press release released late Monday afternoon mentions that “it is not possible for the City of Quebec to cite the Bignell house, the law does not allow dual status.” The capital recalls having asked the Ministry of Culture twice, in 2009 and 2019, to classify it; there was no follow-up to these proposals.
In a press release issued on September 25, the municipality affirmed that “it is not possible for the City of Quebec to cite the Bignell house, the law does not allow dual status.” Inexact had replied to Duty a heritage specialist, lawyer Charles Breton-Demeule. “When the City claims that it could not cite the building, it is partially erroneous: it could not cite the exterior, it is true; since 2012, however, it has had the power to cite the interior of a building located on a heritage site, he explains. Such a citation would have allowed the City of Quebec to require the owner to preserve the heritage character of the building. »
According to an architect’s report commissioned by the City of Quebec and submitted in 2022, only “30% to 40% of the original components could be recovered” given the abandoned state in which the building was left. Jean-Louis Vallée, the president of the Sillery historical society, believes that in such cases, we must nevertheless ensure that these traces of the past are preserved, since the cult of originality should not be a reason to erase this which remains from the past.
“We have the expertise to redo a building like this,” believes Mary Shee. “Taking photos of what is going to be destroyed, to keep a trace of it, as we are told it is going to be done, it is not the reality of our world and our history that we are protecting in this way. If in the United States they are able to preserve their wooden houses in villages, I don’t see why we wouldn’t be able to do the same in Quebec. The Ministry of Culture and Communications may oppose this demolition. » He should do it, believes the treasurer of the CQS, to set an example and not send the wrong message.