Out with the old, in with the new. This is the motto that we as Americans seem to be always dwelling on. In example Jesse McCartney was one of the biggest pop stars not more than five years ago. He began to perform with other bands and in 2006 he came out with his own CD. But no longer than 2 years after his rise in music did his career take a downfall as Justin Bieber started to rise in fame. Justin is wildly famous now and is a huge idol to many teenage girls and others. There are no longer posters or commercials or frankly anything on Jesse but no matter where you go there is usually some kind of thing about Justin. We have completely forgotten about Jesse McCartney and have moved on with the “new”. We are doing the same thing with our nations historical buildings. We have destroyed historical buildings repeatedly to put in a new store or little café but we don’t realize what we are doing. Many of these little non-important places that we are demolishing are packed full of historical and interesting facts. Instead of getting rid of or destroying these things, we can simply restore them to their former glory.
Although rehabilitating or restoring an old building is a challenge, it’s worth while. Saving heritage buildings saves natural resources. “About 20 per cent of Canadian landfill content is from demolition” (“Heritage”). Instead of using many trees to build an entirely new building and using more oil to use the machinery to build these structures, we could simply use at least half the resources and restore the building. Restoring historical buildings also pays back. “Restoration and rehabilitation using local materials and workers keeps money in the community” (“Heritage”). Many companies will usually look for employees that have more experience to do their work, and a lot of times those employers come from other cities or states, but if we find people within our own community that can do the same work, we can keep the money with our community and help our townsman. “A comprehensive study of the economic impact of rehabilitating and restoring heritage buildings was conducted by the Centre for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University in New Jersey. The study compared the investment of $1 million US in rehabilitation versus new construction that only brought in about .5 million.” (“Heritage”). Besides all these great advantages to restoring historical buildings the biggest advantage still may be that it is cheaper to restore a building than to destroy and rebuild. Donald trump once said that many people would say that it's cheaper to build new than it is to reconstruct. That's not true. He said that he has always found that it's much cheaper to use an existing structure. Now, doing so is more complicated, and you actually have to be a better builder to do that kind of work, but if you know what you're doing, it costs you less money. “A lot of the building is already done -you already have your structure -so that's why it's much cheaper.” (Donald Trump Preservation Online)
One of the most beautiful buildings in Canada is Osgoode Hall. Osgoode Hall originated as a two and a half storey brick structure. By 1970 the building had flourished to occupy an entire city block. The architect and builder was John Ewart. “The original wood center range of Osgoode Hall was scheduled for expansion in 1833 but never was” (Susan Hall). From 1837 to 1843 Osgoode Hall was occupied by the military. The deterioration and infestation of the building necessitated restoration. In 1844 the center range was reconstructed. The west wing of Osgoode Hall was built in the same year. In 1844 the west wing and new centre range were designed by a well known architect named Henry Bowyer Lane. “The expansion of 1858 was to accommodate the new Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Appeal” (Susan Hall). This important addition became necessary by the 1850's. The owners of Osgoode Hall held a competition for the construction of this new addition.