Look up toward the rooftops in Victoria's Old Town and you'll see subtle changes to the skyline.

Steadily, additions have been tacked onto the tops of heritage buildings to assist in their transformation from crumbling brick eyesores to trendy downtown condos.

Most are discreetly done - set back to be less visible from the street - but they are there, more noticeable perhaps from a distance, or maybe from a nearby street or the upper floor of another building.

Depending on who's talking, the additional units are an economic linchpin in saving historic buildings from becoming bulldozer bait or architectural folly, forever affecting the integrity of heritage structures.

Developer Chris Le Fevre, whose name is almost synonymous with Victoria heritagebuilding rehabilitation, says such projects are "very, very expensive" and couldn't be done without additional density.

"These are propositions built of high risk, significant overruns, and unless you're a guy that's got some serious substance behind you, you're in troubled waters," he said.

Architect and former Victoria mayor Alan Lowe agreed. Lowe recently shepherded through a heritage alteration application for the Hoy Sun Ning Yung Benevolent Association that included two extra storeys on the association's 127-year-old buildings in the 500-block of Pandora Avenue at Fan Tan Alley.

"It makes or breaks a deal," Lowe said of the extra space, adding that it's difficult, if not impossible, to cover the costs of a straight heritage rehabilitation/conversion without it.

"No bank is going to lend you money when, at the end of the day, you're just going to break even," he said

Victoria Coun. Pam Madoff, long considered council's heritage conscience, has recently found herself on the losing side of council approvals of additional storeys.

Madoff maintains other jurisdictions have managed to encourage heritage restoration without additional floors.

"If you look at other cities that have old towns that are regarded in the same way that ours are - if you go to Montreal, if you go to Quebec City - they don't do this. So what are we doing? Are we actually degrading an asset that is regarded internationally as having importance?" Madoff said.

"What I have found with these projects is they say: 'If you stand on one leg, on one corner and close your eye, you can't see it.' But what kind of a decision is that?"

Madoff believes council should re-examine the principles behind additions in heritage rehabilitations, looking at their impact on Old Town. If they are to be done, she said, council should look at how to do them in a defensible way, factoring in issues such as building materials, form, character and scale.

"So there's the question of, 'Should you do it?' Then the next question is, 'If you do, what should the architectural approach be?"

Steve Barber, senior heritage planner for Victoria, says the city uses national standards and guidelines for conservation of historic places in Canada - a federal, provincial and territorial collaboration - as a guide in evaluating heritage proposals involving additions. Barber said it's the city's policy to consider rehabilitation of heritage as opposed to restoration.

Rehabilitation involves sensitive adaptation of a heritage building or component for contemporary use, while restoration involves accurately returning a historic place or component to the way it appeared at a particular period in its history.

Since 2006, additions have been included in a number of downtown heritage building conversions, including: the Hudson at 1701 Douglas St.; the Portland Hotel/Finch Building at 719, 721-725 Yates St.; the Vogue at 1400 Government St.; the Monaco at 1401 Government St.; and the Morley Soda Works Building at 1315-1317 Waddington Alley, just to name a few.

Victoria council recently approved additional height for Le Fevre's New England Hotel on Government Street.

Le Fevre says upper-floor additions to heritage buildings are common throughout Europe.

"It's not putting something that is a new edifice on top of that building and ruining the sanctity of the appearance of the building from the street or elsewhere. If it was, you shouldn't be doing it," he said in reference to his New England Hotel project.

Some additions are controversial. The Fan Tan application was for a heritage alteration permit only. Council couldn't have refused it based on the additional height, as it was permitted under the existing zoning. Still, the prospect met with resistance. In fact, about 3,000 people signed petitions against it.

Hallmark Heritage Society president Ken Johnson says the additions can have pros and cons.

"It changes the heritage but at the same time preserves the heritage," he said, adding that some of the buildings are at risk of demolition or worse - fire.

"Can you imagine a fire starting in that part of Chinatown?" he said. "It would sweep through those buildings very quickly. So every time you save one of them, you save probably two or three more at the same time."

The city has long recognized the value of restoration of historic buildings. Grants of up to $50,000 are available to assist with facade restoration, structural improvements, upgrading required by building codes and other rehabilitation costs. And the city offers tax exemptions of up to 10 years as an incentive for owners of downtown heritage-designated buildings to convert upper storeys to residential use.

Lowe says the 10-year tax holiday doesn't come close to covering rehabilitation costs.

"The seismic-upgrade portion is only a part of the cost of the project," Lowe said. "That tries to put developers on an even playing field with somebody who is building new."

Madoff argues Victoria's financial supports are quite generous, however. She thinks council should consider requesting independent third-party analysis of developers' costs in heritage restorations where additional density is being sought.

Johnson agrees and notes that the city may be headed in that direction. Councillors recently received staff recommendations that, in part, called for an independent, third-party financial analysis of a condominium proposal that ties development of a five-storey, 56-unit condominium building to restoration of the heritage Northern Junk buildings on Wharf Street near the Johnson Street bridge.

"For quite some time we've said to council: 'These people say they need this to make it pay.' How do we know that's true?" Johnson said.

But Le Fevre calls the idea "hopelessly inappropriate."

"Firstly, no one is qualified to do that, and secondly, it's placing a subjective judgment on some third party who really doesn't understand what's going on. So I'm totally against that approach," he said.

Le Fevre said the notion of a blanket policy for heritage buildings is also flawed.

"Every building's circumstance is different. They need to be examined on a case-by-case basis," he said.

Mayor Dean Fortin agreed that a request for financial analysis may be wrong-headed.

"Since I was a rookie councillor, the statement has always been: It's not our concern whether a developer makes money or loses money," Fortin said. "[Our concern is]: Is it an appropriate land use? Is it an appropriate development or addition? Is it sensitive to the surrounding areas? So it's a land-use decision, not a financial decision."

He said it's not a surprise to see the applications for increased density, since council was told several years ago there were only three or four buildings where the 10-year tax holiday would be sufficient incentive to encourage conversion.

"[We were told] the low-hanging fruit will be picked very quickly, and you will be faced with these decisions of either allowing additions or, conversely, facing the teardown and demolitions," Fortin said.

Meanwhile, Le Fevre said, there are not many buildings left in Old Town suitable to retrofit into living spaces.

"You could probably count them on one hand," he said.

bcleverley@timescolonist.com

FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR HERITAGE REHABILITATION

The City of Victoria uses the national Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada for the rehabilitation of historic buildings.

The following are those guidelines-recommended policies:

- Placing functions and services required for the proposed use in existing non-characterdefining spaces rather than constructing a new addition.

- Constructing a new addition to retain as many of the historic materials as possible and to ensure that the character-defining features are not obscured, damaged or destroyed, or the heritage value undermined.

- Designing a new addition in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new.

NEW ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC PLACES RECOMMENDED

- Considering the design for an attached exterior addition in terms of its relationship to the historic place as well as the historic district or neighbourhood. Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the historic place. In either case, it should be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids and colour, yet be distinguishable from the historic place.

- Placing a new addition on a non-character defining portion and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic place.

- Placing a new addition on a non-character defining portion and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic place.

- When required for a new use of a building, designing a rooftop addition that is set back from the wall plane such that it is as inconspicuous as possible when viewed from the public realm.

NOT RECOMMENDED

- Constructing a new addition when the proposed use could be met by altering existing non-character-defining spaces.

- Constructing a new addition so that the character-defining features of the historic resource are obscured, damaged or destroyed, or the heritage value is otherwise undermined.

- Duplicating the exact form, material, style and detailing of the historic resource in a new addition so that the new work appears to be part of the historic place.

- Replicating a historic style or period in a new addition.

- Designing and constructing new additions that diminish or eliminate the historic character of the resource, including its design, materials, workmanship, location or setting.

- Designing a new addition that obscures, damages or destroys character-defining features of the historic place or undermines its heritage value.

- Constructing a rooftop addition to a building so that the historic appearance of the building is radically changed.