06-09-2022, 10:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2022, 10:09 PM by panamaniac.)
(06-09-2022, 08:36 PM)dtkmelissa Wrote:(06-09-2022, 07:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Not sure I see the relevance, in a heritage context, although demolishing a heritage structure guarantees that the public will never have access to it.I suppose I was questioning the community benefit of 'heritage preservation' in general, when the community can't even access those spaces. But yes, I'm not surprised by the decision of the heritage committee as this is exactly the kind of thing I suspect this committee was created for.
(06-09-2022, 09:46 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-09-2022, 07:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Not sure I see the relevance, in a heritage context, although demolishing a heritage structure guarantees that the public will never have access to it.
Panamaniac, you lived in Kitchener for a rather long time. How many times did you have the opportunity to see the interior of the building? If you only saw the facade (all I have ever seen in my 45 years in this town) then there is little difference between a preserved original building and a preserved facade on a new building (that provides housing for hundreds of people).
Yes, maybe they will open the doors in 2057, or something. But is that so valuable as to give up hundreds of additional housing units?
Dr Peta was my optometrist for many years, so I was in her office from time to time. I recall going in to the rest of the building on two occasions, one of them a Doors Open. The other time, I just dropped in and wandered around because I was curious.
The idea that heritage stops being heritage because it’s not open to the public seems strange to me.
Given its track record, I suspect that City Council will end up approving something close to what is being proposed.