01-22-2016, 02:44 PM
I think it's a matter of mindset.
Some people look at commercial buildings and see a waste of space. People are only in them for roughly 8 hours 5 days a week. The rest of the time they just sit there, empty. And then there's the waste of time of having everyone need to move from where they live to get to the space where they work for one-third of five-sevenths of the time. And then there's the waste of energy keeping it lit or warm or cool even during the vacant times.
These people will see a building and parking lot like the Bell building's that's mostly empty and think "Hm, there's something better we could be doing here. How about..."
Then there's others who don't. Or who more acutely see the cost actually doing the "something better". Or question whether the "something better" is actually "better". Or see what's there as good enough.
I'm glad to encounter all kinds on this forum.
(( For the record, I'm with tomh009. The building is under-used and it'd be awesome if it could be used at full potential or replaced with something different that would be.
That being said, I'm also with ookpik et al: there's probably nothing to be done without huge cost since the building is tied to infrastructure, and Bell just might not be interested in playing real estate (being too busy raking in record profits).
It is fun to think of "what could be" the same way it's fun to think about "what could have been". ))
Some people look at commercial buildings and see a waste of space. People are only in them for roughly 8 hours 5 days a week. The rest of the time they just sit there, empty. And then there's the waste of time of having everyone need to move from where they live to get to the space where they work for one-third of five-sevenths of the time. And then there's the waste of energy keeping it lit or warm or cool even during the vacant times.
These people will see a building and parking lot like the Bell building's that's mostly empty and think "Hm, there's something better we could be doing here. How about..."
Then there's others who don't. Or who more acutely see the cost actually doing the "something better". Or question whether the "something better" is actually "better". Or see what's there as good enough.
I'm glad to encounter all kinds on this forum.
(( For the record, I'm with tomh009. The building is under-used and it'd be awesome if it could be used at full potential or replaced with something different that would be.
That being said, I'm also with ookpik et al: there's probably nothing to be done without huge cost since the building is tied to infrastructure, and Bell just might not be interested in playing real estate (being too busy raking in record profits).
It is fun to think of "what could be" the same way it's fun to think about "what could have been". ))