09-23-2020, 02:24 PM
(09-23-2020, 12:41 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(09-23-2020, 12:19 PM)Acitta Wrote: Seriously? It is an ugly old building. What heritage value does it have? Why do people want to keep ugly old buildings and call it "heritage"? I was dismayed by the commotion that occurred over the old shirt factory in the centre block. Does anybody miss it now? The Mayfair had heritage value, but what has replaced it is much better and I certainly don't miss it. Anyhow, the article clearly states that the developer wants to demolish the building.
The heritage value is in the unusual landmark front of the building:
https://goo.gl/maps/gqkrndH8eGsqMnDU9
The only reason that looks unattractive is due to being worn out, something that could be easily fixed by a restoration. In this case I agree the back is just some random industrial building, at least to a casual look.
I agree that we should use discretion in choosing heritage buildings and elements for preservation, but the choice should not be based on a casual glance and the observation that it’s old and worn out. Sometimes the most unusual and valuable items are hidden under decades of renovations and a myriad uses over time.
That being said, especially with the heritage component being so far back from the street, keeping it would give an outsized constraint on the overall development in this particular case. I would be quite surprised if it were retained.
On a different note, clearly there should be no parking minimum on this site. That close to an LRT stop the concept is absurd and offensive. I wonder how much parking the developers would like to provide? And what happens if they offer to replace a floor or two of parking with affordable housing?
I would have thought this would be a strong point of a creative proposal - use that space to create a small plaza, since a development of this size would be, one would hope, required to include public amenities and/or green space.