Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed

[tomh009]

I sort of agree with that. To add, trying to force them to preserve the interior may be an overreach and could set a bad precedent. By that, I mean, heritage advocates could make it hard for anyone to make interior changes. Years ago I rented an apartment that for sure had interior heritage (arched hallway openings, unique wall finish, etc) that I am sure many would want left alone. Not saying that the interior should have been changed, but bad tenants sometimes ruin the interior that make major renovations necessary.

That said, they might be able to mimic the interior so that it duplicates what used to be there.

No offence but restoration is definitely the proper route in a case like that. We have a 150 year old house and have needed to do major renos, but have made sure to keep things like the original plaster, crown molding etc. 

As for setting the precedent of having to preserve heritage buildings. Honestly not one I'm too against. Theres still plenty of parking lots that could be redeveloped downtown that I'd rather see gone before a heritage building has to go. 

If the heritage restrictions were extended to interiors, every homeowner in a heritage district would need to get approval before making interior changes -- no kitchen or bathroom reno without heritage committee approval, for example. You would not have had full control over your reno decisions, either. I do expect that would make a whole lot of people unhappy.

In any case, I don't think this building is a heritage-listed property, or is it?