06-28-2021, 01:54 PM
(06-28-2021, 01:00 PM)Bjays93 Wrote:(06-28-2021, 12:49 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Arguably interior design is less "valuable" for preservation because generally only the owner of the building is able view and enjoy it. I can see the other side of the argument, too, but then it's a big change to the heritage preservation policies, and would require the heritage committee to view the interiors of all the heritage properties in order to determine which ones should be preserved inside as well.
As someone who is going into politics and also loves history I politely disagree. The merit of the value of heritage items is not based on what is more easily seen by the public eye and what isnt. Its about preserving our history which I believe is incredibly important.
Heritage gives us a glimpse into the past and reminds us of where we came from. It also allows us to better understand generations, styles building and art techniques and so on. Obviously not all buildings are worth saving but not everything should be razed to the ground. This is clearly a timeless building and one of the nicest in the core. 200 years from now if it remains as is it will be a total standout, even more so than now. That's why I think some buildings like this, are absolutely worth saving.
As I said, I can see the point. But the heritage regulations should then be updated to enable the city to inspect interiors and approve interior work as well, in addition to the exterior approvals. At this time no one has done any inventory of the interiors of the hundreds of protected heritage buildings we have.
As of right now, if there were not a condo proposed, the owner of the building (yes, it's Momentum) would be fully within their rights to completely strip out the interior and put in drywall, California ceilings and oak strip flooring everywhere. It's simply not regulated.