I'm pro-intensification (obviously, I mean I'm on this website) but I really hope they vote to preserve this building and it's interior. It's a unique case.
The existing circumstances carry strong heritage value in a very unique circumstance. The proposed condo does not carry anything unique whatsoever. It's a small lot, with an existing borderline heritage structure, and contamination underneath.
When compared to everything nearby, it has extremely high value as a historical/cultural site, but frankly no special value as a redevelopment site (in fact, probably lesser value than other nearby sites). Why allow a developer take something valuable and reduce it to something mediocre for personal profit?
Or from another perspective: If not this, then what is worth preserving? To be honest, if we decide not to preserve this, we might as well roll back to 1975 and not designate anything, because I doubt we'll find something more deserving.
If this were the 70s, would we let a developer buy and knockdown the old city hall for a condo?
The existing circumstances carry strong heritage value in a very unique circumstance. The proposed condo does not carry anything unique whatsoever. It's a small lot, with an existing borderline heritage structure, and contamination underneath.
When compared to everything nearby, it has extremely high value as a historical/cultural site, but frankly no special value as a redevelopment site (in fact, probably lesser value than other nearby sites). Why allow a developer take something valuable and reduce it to something mediocre for personal profit?
Or from another perspective: If not this, then what is worth preserving? To be honest, if we decide not to preserve this, we might as well roll back to 1975 and not designate anything, because I doubt we'll find something more deserving.
If this were the 70s, would we let a developer buy and knockdown the old city hall for a condo?