11-07-2019, 11:48 PM
(11-07-2019, 11:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote:(11-07-2019, 10:54 PM)taylortbb Wrote: I think a revised proposal that preserves the house would be nice, the argument for its heritage isn't unreasonable. However, they say that any tall buildings near the iron horse trail are problematic because it's a heritage landscape, that I strongly disagree with. A future with more active transportation is going to involve more people living near the iron horse trail, and that's good.
Is there some basis for the IHT as a "heritage landscape" (ie. is it so designated?) or was somebody just trying out an advocacy argument? It seems a stretch to me.
It is one of a number of them, so it is a formal designation. How construction that's adjacent to it affects that is the real question here.