[Didama]

Sorry Ken, not sure I'm with you on this one. Keeping this beauty protected from the elements should be a pretty minor expectation. I don't know the full story behind the current ownership and if your assertion that without them this building would have already been torn down a long time ago is accurate. But I don't think Ian set the bar too high with his statement.... this building is a local institution and asking/demanding that the current owners make sure the basic integrity is kept in tact, is not overstepping in my books. The collective 'WE' on this site often gripe about how we don't protect our history, so holding owners of historic sites to account is fair game, even if they have done good things for buildings like this in the past. Let's raise the bar.

 

[Avenuer]

Reparing a roof to a minimum standard to not allow water penetration from above is a pretty minor fix tbh. The fact that seemingly has not been done does not make the owner look good at all.

 

[David A]

Sorry Ken, not sure I'm with you on this one. Keeping this beauty protected from the elements should be a pretty minor expectation. I don't know the full story behind the current ownership and if your assertion that without them this building would have already been torn down a long time ago is accurate. But I don't think Ian set the bar too high with his statement.... this building is a local institution and asking/demanding that the current owners make sure the basic integrity is kept in tact, is not overstepping in my books. The collective 'WE' on this site often gripe about how we don't protect our history, so holding owners of historic sites to account is fair game, even if they have done good things for buildings like this in the past. Let's raise the bar.

I suppose whatever the current owners have done in the past have done to preserve this building should not be ignored or dismissed, but importantly it is really also an ongoing task or responsibility of ownership.

So if they seem to be dropping the ball now, they need to be held to account for that as much as possible by the collective 'WE' and others.

 

[kcantor]

Reparing a roof to a minimum standard to not allow water penetration from above is a pretty minor fix tbh. The fact that seemingly has not been done does not make the owner look good at all.

The last time I toured the building, the roof was in reasonable condition and the only “standing water” in the basement was some seepage in the extension that was/is under the city sidewalk.

 

[IanO]

I believe that is incorrect from most recent reports.

 

[kcantor]

I believe that is incorrect from most recent reports.

Well I can only comment on what I've seen first hand noting that some time has passed since that tour.

I would also note that the Princess Theatre has a full basement that extends under the sidewalk, a main floor that includes the theatre (which extends across the full floor and includes an arched plaster ceiling), a "multi-split level" mezzanine floor that includes the washrooms, the projection booth and the balcony seating; and a full third floor (less a very shallow light well on a portion of the east wall) that used to be offices and apartments and that is now chock full of what appears to be loose laid zonolite on the floors ( ) with some "walking paths" of boards and old doors.

I could be wrong and I'm not disputing that there could still be some water in the basement but I would think that if it was the roof that was leaking in a multi-floor wood frame building, that there would be ample evidence of moisture and deterioration being reported well above the basement and that, in my experience, would be far more detrimental to the state of the building.