haltcatchfire said:
This will be heavily visible on both sides for possibly as long as the lifetime of the finish itself, and anyone's first impression of the building will be of the sides before any other element of the building, approaching from either direction.

To the south, there's a gap between this and the six storey Kensington created by The Beehive building. The building to the north has the parkade ramp separation and is also set back quite a ways from the street further exposing the side.

The Beehive lot is so small that if anything new ever gets built there it wouldn't be much more than a few storeys so much of it won't be obscured.
Click to expand...
Right, so while the sides aren't the prettiest, at least they are doing something with them.
 
Mountain Man said:
I very much disagree that a blank wall would be better. A mural would be sweet, no argument there. The Bucci building to the south has a checkerboard of EIFS colours and they still did some sort of an art piece on it. There's hope that this can be improved still.
Click to expand...
True, a blank wall is no guarantee of a mural.
 
Mountain Man said:
I very much disagree that a blank wall would be better. A mural would be sweet, no argument there. The Bucci building to the south has a checkerboard of EIFS colours and they still did some sort of an art piece on it. There's hope that this can be improved still.
Click to expand...

I find a wall of random rectangles offensive. A blank wall is neutral.
 
Does anyone know how to get in touch with the new owners? I had a lien on this property after winning an RTDRS claim against the old company. There were several tenants involved and none of us have been able to track down info about what happened to the liens.
Trying to get in touch with the new owners.
 
Belljar said:
Does anyone know how to get in touch with the new owners? I had a lien on this property after winning an RTDRS claim against the old company. There were several tenants involved and none of us have been able to track down info about what happened to the liens.
Trying to get in touch with the new owners.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice but my guess is you are out of luck. I think this was the sequence of events-
- Previous owner stopped paying the mortgage and refused to demolish the building per the city order
- City hired a contractor to demolish the defective building and placed a lien on the property for their costs of demolition
- Once the building was demolished, the bank that held the mortgage foreclosed on the empty lot, and it was sold to the new owners
- City got paid back for demolition costs from the sale of the lot plus back taxes, bank got whatever was left after that. The city and the bank get paid before your private lien gets paid, unfortunately.
- New owners now own the property with a clean title

The city never owned the property, so you can't get anything from them. The new owners have no obligation to you after the liens were wiped from the title in foreclosure. You could theoretically sue the previous owners, but you'd likely be suing a shell corporation that has no assets, so there's no way to recover anything from them.
 
This DP goes to planning commission next week:
Report, Background, DP Drawings, Applicant Submission, UDRP Comments, CA Letter
1715956544117.png


1715956583642.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top