IanO said:
...

Density bonusing, density right acquisition and FAR transfer are tools that can work to achieve a win win, but we tend to look at sites as singular or distinct objects versus as part of a broader block or area.
Click to expand...
the only caveat to that is that density right acquisition and far transfer has to have value in order for it to work. when our planning department and council give away density for the asking, any density and far that could be transferred has an equivalent (ie zero) value.

i think for that framework to "work", owners of heritage buildings first need to be able to sell excess density.

second, owners wanting more density should be required to obtain it in the marketplace (even if the city needs to operate that marketplace).

third, the vending owner should be required to use a portion of the proceeds to set up and set aside a reserve fund account for the ongoing maintenance and repair of the property that will flow with the property and not the owner the same way it flows with a condominium property.
 
Clearshades said:
My point is, just be gratefully for the continuing momentum- any at this stage- as it is unpredictably right now. Even our recent boom barely dented the unfortunately empty lots that are still looming all over downtown.
Click to expand...
what's being proposed in this application isn't momentum, it's a step backwards not unlike the bank of montreal demolition on what was the tegler building site.

we did what we did at the brighton block because there were no other options. the interiors were literally - not just figuratively - rotten with the only other option just being to let itself fall in on itself. even so, we managed to retain all four exterior walls although we did lose a really sexy internal lightwell that had no foundations.

that's not the case with the horne & pitfield building.

from my perspective, allowing one wall to be retained in exchange for the additional density being requested isn't criminal but should be illegal.

not only will we lose a rare piece of our urban fabric and history, we're the ones that end up paying for it as well.

if there is going to be any additional density, it should be by density transfer to enable the building to be retained, not as a way to make its demolition financially viable.
 
I hope our city council will not allow itself to be duped again. Have we learned anything from the Tegler/Bk of Mtl fiasco devolution from a historic building to an empty abandoned lot?

I agree, preserve the historic building first and then if feasible allow other adjoining development to support it.
 
kcantor said:
if there is going to be any additional density, it should be by density transfer to enable the building to be retained, not as a way to make its demolition financially viable.
Click to expand...
Very good point that I never really considered. Why isn't density transfer a thing here? Maybe part of the reason we lose so many historic buildings?
 
tkoe_ said:
Very good point that I never really considered. Why isn't density transfer a thing here? Maybe part of the reason we lose so many historic buildings?
Click to expand...
because it is so easy - in relative terms - to acquire additional density by rezoning and using dc zoning, it is to all intents and purposes free. as long as it’s free, there is no marketable value in acquiring it in dinner other fashion (ie by density transfer). why buy something that is otherwise available simply by asking for it?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top