dgto said:
Glad to hear that the developers are going to now have to spend millions of dollars to preserve these relatively ugly, uninteresting and decaying "heritage" facades
Click to expand...

Those facades are not ugly and in any event will be restored. Disagree w/you strongly here.
 
I agree full stop. This is in fact some of the best stock in the neighbourhood among the older commercial shops on this stretch. It needs some refurbishment sure, but it's detail work and demonstration of later 19th century architectural form is very telling in this area, mostly due to how different this main street area is compared to that time of course.
 
maybe I can make a more nuanced point then, without judging the existing building (even though, subjectively, I don't think it has significant enough architectural value to justify conservation).

I think any time heritage conservation is required, even if it is just retaining facades, we need to be thinking about the tradeoffs. These include increased construction costs and longer construction timelines. These costs are ultimately passed on to future residents/ tenants of these buildings. There are also potential issues around accessibility and environmental performance when you are required to preserve facades which have to be mitigated. Without knowing all of the details in this case, I am still wary that the negative implications of preserving these facades are worthwhile.

Another point I would make is that in my view, the main thing worth preserving here are the small-scale storefronts, not the facade itself. I wish we paid more attention to ensuring that small-scale storefronts are viable in new buildings, rather than requiring expensive physical conservation.
 
dgto said:
I think any time heritage conservation is required, even if it is just retaining facades, we need to be thinking about the tradeoffs. These include increased construction costs and longer construction timelines. These costs are ultimately passed on to future residents/ tenants of these buildings. There are also potential issues around accessibility and environmental performance when you are required to preserve facades which have to be mitigated. Without knowing all of the details in this case, I am still wary that the negative implications of preserving these facades are worthwhile.
Click to expand...

There were trade offs here, the developer/proponent will do just fine, no worries.

dgto said:
Another point I would make is that in my view, the main thing worth preserving here are the small-scale storefronts, not the facade itself. I wish we paid more attention to ensuring that small-scale storefronts are viable in new buildings, rather than requiring expensive physical conservation.
Click to expand...

This point has merit, and I've discussed extensively in different threads how that could/should work. The long/short of it is the need for bowling alley units that are narrow, but deep w/limited window frontage. The challenge in delivering that is the elevator core and loading functions often impair addressing this.

To be clear, it can be done. But it requires more imagination that most builders in this town usually show. (loading below grade, mail room/lobby above grade, elevator off centre or even at the rear of a building (which changes typical residential floor plans)
 
Northern Light said:
There were trade offs here, the developer/proponent will do just fine, no worries.



This point has merit, and I've discussed extensively in different threads how that could/should work. The long/short of it is the need for bowling alley units that are narrow, but deep w/limited window frontage. The challenge in delivering that is the elevator core and loading functions often impair addressing this.

To be clear, it can be done. But it requires more imagination that most builders in this town usually show. (loading below grade, mail room/lobby above grade, elevator off centre or even at the rear of a building (which changes typical residential floor plans)
Click to expand...
right, you may say that the developer / proponent will do just fine. but we need to recognize that many planning decisions reduce the number of units that are built, and/or increase costs for the developer which end up being passed on to the buyer/renter. we need to recognize that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
 
dgto said:
right, you may say that the developer / proponent will do just fine. but we need to recognize that many planning decisions reduce the number of units that are built, and/or increase costs for the developer which end up being passed on to the buyer/renter. we need to recognize that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

I've just told you there was no such tradeoff here. That the developer will do fine.

I'm not guessing, I know.
 
As far as we can tell, heritage considerations are really not the cost drivers, not even remotely most of the time.
 
Undead said:
As far as we can tell, heritage considerations are really not the cost drivers, not even remotely most of the time.
Click to expand...

I agree...

However, just to be fair, this one will probably be a bit more costly. (its closer to reconstruction than simple restoration, and involves changes to the facade at grade to allow for level entry to the building) However, everyone will need to wait to see the final offering here.
 
I wouldnt mind seeing the heritage buildings moved to inside an atrium or courtyard of the proposed development.
 
dgto said:
I wish we paid more attention to ensuring that small-scale storefronts are viable in new buildings, rather than requiring expensive physical conservation.
Click to expand...
I agree, but am told one of the major issues is MPAC reassessment, which makes small storefront uneconomic post redevelopment. They have to address that issue - basically grandfather the tax rate if the storefront retains the same street exposure (dimensions).

Curious to see the wind mitigation as that seemed to be a real sticking point for the city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top