CityPlaceN1 said:
Are you saying the domino theory applies here? First St. Thomas then The Annex? Not likely.
Click to expand...

Err, you're saying the domino theory applies here...you're saying since most of the dominos have already fallen, why not go back and push over the final three to mop up the pesky remnants? As adma says, this approach will ensure that only explicitly protected houses will remain (unless they fall down on their own) and redevelopment of the rest may even be encouraged.

It's one thing to look at redeveloping houses on a case by case basis and another thing to actively seek out and destroy such Victorian outliers, an approach your argument supports.
 
Hmm, looks like they're not getting rid of that gorgeous apartment block after all. Some good news for a change!
 
I'm confused. So both University Apartments are staying? But only one is being incorporated into the St. Thomas?

Edit: I just reread the proposal.

8 St. Thomas (the renovated one) is being retained, and the facade of 6 St. Thomas will be retained with the new building set back two metres from it.

onestthomas.jpg
 
Another absurd forced-marriage.

If ever we needed an up-and-running Facade District to ship all these elderly architectural widows off to, so they can sit and sip tea and chatter together in a chummy little group, that time is now.
 
urbandreamer said:
How soon before Theatre Books and the other red brick Victorian across the street bite the dust? Next luxury condo cycle?
Click to expand...

Bah, there's plenty of them around. Tear the old girls down and continue building nesting grounds for the rich. They'll soon be out of context there and will only attract pesky commoners to the street.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top