Why Ontario saves some of these "historic" buildings still baffles me. We see these huge subdivisions and a tiny farm house, or a massive condo development and a tiny shack in the middle...anyway...Not sure why anyone would wish Marlin Spring "go under". They do decent buildings and have actually been able to do whay they say. Plus all the deposits lost in the event something like that happens is a huge can of worms.
 
mbrienza165 said:
Why Ontario saves some of these "historic" buildings still baffles me.
Click to expand...

Ontario, as in the provincial government has nothing to do with whether a heritage building is preserved, beyond setting up the legal framework for such things.

It's the City of Toronto that chooses to designated a building for protection.

mbrienza165 said:
We see these huge subdivisions and a tiny farm house, or a massive condo development and a tiny shack in the middle...anyway.
Click to expand...

There are unquestionably some buildings preserved that leave most people scratching their heads; there are also others that people would generally wish to be preserved, but which you rightly note require some sort of appropriate context around them so they don't look ridiculous. However, there is very little in the heritage planning tool box to protect context. The closest one would generally get is a Heritage Conservation District. These are a less than perfect tool; and also in very limited use in suburbia.

mbrienza165 said:
..Not sure why anyone would wish Marlin Spring "go under". They do decent buildings and have actually been able to do whay they say. Plus all the deposits lost in the event something like that happens is a huge can of worms.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone seriously wants to see people deprived of units they've paid for; or trades or others go unpaid either; but I highlighted one statement on which you get fierce disagreement here at UT.

Marlin Spring is notorious for producing buildings generally seen to be unattractive and value-engineered to death.
 
5EDF39B2-226E-42B1-A9C2-38010B5CA60B.jpeg


Bright day for some additional images of the “Heritage” retention on this site…

A07D5F94-03D8-45B5-BEA5-5BB0D70385B4.jpeg



BA39D6AD-3F93-4363-9E58-9586ED175F83.jpeg


C738DE5B-CFC8-4554-9D32-BB8500C4E9D6.jpeg
 
Amare said:
I honestly dont even get the point of this "heritage" retention on this site. Notwithstanding the fact that the minuscule retention is going to look outright silly with the incoming drab by one of our most laughable developers.
Click to expand...
There's MANY pages of City Staff generated justifications explaining the point of this "heritage" retention on this site --- it clearly shows what staff believed our civic priorities to be in 2021 and early 2022...

LINK - https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2021.DM35.1
 
Amare said:
I honestly dont even get the point of this "heritage" retention on this site. Notwithstanding the fact that the minuscule retention is going to look outright silly with the incoming drab by one of our most laughable developers.
Click to expand...

In broader terms, as much as I prioritize housing; @HousingNowTO and I might differ on how to balance some competing priorities from time to time.

Here, not so much. This is pretty low (to no) priority preservation, so far as I'm concerned. It lacks aesthetic appeal, and I don't think there's much conjecture on that point; it hasn't served its heritage purpose in generations, nor will it be
restored to do so.......

I just don't see any real value here. There are many heritage buildings in this City we continue to lose outright, or except for a facadectomy that merit far greater protection than they were given; this, is not that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top