Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple
It will involve far more than just retaining the church building. The developer is going to have to completely rebuild the church building from the inside out. It's crumbling. They'll also have to remove the 1970's era facade. It's a mess that offers little to no historic value.
My bet, this lot remains undeveloped, and the church will continue as it is now - a place for vagrants to hang out.
|
Not necessarily from the inside out - the inside appears to be fine, and they even said, if they left the stone facade as is on the outside, it'd probably be fine - its disturbing it at all that's the issue, as the brick behind it apparently turns to dust when you touch it, and because its been cemented to the brick, so removing the stone will damage and disintegrate the bricks.
And we get it thehonestmaple - you don't like it - you don't think it has historic value, but others do - including me - and that's why people have differing opinions in reality.
You and I are kinda like the 2 viewpoints of the developer and the city right now. There will always be those 2 viewpoints in history, because people value different things and find different things beautiful and worth keeping. We should probably stop beating this dead horse.
Also ANY property will continue to have vagrants hanging out there at this spot providing the good shepherd still remains beside it. They also hang out at copps across the street, and it's not abandoned. So that point is moot. It's not just the empty church attracting vagrants, its its proximity to the good shepherd and noone doing anything to shoo these people away, which is rampant all over the city right now. You build a new condo here, they will also take up residence there too.