Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal
I'm sure that other developers in other cities do incorporate non-registered buildings. I guess what I'd like to know is: do they do it because the city asks pretty please, or because they decide themselves that they can market what's already going on in the building or that keeping heritage features fits with their corporate image and values?
|
I think it's generally a bit of both.
Certainly in Toronto, which I'm most familiar with, developers just tend to default to restoration. Some old buildings are thoroughly restored, inside and out, and form the streetwall/retail space at the bottom of towers, like
this and
this.
Some are standalone restorations, like
this.
And sometimes developers plan to demolish, but the city steps in and says "uh-uh."
Here`s an instructive example similar to the Doyle Block situation--non-registered buildings nonetheless worth saving. (The difference is that in the case of the Doyle Block, the Halifax buildings to be demolished are more worthwhile than the Toronto buildings being saved.)
The exception is in the old entertainment district/warehouse area, where a huge number of new condo towers has been springing up in the past decade. But even there, I'd say projects are split between 50% full (or mostly full) preservation, 50% facadectomies, and almost zero full demolitions.
This is what I`ve been used to, so to see a bunch of two-bit developers mowing down buildings in a city with far fewer historical resources is confusing, to say the least.