Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
If you look on Google Maps, the lots are quite a bit deeper than the houses. The developer could demolish the already-ruined building next door and then connect to the rear of the other buildings such that there would be almost no difference at street level.
Even better would be to build on the space behind the registered heritage houses and leave them as they are. I am not sure if this runs afoul of some density or land coverage rules though. If it does that is something the city should fix.
Often when developers pick out heritage properties to redevelop it's because there's a building with a small footprint on a huge lot that according to the city's planning rules can accommodate a lot more units.
|
Yeah, it's pretty obvious how a high-quality development could be accommodated while retaining the two worthwhile buildings in full. The footprint of the buildings in question occupy probably less than one quarter of the total area available for development.
But that leaves the developer in a situation where they can't use the hypothetical square footage above the existing buildings. I wouldn't be surprised if that concern trumps heritage in their minds.