Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
I would argue the numbers depend on many factors like upkeep done over the years, property taxes (which may depend on development potential), and heritage incentives.
|
You may be correct. But we'll never know, because nobody saw fit to challenge Armour's numbers. So we can only conclude that they were accurate and defensible, or that they weren't but Heritage Trust simply made a huge tactical blunder in choosing not to gather expert evidence to debunk them.
In fact, they chose to contest the Waterside project
solely on heritage grounds, on the premise that the intent of the MPS was that a building's heritage registration status makes it essentially untouchable, regardless of the wishes of the owner or who has to bear the cost -
whatever the cost - of preserving it. That, arguably, was a very big legal miscalculation.
Quote:
|
I'm not necessarily against the development per se, but I think the new street level construction is so-so. I have no issues with the Duke St side.
|
And I'm not necessarily
for the development
per se. I wasn't against it in principle but hate how some of it turned out. Not having street-level retail, particularly on the Duke-Upper Water and Duke-Hollis corners (ideally, restaurants or pubs, but not necessarily) was a shameful mistake, in my opinion. It used to be an interesting, active area. Now it's deader than Kyrie Irving's brain (and potentially career).
Quote:
|
And of course let's all note that Waterside was cut down to a very low height for no good reason, reducing the potential budget.
|
Agreed. Ridiculous.
Threaded Mode