Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns
Its really not up to any of us what codes are applied - it's up to the City in the interpretation of the NS Building Code. The code has different rules for a reno and then a teardown/rebuild. They are even more complicated when it comes to an attempted retention of a heritage building.
My understanding with the Roy situation is that regardless of whether it was a 'renovation' or rebuild; it would be up to the building inspector to attempt to bring it up to code. Because its a 'rebuild' it's easier.
Regardless of whatever we think; the decision on the Roy has been made. I have to agree with Keith, the developer has made the decision on what they are building and the city has agreed. Whether we like it or not; that's what is going to happen. I'd suggest that if we have thoughts on 'what should have been' we make sure that we preface it as a hypothetical discussion.
|
It's been made and that's fine—I'm just saying that Fenwick16's interpretation of building standards as they apply to the Roy is wrong. (Basically, it's exactly what you said: The rules are different for renos vs. rebuilds vs. new builds, and a reno of the building would never have required it to be brought up to the same standards as a new structure, with roomier floor joists and all, as he implied.)
I think it's important to bash these ideas out because they're relevant to planning and the city's future—Fenwick16 seemed to be arguing that the demolition of old buildings is inevitable, because they're not up to modern codes. Obviously, this is untrue.
That's all.
Threaded Mode