Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer
...so much better than anything you would ever read in the LP, which would just parrot back some City press release and never give any historical contect or colour. Great work.
|
I agree, this is a great article that provides a view point other than the developers. There are two lines in here worth comment:
'Bundon justifies the plan to knock down the Gordon Block by saying the building "has completed its useful life."
"The costs are absolutely prohibitive to restore the building," he adds.'
To this I call BS, first off it is a very generic statement, he doesn't cite specific reasons why it is cost prohibitive. What he probably should say is that if we knock it down, build a big sky scraper we can make way more money than if we gutted the existing building, reno'd it and then leased it out. Unfortunately most people won't question that statement they'll just take it at face value. I hope the cities heritage process has teeth and looks for proof of those types of statements.
The second line I'd comment on is:
'Regardless of what both bodies recommend, when demolition is involved, City Council has the final say. They can accept or reject a recommendation for or against demolition.'
This worries me, as the Hill family has a fair amount of influence in city hall, and if they get enough councillors to support it the building will get torn down. At the very least I'd like to see the facade saved but that would not fit in with the tower 4 look they'd want. This building has some architectural features worth saving, including the red brick, the tyndall stone, the detailed arch over the doors and the set of small metal lions heads that adorn the outside wall. Hopefully these can be preserved.
Prev
Linear Mode
