Ha! I was waiting for someone to argue that as it's been a surface parking lot since 1956, it's a Heritage parking lot, and why can't Onni go and buy a different parking lot to put their rental building on?
Ha! I was waiting for someone to argue that as it's been a surface parking lot since 1956, it's a Heritage parking lot, and why can't Onni go and buy a different parking lot to put their rental building on?
Normally I'm not a big fan of "heritage facades" but I think retaining the front of these buildings and having a large development on the corner and mid-rise or something to the 8 storey at the east end of the block would be a better use of rapidly decreasing available density. Instead of a block of a mishmash of developments and heights.
Anyways, there probably is some zoning and what not that would prevent this grander vision. However, when there ain't no more easy density left in CBD and larger-and-larger buildings start getting demolished (we are already seeing this) and development encroaches on areas around the CBD then people will look back and think we shouldn't have wasted all this CDB density.
I'm normally not a big fan of the "heritage facade" but I think it would have been a much better route than preserving these two buildings at the cost of two unconnected developments, a large amount of wasted density, etc.
I'm normally not a big fan of the "heritage facade" but I think it would have been a much better route than preserving these two buildings at the cost of two unconnected developments, a large amount of wasted density, etc.
It's certainly a missed opportunity for now, but don't you think Onni tried to buy them, but the owner or owners weren't interested? It's not completely wasted density, it just hasn't been utilized yet. A development of those two buildings might even be possible in future to a similar density as the Onni rental buildings, without a rezoning, but with a Heritage Revitalization Agreement for the facades
Prev
Linear Mode
