(02-12-2018, 08:49 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(02-12-2018, 08:44 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: OK, but I don’t think that has anything to do with heritage preservation.

Heritage preservation does sometimes mean preserving inaccessibility of some buildings, but it in no way preserves racist or otherwise problematic zoning: there is nothing wrong with the buildings that makes them unusable by black people, for example, even if the zoning regime under which they were built was explicitly racist (and just to be clear, I know very little of the history of zoning and even less of the history of zoning specifically in this city so I haven’t a clue what influence racism might have had on our zoning).

I guess I’m saying I think you’re raising two separate issues, both of which are reasonable topics for discussion, but it’s probably best to keep them separate as they both may be contentious and combining them together isn’t going to improve the situation.

I think it is a valid point that, today, lack of affordable housing affects some groups more than others (with the majority group being the least affected), whether or not this is the *intent*, it is still worth keeping in mind.

Hard to say whether advocating for zoning which makes housing unaffordable is racist is another question, it is absolutely classist which is bad enough on it's own.

(02-12-2018, 05:47 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Accessibility really seems like something we have chosen to ignore. Walk around UpTown and Downtown and have a look at how many buildings aren't accessible. They are historic and preserved, but definitely not accessible. It's unfortunate that we forget some of the things we are inadvertently preserving when we preserve "heritage" buildings, things like inaccessible spaces, or neighbourhoods created and zoned specifically to exclude non-whites/new immigrants.

(02-12-2018, 10:21 PM)jeffster Wrote:

(02-12-2018, 05:47 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Accessibility really seems like something we have chosen to ignore. Walk around UpTown and Downtown and have a look at how many buildings aren't accessible. They are historic and preserved, but definitely not accessible. It's unfortunate that we forget some of the things we are inadvertently preserving when we preserve "heritage" buildings, things like inaccessible spaces, or neighbourhoods created and zoned specifically to exclude non-whites/new immigrants.

When their is a major renovation done to a building the law states that it must become accessible. Older buildings in the cores aren't accessible, and will never be accessible, as long as major renovations don't take place.  

I used to do work for this restaurant in Waterloo. They wanted to do some renovations to the place, but it required that the place become accessible, which is isn't for either employee's or customers.  This restaurant is split level, with bathrooms on the basement, and main customer area upstairs and that was also where the kitchen was.  The costs to make the restaurant properly accessible was way too expensive, would have required removal of a huge section of customer spaces and installation of an elevator.  I thought with creative design it could have been done, but at the same time, I'm not writing the cheques.

Older buildings. and for example, a place to look at is Crabby Joes on King in Kitchener, were not designed for people with mobility issues.

(02-12-2018, 10:25 PM)darts Wrote:

(02-12-2018, 10:21 PM)jeffster Wrote: When their is a major renovation done to a building the law states that it must become accessible. Older buildings in the cores aren't accessible, and will never be accessible, as long as major renovations don't take place.  

I used to do work for this restaurant in Waterloo. They wanted to do some renovations to the place, but it required that the place become accessible, which is isn't for either employee's or customers.  This restaurant is split level, with bathrooms on the basement, and main customer area upstairs and that was also where the kitchen was.  The costs to make the restaurant properly accessible was way too expensive, would have required removal of a huge section of customer spaces and installation of an elevator.  I thought with creative design it could have been done, but at the same time, I'm not writing the cheques.

Older buildings. and for example, a place to look at is Crabby Joes on King in Kitchener, were not designed for people with mobility issues.

Elevators are expensive PITA

(02-09-2018, 01:58 PM)nms Wrote: The Lang Tannery buildings were equally contaminated and they too seem to have survived remediation.  I expect it's the old 'cheaper to build new than to keep what we have' argument.  It's always fun to watch when, in an effort to make the case for replacement, that adjectives like "old", or "time-worn" are attached to perfectly good infrastructure that just needs some repairs.

(02-14-2018, 12:34 AM)MacBerry Wrote:

(02-09-2018, 01:58 PM)nms Wrote: The Lang Tannery buildings were equally contaminated and they too seem to have survived remediation.  I expect it's the old 'cheaper to build new than to keep what we have' argument.  It's always fun to watch when, in an effort to make the case for replacement, that adjectives like "old", or "time-worn" are attached to perfectly good infrastructure that just needs some repairs.

Some of the old/newer factory buildings have two foot thick concrete floors ... probably a factor in how many units will fit or the integrity of the building if you start chopping which is also engineering and profit. I'm sure there are 20 other reasons probably more accurate.

(04-27-2018, 03:59 PM)white_brian Wrote: Demolition has started in the rear yard

(08-16-2018, 10:17 AM)panamaniac Wrote: I wonder if the first development on the site might not be renovation of the office building on Courtland?  Seems like the low-hanging fruit.