04-16-2016, 11:04 AM
(01-29-2016, 01:48 PM)nms Wrote: An interesting metaphor. I think the original objection was that while more space is being proposed and built, not enough is being done to consider those who might be displaced. Building a shiny new residential building, with a few floors of mix-use commercial office space, suitable for a high-tech start-up or a brew pub is nice, but it doesn't help those who are displaced. The problem is systemic and everyone has a part to play to solve the problem. The problem is also not unique to Waterloo Region, nor to this era in history. Complaining about heritage restrictions that prevent ideal solutions is a false argument that avoids the larger issues. The world is littered with "solutions" that overcame anti-change attitudes as well as heritage defenders. While some solutions worked, others did not, sometimes spectacularly.
Heritage does play a role in it though, to maintain/renovate heritage buildings does have increased costs in themselves so a properly maintained one would have to have higher rent.
In addition it affects nearby buildings and land as well. If I know nearby buildings can't be redeveloped it won't increase the the rent cost to the current tenants but will increase the price at which I would sell the building/land which would impact the rent to the new tenants for the redeveloped site. On the reverse if no one buys it and redevelops it into a larger space the supply of units available to rent will not go up and that will have an effect of rent prices down the line.
I'm not saying it is the only issue at play but it can't be ignored and just marked as an 'anti-change' attitude there are real costs involved with heritage both direct and indirect.