08-28-2017, 01:36 PM
Anecdotally as well, any time I've heard neighbourhood voices speak about that building, in paper directly or from any council discussion, it's been of the mindset that no business be set up there which would cause cars to come and go (isn't that the heritage of that building, however? To be a workplace and have many cars coming and going at start/end of workday? Why do we never talk about preserving *that* kind of heritage?). So I always hear of it in the form of 1) don't put a business there, and 2) don't generate more traffic than the equivalent acreage of single family homes (that lot would take a few homes, were it like its neighbours), and 3) do not allow for any additions to the site which would add square footage, regardless of use.
Issue for that site is that the remediation (of the land) and restoration (of the building) will be so expensive that you could not pay for them with just the current square footage created for average market prices. So if no expansion is allowed, the only way to get someone to develop would be to pay for the remediation/restoration out of city coffers, to give the neighbours what they want (again, based on all I've ever heard from them). I seem to recall there being a proposal at one point to densify that site to be 6, maybe 8 storeys of units, which got some of the most heated opposition.
Issue for that site is that the remediation (of the land) and restoration (of the building) will be so expensive that you could not pay for them with just the current square footage created for average market prices. So if no expansion is allowed, the only way to get someone to develop would be to pay for the remediation/restoration out of city coffers, to give the neighbours what they want (again, based on all I've ever heard from them). I seem to recall there being a proposal at one point to densify that site to be 6, maybe 8 storeys of units, which got some of the most heated opposition.