03-20-2015, 03:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2015, 03:22 PM by BuildingScout.)
(03-20-2015, 03:10 PM)panamaniac Wrote: You've have made comparable comments in the past abut other buildings, iirc. The fact that a building is not monumental, unusually old, or "beautiful" is not especially relevant to the question of whether it has heritage value in the context of Kitchener's urban core. We've lost a lot more than we've saved, so I hardly think the City is over-doing things on the heritage front.
So it's heritage value is that is the only building that uses Vitriolite. Do we need to keep a copy of every single material used in the past regardless if it is aesthetically appealing? Say, I dump a pile of wet cement on a Vitriolite foundation and it is now a heritage structure?
I'm willing to grant that I could be wrong about this (or other) buildings in town, but simply "this is the only example of X left" doesn't cut it unless X was particularly relevant to the local heritage, e.g. the last example of a Menonite hand raised barn.
We have no connection to Vitriolite, why is up to us to preserve an ugly structure which is now out of place given the forthcoming surrounding densities? I'd be perfectly happy if that structure got replaced by a nicely designed high rise with mixed usage, and in the atrium, featuring prominently, a large picture of the dry cleaners facade.