The Metz (Schneiders site redevelopment)

[CTGal1011]

Sorry! Vernon and Courtland.

[Viewfromthe42]

I can at least confirm that they never sought to expand and take any of the south side Kent houses which will get surrounded a bit.

[nms]

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.

[robdrimmie]

The Lang Tannery buildings were equally contaminated and they too seem to have survived remediation.

True, but only in part. A considerable percentage of the complex was demolished.

[urbd]

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.

It depends on the intended use... if the building/site is intended to be redeveloped as residential, then more thorough remediation is required; if it is intended for office and retail, just superficial interior remediation is required.

[tomh009]

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.

In this case the contamination is not the issue, the structural integrity is.

[nms]

Structural integrity is sometimes in the eye of the beholder as well as their pocketbook. It is easier to argue to tear something down if your only measure is cost rather than other tangible or intangible factors. The (Joseph) Schneider House was saved when it could just as easily been torn down.

[tomh009]

Structural integrity is sometimes in the eye of the beholder as well as their pocketbook. It is easier to argue to tear something down if your only measure is cost rather than other tangible or intangible factors.  The (Joseph) Schneider House was saved when it could just as easily been torn down.

Sure, anything could be rebuilt, given sufficient time and money. Even Pompeii.

But in the real world commercial viability is also necessary. Of course the city can designate any building they so wish as historic, forcing the buyer to retain the said building. But too many (expensive) restrictions will make the properties more difficult (expensive) to develop and more difficult to find developers for.

[jeffster]

Structural integrity is sometimes in the eye of the beholder as well as their pocketbook. It is easier to argue to tear something down if your only measure is cost rather than other tangible or intangible factors.  The (Joseph) Schneider House was saved when it could just as easily been torn down.

Somehow I doubt structural integrity is an issue here. I think the issues are something else. Quite possibly Ontario accessibility law might make converting the manufacturing portion too complex and expensive.

Who knows for sure, looking forward to see what's in store. Can't save everything.

[Viewfromthe42]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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.

And some of the buildings are in that weird state where they are only a step away from being accessible. I feel like the King St. project started last year would have been a good opportunity to fix some of those. Wouldn’t help with upper floors, but most retail establishments are on the ground floor.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the last comment about racist zoning and related oppression. That is gone, and in any case there is no need to replace the buildings to eliminate it. By contrast, inaccessibility of a building may require expensive or even infeasible renovations to fix (depending on all sorts of circumstances including the use and size of the building).

[Viewfromthe42]

SFH zoning in urban areas can trace its roots through zoning which prevented owners from selling to non-whites, or which prevented having multiple non-related peoples living at one home (e.g. multiresidential), with the goal of keeping out non-whites and new immigrants. Today, it often has the same effect.

[Rainrider22]

SFH zoning in urban areas can trace its roots through zoning which prevented owners from selling to non-whites, or which prevented having multiple non-related peoples living at one home (e.g. multiresidential), with the goal of keeping out non-whites and new immigrants. Today, it often has the same effect.

WOW  that is strong words.  Please provide some evidence or hard statistical information to back up a comment like this...

[ijmorlan]

SFH zoning in urban areas can trace its roots through zoning which prevented owners from selling to non-whites, or which prevented having multiple non-related peoples living at one home (e.g. multiresidential), with the goal of keeping out non-whites and new immigrants. Today, it often has the same effect.

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.

[danbrotherston]

SFH zoning in urban areas can trace its roots through zoning which prevented owners from selling to non-whites, or which prevented having multiple non-related peoples living at one home (e.g. multiresidential), with the goal of keeping out non-whites and new immigrants. Today, it often has the same effect.

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.