06-09-2022, 09:46 PM
(06-09-2022, 07:33 PM)panamaniac Wrote:(06-09-2022, 06:50 PM)dtkmelissa Wrote: I don't understand the value in saving a building just for the sake of saving it - when most people never has access to this space. What's the point of saving it if it's essentially locked away from most of us? When this was being discussed (last year?) some delegations made a big deal about the fact that once (in 2016 I think) for one day this building was open to the public for Doors Open. But other than that, most people have never been, nor ever will be in this building. I'd rather see it used to house people (while saving and reusing as much as they can).
Not sure I see the relevance, in a heritage context, although demolishing a heritage structure guarantees that the public will never have access to it.
Panamaniac, you lived in Kitchener for a rather long time. How many times did you have the opportunity to see the interior of the building? If you only saw the facade (all I have ever seen in my 45 years in this town) then there is little difference between a preserved original building and a preserved facade on a new building (that provides housing for hundreds of people).
Yes, maybe they will open the doors in 2057, or something. But is that so valuable as to give up hundreds of additional housing units?