Quote:
Originally Posted by DireRaven
I agree with the PEC on this one... doesn't feel like it or many of the buildings on that list should be listed as heritage buildings. The cost to maintain them gets really high. The owner hopefully has some interesting plans for it.
|
The problem with an official designation is that it is only welcome by hardcore heritage advocates, or niche owners/developers with a deep commitment to heritage. For the mainstream owner or developer however such a designation is a bit like a woman of hundreds of years ago being forced to wear a scarlet letter: an untouchable to be ostracized and persona non grata. Unless someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is, much like the aforementioned woman no one else would touch that building with that designation with a 10 foot pole.
It would be very difficult to find a developer who will pay double or triple the nominal construction cost to rehabilitate the ancient structure and then convert it into residential, jump through the labyrinth of special heritage restrictions and approvals, and then be able to turn a profit considering the limited number of units that could go into that size of building and what the asking price per unit could be charged to tenets/condo owners considering the working class/post-industrial wasteland that neighbourhood is. It might be economically feasible if this was in a trendy spot in Manhattan, but it certainly isn’t that.
Yes, the building is very interesting and it would be very interesting to see what could be done with it by a dedicated heritage developer with very, very deep pockets and patience. I can’t imagine that the current owner is that guy though (unless he’s a lot richer than he seemed on TV). I suspect that he just wants to be able to sell it for a reasonable price in the future, and an official heritage designation would likely badly handicap that price, or even no one being interested in buying it at all.