Comment 73593

By Thinking Critically (anonymous) | Posted February 01, 2012 at 11:57:21

I will agree that useful buildings should not be torn down. I will try to make this statement objective, as opposed to subjective, by that I am qualifying useful buildings as appropriate in their size/shape relating to their location and intended use. (I will not comment on the architectural/heritage merit of the building as this is somewhat more subjective) If this building no longer suited the owner's use, then it should reasonably be changed. That is not to say it could not be sold, or renovated to improve it's functionality. Perhaps this is a case of the round peg fitting into the square hole - it fits, but if you look on the other side, the appropriate [location] can be found. (note: I do not equate looking on the other side to suburban development)

However, I will put forward a second statement that the School Board building seems to be one of unique uses and functions in its present design configuration. Meaning that any future owners/users would need to have very similar corporate structure and needs to make use of the building without major renovations. Simply put, the current building if not undersized, is currently not making effective use of its floor plate, and is not living up to its potential based on it's location. I concede that urban greenspace is not to be taken for granted, but City Hall's larger greenspace across the road trumps the School Board's - pleasant as it may be. Perhaps a larger building or series of buildings with more street presence would better realize this location's potential.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools