Comment 75014

By jackson (anonymous) | Posted March 05, 2012 at 10:01:07 in reply to Comment 75011

I wonder if the attitude of Turkstra, Bratina et al about the building stems from their generation's gut instinct that they - and I don't mean them personally - totally screwed up our city in the 60s, and so here they're trying to make amends in the only way they know - by doing the same thing they did in the 60s! It was an attitude that said buildings are merely pieces of the urban fabric that can be put up or taken down at will. It was built on the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's post-war opening of the coffers and the fed's guaranteeing of homeowner debt - buildings can just be built; credit can just be extended. So if there is a problem with the building - too large a setback, too few people using the forecourt - then you just try again. It ignores the fact that buildings are expensive, or rather it ignores the fact that costs of a building are far greater than merely the capital line or the depreciation. It ignores the fact that taking down a building means uprooting a community and filling a landfill. I think newer generations are getting this idea. I expect a time will come when the very idea of demolishing a building will be seen as sacrilege - not to mention that the price (here I go on price again) of construction and demolition will be more accurate and hence unjustifiable.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools