7/24/2014 4:32:50 PM
The developer conned the City or the City turned a blind eye.The City issued a building "minor alteration" permit, not a demolition permit and that works out to 80%? The City would have had to see the plans, NO?The developer kept calling this a restoration in the article. What purpose was making this a heritage building?
7/23/2014 2:10:38 PM
I'm all for preserving old churches. I'm against tearing down any building that is of historic or architectural significance. I believe there should be legislation that automatically protects them. The difficulty with that thinking is structures that have a large open space inside (like a church) have limited secondary use. Although I'm sad to see it go I'm happy the facade survives.
7/21/2014 4:02:55 PM
good I, those pictures are hard to look at. Idiots. I saw the church on street view still. I couldn't see anything wrong with it. It's not particle board it was stone and brick. I thought we had laws against this. Ridiculous that this is rubble now.
7/21/2014 3:42:57 PM
Too bad it has to be demolished it`s a beautiful building.
|Show All comments|