Amazingly, a security guard onsite says that they're going to keep at least the facade of the burned house. Construction work going on inside the house's shell would seem to corroborate this.
Amazingly, a security guard onsite says that they're going to keep at least the facade of the burned house. Construction work going on inside the house's shell would seem to corroborate this.
So it's literally burned and demolished down to the facade layer of the house now. The facadism here is going to end up as absurd as One Bedford and RCMI.
So it's literally burned and demolished down to the facade layer of the house now. The facadism here is going to end up as absurd as One Bedford and RCMI.
Hmm? i see there is not much left of the house which was suppose to be a standalone structure,
unless they can mimic what disappeared it unfortunately will get demolished
If it were to be demolished, every builder in the City would torch every heritage building they were required to incorporate into their developments, so thankfully…
I don't care for the insinuation that every heritage property owner will torch their buildings. It was an awkward attempt of heritage inclusion. Is spite the only purpose to recreate that awkward situation with new construction? Wouldn't hefty fines be a better recourse for arson?