Quote:
Originally Posted by Built Form
I can't believe this! The heritage house is sacrificed for the tree!!!? In the original plan both would've been retained except for the intransigence of the owner of the neighbouring house concerning the tree. Now that he is co-operating over that issue why did the developers feel the need to nix the house? The word 'removal' is too vague. If they are going to move it then be clear about that; otherwise I fear the worst. Why would the city, who work with the developer behind the scenes, even entertain this option to be presented to council and the public?
Retention of our manmade streetscape is vital in a city that has destroyed so much of it's heritage. Imagine moving a 100 year old Gastown building to build a new structure. There would be public outrage and municipal opposition. Preservation of our heritage streetscape is no less important than the natural one. And in this case that tulip tree was planted by a person, it wasn't there beforehand. So in a city 125 years old does the eco-green agenda supersede that of a house almost as old?
|
Absolutely true. While it would be nice to save the tree, another can easily be planted and in a couple decades will be as nice as the original. The same cannot be said for the heritage house - its irreplaceable.