It depends on who you talk to. It really looked like crap (IMHO) from the outside - a bad '60s/70s facade had been put over the original, and the entrance had been modified (extensively, I think). I'm pretty sure most of the interior had been degraded as well - I don't think any of the original fittings, etc. were still in existence.Planderella said:Did the theatre have any historic value? Was it worth saving? It seems like developers love to demo regardless.
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/news/story.asp?id=546F50CE-5FB0-4E57-9570-8A740D45443DA massive red power shovel that sat idle after the collapse had been digging at the base of the building when it "clipped" a pair of steel girders just before the accident, witnesses said.
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=22921Kyle Rae, a Toronto councillor, said the owner of the theatre told him Sunday that he was bothered by how the demolition of the seven-storey building was proceeding. "The owner of the building was concerned, but I don't know what the nature of his concern was,'' Rae said.
My inspectors have been discussing these questions too.CityGrrl said:
So, here are some questions that may be worth debating:
Why don’t we scrutinize demolition plans like construction plans?
Who is ultimately responsible for this situation?
Who could have prevented it?