Horne and Pitfield Building Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Limak Investments

After thinking about this I don't like this proposal at all. The 'ask' is too much considering what they are 'giving' back. One also should consider the track record of the owner. I believe that Council is starting to consider this more and more with these types of rezonings and rightfully so.

I'm not the greatest at critiquing the details of architecture but I like the look of that tower.

Looking through the thread the main concern seems to be keeping the west and north facade of the original building, from the render I think they have kept the West and South and we don't know about the North and East? Honestly I don't know 🤣

I also share the skepticism, we'll probably never see this built, and if we do I don't think it would be well executed.
I share the skepticism just given the track record of the developer....and their website doesn't necessarily exude confidence. I will reserve my enthusiasm for when the ultimate watered down bait and switch stucco renders come out in the next revision.
A Limak.pnglittle bit sharper image... I get the hesitancy vis-a-vis the developer's past performance, but it would be nice to see this one go -- It looks like the lower portion would be reserved for hotel and hotel amenities with apartments or condos above.
I don't hate it, but again, why do we need to be doing facadism with our few remaining heritage buildings when there's a million empty parking lots in the area. And if we're doing facadism, we should be doing more than just the one side.

I especially hate that there's a real chance that they propose this, demolish the existing building, and then the project stalls. Because that's far too common an occurrence here.
The developer's track record of speculation & flipping land absolutely needs to be considered - regardless of how good/bad the proposal is. It's a practice that contributes absolutely nothing, leads to a loss of trust in the development process, and needs to be heavily discouraged by council.
^^^^ (up two) Yes, they have actually enhanced the southern facade over what was the original. They have tinkered with both facades (improvements in terms of details and character and have made allowances for more retail and hospitality penetrations). In my opinion, the rendering suggests more dignity for the old building over what it looks like presently. The north facade and the alley facade are throw-aways.
The design itself looks okay imo but in my mind it's kind of a B-grade Mackenzie Tower (literally looks like it has the same uses). I agree with the point about questioning the integrity of the developer to actually finish this project, and having a large heritage building in the crossfire if something goes wrong isn't great.