If preserving architectural variety and historical context are to matter much at all, I don't see the point in demonizing the folks at heritage.
I think they've made some bad calls over the years in saving some things with little merit and letting others go or allowing them to be facadectomied where they should have been more diligent.
There are also some questionable calls on what architectural compatibility is feasible/desirable, again, both ways. I've seen heritage fuss to make a new build uglier so it didn't 'compete' with the heritage and I've also seen lots of over-building allowed (cantilevering specifically) that I think is almost always a mistake, but it removes the context and has the modern dominate and overbear the old.
I think it's completely fair to question the merit of any given decision, but I'm leery of what sounds like 'why bother saving anything'
***
One thing that strikes me though is that we tend to insist on keeping an original facade, or certain original interior elements, rather than rebuilding them identically with new, when the latter would be far more cost effective (often).
The building in this case is relatively simple, inside and out. The principle reason for retention would be area historical context and exterior architectural variety. I don't see why you couldn't require identical custom brick and just rebuild it.
There might be one really worth while interior element and this too could be replicated.
It should be said, Heritage designation doesn't preclude this option, but HPS will generally resist it. I wish they wouldn't.
IF there's enough there to merit wholesale preservation, in situ, then redevelopment should simply be off the table.
