adma
Superstar
More height to encourage the developer to retain 258 Victoria isn't much of a carrot as the site would be incredibly narrow. This does reflect why we need a complete inventory of our building stock although I'm not convinced 258 Victoria would qualify for heritage status.
As per the report, the property already has "heritage status", together w/its Dundas Square neighbours. It's the degree of retention-worthy status that's under discussion here. (And it's one of those reasons why, as I've said elsewhere, Toronto really needs a heritage inventory system that reflects "degree" to some extent, whether through letter rating or colour coding or whatever else.)
With that under consideration--while I'm as much a connoisseur of the c1920 brick industrial-loft aesthetic as any, let's not make *too* much of anything here, because for what it is, it'd probably be no less threatened anyplace else. Not to discourage retention; however, proceed w/caution, because otherwise, you're just feeding these kinds of message-boarding jerks and yahoos...
Didn't you know? Most people on this forum will consider a 10 year old junk yard an important "heritage structure" that helps give more character to the streetscape. It boggles my mind how a new development replacing an older development is ever a bad thing (unless of course the said older development truly has a historically important role).
Of course, one assumes w/the final sentence, ahmad.m.atiya would probably gladly sacrifice even the main Dundas Square Hermant/HNR buildings...