Ah the post were you implied that the design of the new home was some sort of "stylistic trojan horse". As if they were sitting at home waiting for the opportunity to build this subversive structure in an attempt to undermine the rest of the neighbourhood. Next you'll be telling me that they are driven by the illuminati.
No, you're misreading my point. It's nothing to do with deliberately "undermining the neighbourhood". Rather, it's to do with sweetening their own pot, i.e. do it stylishly contemporary rather than faux/retro, so the design critics'll say "oh, wow" and stop the neighbourhood complainers in their tracks. And using the "non-heritage" status of the existing property as an alibi. In some ways, it's an attempted neighbourhood version of the Mies TD Pavilion replacing the old Bank of Toronto (which *wasn't* listed or designated--above all, because listing and designation as we know it didn't exist yet) 40 plus years ago.
My point is actually
pro such "subversive" design in principle; but that they should have been more conscientious in choosing where they built it--sort of like, if you had to do the TD Centre all over again, you couldn't get away with trashing the old Bank of Toronto. It may look cool and contemporary (though in all honest, I feel this cool/contemporary look's turning into high-style commonplace cliche to the point of "meh"); but the spirit behind the property choice is pure monster-home obtuseness. In which case, it might just as well be retro-schlock design, for anyone cares.
I really do appreciate that the street as a whole can be seen in it's entirety as a historical district, as with the Distillery District, Queen W (as people have resisted redevelopment of this very valuable land), hell they are going through the same process in my 'hood with defining the Woodbridge heritage district (ironically they have named individual heritage structures and set design standards wrt to new development. Something missing from Beech Ave.). Quite simply I disagree with you. One cannot be expected to think that every property they plan on purchasing is a heritage structure.
What, pray tell, is your problem with that principle? Look around you in Woodbridge at the brain-stem-deadening teardowns and monsters that've already occurred for proof of why that might actually be a good principle to encourage. And such a principle needn't be just cubbyholed into a certified "heritage district." Spread your scope. Heck, if you know Monsheen Drive (just off Islington + 7, a remarkable street of 50s contemporary unless it's been McMansioned lately), I'd encourage *that* to be a heritage district, or treated as such.
And besides, heritage districts can't be done in an instant. They take time (often years of it) and elbow grease; the logistics are daunting, which is why there are "fewer than necessary" in Toronto. In Vaughan, though, it's easy stuff, because what's, uh, "historic" is quite compact and distinct, nodes like Woodbridge and Kleinburg and Thornhill.
Indeed, maybe there's the problem there: you're Woodbridge, I'm Toronto--your experience is more "parochial", and you're surrounded with vulgar WTF types who'd kick my arse. You're undernourished.
I still stand my prior point. If the family followed all the regulations to the letter of the law, and had the plans approved by the city. Who are we, or the neighbours, to jump in suddenly and say hold on a minute I think this has heritage value and proceed to have it designated without so much as consulting with the owners.
Did the family even bone up on the Beach/Beech neighbourhood before going about the plans? Or even more so, how about the agent? AFAIC, the best, most conscientious real estate agents are those who don't merely sell a raw "property", they sell the style, they sell the story, they sell the neighbourhood. They can turn the buyer on to the story behind the house--they can make it sexy. They can be important factors behind a Napoleonic approach to "heritage". But if they're just selling a dumb house with nothing more than a dagger (or lack thereof) in official city plans indicating "heritage status", well...
On second thought I think I will petition to have the Island airport designated heritage so that it can remain for evermore. Wonder how the Island residents would react to that
Now, here's where you truly are a heritage ignoramus from backwoods Woodbridge.
The original 1939 terminal already does have national heritage status--and I'd highly encourage heritage consideration for some of the other outbuildings like the older brick hangers, the butterfly-roofed 50s hangars, etc. It doesn't mean you have to preserve the airport function; they could be repurposed for post-airport functions--and as such, they may indeed be "safer" than if they remained part of a functioning airport. That is, the ones who'd ultimately
really object to such heritage designation aren't the Island or Bathurst/Spadina/whatever Quay residents, but the hardcore Porterphiles eager for a state-of-the-art "contemporary" airport.
Yet Napoleonic-law is not in practice here (Toronto/Ontario/Canada) wrt to heritage structures is it? You may have your opinions however we must follow the laws of the land right? I mean I may believe in capital punishment but that is not practiced in Canada. I can argue until I'm blue in the face that criminal x should be executed but it's not going to happen. Petition to have the laws changed than.
We're not talking de jure "laws of the land"; we're talking about de facto laws of principle to be encouraged--to the point where it becomes as natural as any other conservation practice we might once have sneered at as granola-munching weirdness. To turn
us into "Napoleonic" practicioners--and that way, you'll find it
is in practice, by anyone who takes active, conscientious interest in the home they purchase, "heritage" status or no.
Funny that you bring up the "capital punishment" biz. And given your geography, leaves me wondering if you're the sort to prefer a Mayor Fantino to a Mayor Miller...
Ahh more personal attacks. Nice to see you staying above bar.
I am still entitled to my opinions no? Just because you don't agree with my opinion you seek to have me silenced? Nice.
Yeah, but it's fun to
really turn the sword upon with the undernourished opinions of a message-board-posting amateur. So you think you rool; and Lloyd Alter + Michael McClelland drool. Sure.
The difference is that these districts sought out and have a heritage designation. This neighbourhood has had opportunity to have it designated and yet did nothing until this situation came up and still they have sought out heritage status only for the building in question and not any of their houses or the neighbourhood as a whole. Either they were disinterested or ambivalent about a heritage status until now. And furthermore I still don't see how one single building would completely disrupt the neighbourhoods character.
Funnily enough, even the HCDs I refer to don't discourage such "one single building" situations--you can find decent works of contemporary architecture (and provisions for likewise) in most of them.
But furthermore, you seem to not understand that this isn't about one single building disrupting the character; it's about one particular
loss as the character-disrupter. Indeed, I'm one to
discourage the neighbours--
and their critics--from turning this into an pro-vs-anti-contemporary-design issue. That's why I raised the Trojan horse hypothesis; to clear that particular air.
And it's
exactly issues like this that help spark HCDs into being--it isn't like they spring out of insipid "we love our neighbourhood" thin air, you know. So, maybe, "now's the time". You're complaining "why not before"; may I respond with, "why not now". And as a foot in the door, individual listings such as this one (much as other Toronto HCDs co-opted pre-existing heritage-status properties).
Final point I respect your opinion but respectfully disagree and given your personal attacks this will be the last post of yours in this thread that I will reply to.
So, you said "Uncle". Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
