News   Jul 11, 2024
News Roundup for July 11, 2024
 364     0 
News   Jul 11, 2024
Urban Canyon
 507     1 
News   Jul 10, 2024
Industry Updates: Addressing Housing Affordability, Progress in the Port Lands, and Celebrating REX Award Winners
 685     0 

204 Beech - A Family's Battle to Build a Home

AGTO said:
Sure you are, boy....but you certianly don't act straight...not that there's anything wrong ....just admit it, you'll be a better person for it ;)...and, you may even gat laid!
Click to expand...
.................
[video=youtube;1tqxzWdKKu8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8[/video]
................
[video=youtube;yj4LnfkdJDM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj4LnfkdJDM[/video]
 
picard102 said:
The Open File report was pitched by his business partner, his firm works with the Toronto Star, and he has a fairly large social media presence. He may not be pushing the story.
Click to expand...

You know something interesting: Star connections or no Star connections, I highly doubt Christopher Hume would be (at least on his own volition) the sort to wholeheartedly side with the proposal over the preservationists--quite the contrary, in fact...
 
Why can't they keep the old house intact, and just install a glass box around it? That way, a future owner could simply knock down the addition if they chose to revert back to the historic look. If they can do it with the Galt library, they can do it here.... This proposal is just very uncreative.
 
4659891589_407757bb8e.jpg


so how is wheelchair girl going to get up those stairs?
 
Zoning bylaws are just immoral

Well, situations like this are why I'm opposed to zoning bylaws. The moratorium on new child daycare facilities in Toronto is another.

Then again, I'm a libertarian so I believe in things like property rights. So I realize I may be alone on this. :)
 
brockm said:
Well, situations like this are why I'm opposed to zoning bylaws. The moratorium on new child daycare facilities in Toronto is another.

Then again, I'm a libertarian so I believe in things like property rights. So I realize I may be alone on this. :)
Click to expand...

Minimum setbacks are another aspect of zoning by-law stupidity.
 
There's very little justification for zoning laws. They destroy development, create artificially imposed shortages of services that increase the cost of everything, from food to daycare. And urban planning is ultimately reduced to a political exercise with NIMBY groups distorting everything. I want to run for Mayor of Toronto and push to abolish the Official Plan completely. :)

At most, I would impose development taxes to correspond with transit costs. For instance, I would impose higher development taxes in more remote areas and lower taxes in transit corridors and let developers go to town. 100 storey building at Yonge and Wellesley? No problem!

If NIMBYs complain, "sorry, there's nothing we can do."
 
This came in from Sandra Bussin's office. I know some of you will cheer, but I think the latest moves are disgraceful.


Re: 204 Beech Avenue.

Unfortunately, and despite the Councillor best efforts, the attempt to save 204 Beach is not achievable.

Based on the issuance of a building permit to the owner of 204 Beech Avenue by the Building Department on Friday June 11, 2010, in accordance with the applicable laws of the Ontario Building Code, to remove the dormers, the turret and related interior alterations to the existing dwelling, reasons no longer exist to designate or list 204 Beech Avenue as a heritage property because of the removal of its most significant heritage features.

We were quite shocked by this development, but as explained to us by officials in the City's Buildings Department this is perfectly legal. Without 204 Beech actually being listed already, the Buildings Department could not deny the applicant/owner a building permit to, in effect, make changes/renovations to the house.

The Councillor deeply regrets what has happened here. It is now in Mr. Teehan's court to do the right thing. This is unlikely and we suspect that the construction hoarding is being erected to perform the removal of the features.

I am attaching a link to the an article written by Christopher Hume in yesterday's Toronto Star regarding the challenges in our city and province regarding the preservation of our architectural heritage. Councillor Bussin is quoted.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/localhistory/article/826524

The Councillor would like to thank you for your emails and phone calls expressing support for the saving of 204 Beech Avenue.

If you have additional questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact our office.
 
Perhaps the backlog should be processed much sooner rather than later so these occurrences do not happen again?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, this is another failure of our heritage legislation and the way the City deals with it.

Again, the backlog is enormous - 8,000 properties plus on the list, plus a two-year wait to put through designation. There needs to be more staff, a streamlined process, a supportive Council, better legislation, and more funding from all levels of government. It's pretty dire right now.
 
Can't they do it by an omnibus bill as a catch all - and then remove the heritage listing/designation on an as-needed basis? Instead of having to justify the heritage value of each and every single buidling, wouldn't it be more logical to say that buildings above a certain age are by default heritage properties - and that it is up to the proponent to suggest the merit of their replacement?

AoD
 
Last edited:
I don't think the government would go for that Alvin, because people scream about property and personal rights.

But you are in the right frame of mind - a property here should be considered for its heritage values first and then everything else should revolve around it as they have in other cities which place a great emphasis on it and development. We just don't have that culture here though, and it always gets the shaft.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top