Mississauga Heritage Conservation Record = CRAP

[Jarrek]

www.mississauganews.com/m...7638c.html

Yet another heritage home (or what was left of it) goes down the toilet. How many heritage properties will the city allow to rot, burn or be demolished and paved over?

The city action on heritage properties? Inaction. Sit back, relax, let nature take it course.

For a city that doesn't have too many century homes to begin with, you'd sure think that the folks at city hall would wake up and do something.

Some examples of Rotting Mississauga Heritage Properties:

1480 Derry Road East - RAE HOUSE(1860)
This property has been rotting away since the late 90's. It's been vandalized pretty often lately, and part of the roof has collapsed.

www.mississauga.ca/ecity/...peg&id=421

1840 Derry Road East - ROBINSON-CLARKE HOUSE(1870)
Large Beautiful Victorian Mansion is all but boarded up since the late 90's. Stuck between two giant industrial buildings.

www.mississauga.ca/ecity/...eg&id=2878

174 King Street East - 164 TRACHSLER'S HOMESTEAD(1830)
One of the oldest homes in Mississauga. Boarded up, Developer plans to build subdivision. Unknown if this home will be saved or not. This building was never designated. The brains at city hall missed this one and just recently applied for a "Intent to Designate as Heritage"

www.mississauga.ca/ecity/...peg&id=793

784 Eglinton Avenue West - J. SANDFORD RESIDENCE (1870)
Set on fire - twice. Referenced in the article above. Ontario Heritage Act? What Act?

www.mississauga.ca/ecity/...eg&id=1594

And that's not counting the half dozen lost in the past few years to demolition or development. Too bad the city doesn't have the creativity to come up with a heritage zone like Markham.

Shame.

 

[SD2]

But Jarrek, Mississauga was built to be a surburb for driving...not for history .

Seriously though, it's sad to see these buildings left to rot.

You'd think McCallion would be sensitive to heritage issues since she was probably around when many of these properties were built.

 

[jeicow]

They've done better in the south. The north is where the problems are.

 

[ganjavih]

I feel your pain, Jarrek.

 

[building babel]

Is there enough spare land left in Mississauga to create a Markham style heritage zone even if they wanted to?

 

[spmarshall]

There are heritage zones - Meadowvale Village is one. Meadowvale is interesting because it is so isolated - Derry Road was bypassed and 2nd Line all but closed to through traffic. Maybe Mississauga could have some of these homes moved there. I'd rather not move buildings, but being surrounded by ugly warehouses is worse. (The Barbizon restaurant at 10 and Eglinton, an old farmhouse, in contrast, kind of works) I especially am concerned about the Mount Charles buildings at Derry and Airport.

Brampton's equivalent to Meadowvale is Churchville, on the other side of the 407 - a tiny village (still with a volunteer fire station!) that has been allow to kind of be splendly isolated from the sprawl around it.

 

[FutureMayor]

As a past member of the Mississuaga Heritage Foundation I would have to agree that our city gets a failing grade when it comes to protecting our Heritage buildings.

For the longest time the arguement has been that provincial legislation allows developers to get away. With a new act in place, the latest arguement is that province didn't give municipalities the funds to enforce the new rules.

That being said, Mississauga does have several historic houses successful reused and incorporated into new developments.

More recently, the city designated the west side of the Credit River in Port Credit, south of Lakeshore as an historic district. Streetsville is being worked on.

Louroz

 

[tudararms]

I don't have an issue with buildings being moved. To me, it just becomes part of the building's history. If a building can be preserved and better appreciated or utilized by relocating it, where's the harm?

 

[Jarrek]

I'd rather not move buildings,

If the building will be demolished or just forgotten and left to rot, it's better to move it.

Period.

 

[spmarshall]

If you had read the rest of the sentence, you'll see that is exactly what I meant. It is still much better to keep buildings in situ if there is at least some sympathetic surroundings and the building kept up.

 

[adma]

I don't have an issue with buildings being moved. To me, it just becomes part of the building's history. If a building can be preserved and better appreciated or utilized by relocating it, where's the harm?

The harm is in loss of context and theme-park trivialization. Except as last minute/desperation gestures, "Pioneer Village" tactics tend to be frowned upon these days, and even newer concepts like Markham's heritage subdivision (or Building Babel's "facade district" notion) are open to suspicion...

 

[building babel]

As far as I'm concerned, when all "context" has disappeared ( when, for example, all adjacent buildings from the same era have been demolished, and the building that remains has no historical significance that ties it to that location, and it is surrounded by new towers that are visually out of scale with it ) carting a structure off to the Facade District - where it can chatter and drink tea with other old buildings from the same era that are built to the same scale - makes far more sense.

 

[adma]

No it doesn't; it's so peevishly macabre and patronizing that, well, give me gross jarring urban disjuncture anyday...

 

[ganjavih]

If context was that important, every modernist building would end up in some "modernist district".

 

[building babel]

Not a bad idea at all when you consider the significant Modernist buildings we've already lost, or are losing, if that had been a way to save them for continued use and enjoyment by future generations.