junctionist
Senior Member
He's had to respond to the same sorts of comments so many times around here that I can understand his frustration. But the alternative is indifference, which isn't good for the city's heritage.
|
|
|
This Week in Heritage Preservation Crimes
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
jn_12
Senior Member
There's a greater issue here than simply this one building. It's the fact that there isn't nearly enough resources available at city hall to determine what should or shouldn't be listed as built heritage. You're going to run into these issues over and over again (this isn't something new, at all) until you attack the problem at its source. I know Oakville has just started a heritage planning team consisting of a half-dozen people and some interns. If Oakville can do that, Toronto really needs to dig deeper.
Eug
Senior Member
Maybe not a McMansion, but to see that torn down for something else reasonable, rather than look at that run down POS? Most definitely.
BTW, I'm glad you posted that, since this particular one is a good example of some of the political farce that exists in certain heritage designations.
That house was designated a heritage site not because the locals really wanted it designated a heritage site, but because the owner wasn't fixing it up. So, they supported the proposal to get it designated as a heritage site thinking it might force the owner to fix it up. However, the owner still didn't fix it up, but now that the city has done that its hands are even more tied, because the city's contractors don't want to touch the place.
Even more sadly ironic is that the owners previous to the current owner wanted to respectfully renovate it and make it into a shop, but the locals were afraid it would generate too much traffic to the area, and they tried to stop it. And they were successful... Be careful what you wish for, as it were.
Last edited:
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Have you read a single thing in this thread? In one eye and out the other, eh?
AnnetteMeetsJane
Active Member
More constructively....
What is the best way to protect potentially historically significant buildings from wanton destruction by developers in future?
I really like the suggestion of an automatic stop-work order on any building which is proposed for designation. If the City did pass an ordinance like that, it would seem to me that it would behoove the city to make speedier decisions on the applications, which may not be practical.
In the UK, there is much more legal weight in the historical designation (listing) system. There have been a number of cases of owners destroying buildings that are proposed for listing. Now, the owner/destroyer can be made to rebuild like-for-like the original building. However, you never get the actual historical building back - just some copy. The idea is that the punitive cost of rebuilding acts as a deterrent.
AmJ
What is the best way to protect potentially historically significant buildings from wanton destruction by developers in future?
I really like the suggestion of an automatic stop-work order on any building which is proposed for designation. If the City did pass an ordinance like that, it would seem to me that it would behoove the city to make speedier decisions on the applications, which may not be practical.
In the UK, there is much more legal weight in the historical designation (listing) system. There have been a number of cases of owners destroying buildings that are proposed for listing. Now, the owner/destroyer can be made to rebuild like-for-like the original building. However, you never get the actual historical building back - just some copy. The idea is that the punitive cost of rebuilding acts as a deterrent.
AmJ
matix
New Member
oh adma.. that must make you feel good to be so clever. good for you.
And Scarberian.. I still don’t see it. It looks like a stucco mcmansion somewhere off pine valley road in kleinburg.
In keeping with AmJ..
The easiest thing to do, would be not issue demo or alteration permits for anything on a significant list. Wouldn’t be so hard. But, SURPRISE – I don’t think that’s a good idea either.
Does this area warrant a heritage consv. District? Then maybe, I could get on board w/ u guys. If not, no need to single out this house imo.
Last edited:
matix
New Member
and.. if this house is close to being designated.. then there has probably been a heritage report on it.. which i'd gladly read. post a link if anyone has got one.
adma
Superstar
Sure, but did you read the report? It's almost like you're arguing that it's only because of those pesty locals that it has "heritage merit"*** at all--that is, it might as well be an undistinguished 60s bungalow, for all anyone cares. That it's strictly political--as opposed to the possibility that it might have overarching heritage merit in spite of the locals. (Which, indeed, "the owners previous to the current owner" backhandedly affirmed.)
If that's the case (and that colours your perspective of the Austin Terrace situation to boot); then, Eug, from a heritage standpoint, maybe it's you who deserves that figurative Marla Hanson razor blade across your face. Which, in literal terms, might as well be like forcing you to continue to "look at that run down POS" whether you like it or not.
***nb: "heritage merit" as opposed to "heritage status" All too often, there's a chicken-and-egg situation that confounds amateurs and mere mortals out there...
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
Or, at least presenting the persona thereof. With a bit of an ironic wink to the likelihood that a lot of the boards' denizens who may or may not have protesteth were more likely to be afficionados of such sites. Tapping their inner id, IOW. (Besides, in the Perez Hilton/Drunken Stepfather era, the long-mythologized barely-legal + upskirt + links-to-illicit-sites web aesthetic is practically superstar mainstream.)
adma
Superstar
In a case like this, it'd be a matter of "report pending". In which case, momentarily defer to this
and remember: its author was at the photo op, too.
And re your quote
it should be framed and mounted as an A-1 demonstration of the kind of amateur-idiocy opinion-mongering on heritage that happens on web message boards.
Eug
Senior Member
Err, no.
The objection to the conversion of the place was based on projected local traffic. The owners then decided they didn't want to fight the myopic locals and sold the place. However, at that point there was no discussion amongst the locals about pushing heritage designation at all. That discussion came with later owners.
The sad part of it all was that the intent was actually to keep the design as is, fixing the exterior, and just updating the innards, but people fought tooth and nail against it (ie. essentially against its preservation) because it might bring a viable business to the neighbourhood.
So again, I'm glad you posted that example, as it does illustrate your ignorance of its ironic and unfortunate history. I will freely admit I'm ignorant of much of the discussions on that place from over the years, but evidently not as much as you are.
Again. I am not at all surprised by this response... unfortunately.
I'll just have to hope you don't represent the greater group of heritage preservationists.
Last edited:
matix
New Member
pending? if you really new anything about the heritage process.. you'd know this report exists already. and would be good for both of us to read
meh.. you probably think the City requiring all condo developers to provide metro passes to purchasers is a good idea.
we'll rarely be on the same page. and i'm ok with that.
Last edited:
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
You spelled grammar wrong in your edit blurb.
Even if heritage value was something that could be picked out of a lineup - and it isn't - you're about as reliable as the witnesses in My Cousin Vinny.
Development and demolition permits were denied so that the heritage matter could be investigated/sorted out by the city. That's why the developer 'legally' (and I probably need to point out that those are air quotes) trashed the house to force a more favourable outcome. It's been stated about 10 times already...how many more times will be necessary for you to appreciate what's going on here?
Until all the loopholes in the heritage process are closed, developers will find ways to slip through them. Oops, there's a leaky roof that wasn't fixed. Oops, a window cracked. Oops, that termite damage was ignored for years. Oops, we just smashed the trim and portico off with a sledgehammer.
adma
Superstar
But you're not answering the issue of whether it, in and of itself, is of heritage merit. You're merely presenting it as a local/NIMBY issue, not as a heritage issue--or, as it were, conflating the two. Essentially, you're viewing this through a heritage-philistine prism; and it's not a matter of begging your absolute expertise, just a matter of begging at least a working knowledge of where things latently stand these days re "the cherishable past". Which, as you readily admit, may involve looking beyond NIMBY/local pettiness--but not to the point of boneheadedness, as is evidenced by many "cherishable past" houses or storefronts given gross windows and EIFS stucco treatments.
For that matter, if as a local homeowner, you've given some humble 40s/50s bungalow thingy the new-windows-and-EIFS treatment (or endorsed others to do likewise), I'd count you in with the boneheads--and it isn't a matter of said bungalow(s) being "heritage designation-worthy", either; just a matter of your being an insensitive amateur. Heck, I'd rather endorse (over the NIMBYS?!?) a teardown on behalf of a Shim-Sutcliffe original over such EIFS-ification.
And if that sounds "fascistic" to you; I'm sorry, but that's where the broader tide is turning. Sure, you can do that if you want, there's nothing legally stopping you, even I, from an urban-libertarian standpoint wouldn't necessarily be up in arms. But remember: if you're one who does that and chooses to post in Urban Toronto, you're opening yourself up to a particular kind of judgment. Just like you're free to wear a used car dealer's plaid jacket; but if you wear it to a suit-and-tie affair, well..be prepared.
Consider this: if, after all the evidence gathered, one still persists in viewing this Austin Terrace situation as nothing more than a trumped-up NIMBY/ratepayer issue, and is still willing to side with what the property owner boorishly if legally did without any benefit of the doubt t/w the other side...that doesn't speak of a very deep calibre of morality when it comes to our comprehensive urban fabric. And especially when posted on UT.
So, under the circumstances, fight amorality with amorality.
Eug
Senior Member
My point was specifically that it was a politically/NIMBYist motivated heritage designation. Even if it did have some heritage merit, it can be argued that those who claim to promote these issues were essentially manipulated to support this designation, to further someone else's NIMBYist and/or political gains, potentially at the expense of other more deserving cases.
I find it rather telling that as the truth comes out... which is that you really had no idea what went on with this particular case (that you yourself brought up in the first place), your subsequent approach is just to bleat more loudly.
Like I said, I hope you are not representative of the greater group, since that type of continued hysterics is not going to gain you much sympathy. The take-your-ball-and-go-home-to-make-a-xenophobic-UrbanToronto response is rather telling as well, but I'll leave it up to you to try to figure out why.
I find it rather telling that as the truth comes out... which is that you really had no idea what went on with this particular case (that you yourself brought up in the first place), your subsequent approach is just to bleat more loudly.
Like I said, I hope you are not representative of the greater group, since that type of continued hysterics is not going to gain you much sympathy. The take-your-ball-and-go-home-to-make-a-xenophobic-UrbanToronto response is rather telling as well, but I'll leave it up to you to try to figure out why.