Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

[Hipster Duck]

there are all sorts of buildings and at some point what's more "important" or "beautiful" becomes subjective... once a building is designated it brings a measure of OBJECTIVITY into the discussion. The heritage attributes are listed and the decision is put in council's hands. It doesn't mean they can't be destroyed but, as I said above, it shifts the discussion.

That's not an example of an objective measurement. An objective measurement is something that can be repeatedly measured using the same techniques by different people yielding the same result: "Bob is 181 cm tall", for instance, or "there are 354 condo units in that building".

Heritage designation is completely subjective. The criteria used in the designation are totally subject to the whims of the teams of experts that originally made the designation. "The building is a good example of architectural tradition X" is an opinion. Others might not come to the same conclusion.

Anyway, back to the discussion...

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

That's not an example of an objective measurement. An objective measurement is something that can be repeatedly measured using the same techniques by different people yielding the same result: "Bob is 181 cm tall", for instance, or "there are 354 condo units in that building".

Heritage designation is completely subjective. The criteria used in the designation are totally subject to the whims of the teams of experts that originally made the designation. "The building is a good example of architectural tradition X" is an opinion. Others might not come to the same conclusion.

Anyway, back to the discussion...

You don't get it. The objective attributes are listed as part of the designation.
I can call Conrad Black a criminal because he was convicted of a crime, no matter how much anyone wants to say he was railroaded and he's actually innocent. That is his LEGAL STATUS. We can debate what he actually may have done or not done but we cannot debate whether he is a convicted criminal.

Similarly, these buildings are LEGALLY DESIGNATED, at which point all your "subjective" measures of significance are out the window. If the designation debate were taking place now, it might be a different matter. That's my point.

I don't know why people can't wrap their heads around the difference between a subjective debate about the buildings' merits, or lack thereof, and the objective fact that their legal status prevents them from being demolished or unduly modified without council's permission. They are two different things and only the latter is germane.

 

[Hipster Duck]

You don't get it. The objective attributes are listed as part of the designation.

Objective attributes of buildings include measures like square footage, number of bathrooms, height, age of construction, lot size, etc. These aren't things that, in themselves, are used to render a heritage judgment.

I can call Conrad Black a criminal because he was convicted of a crime, no matter how much anyone wants to say he was railroaded and he's actually innocent. That is his LEGAL STATUS. We can debate what he actually may have done or not done but we cannot debate whether he is a convicted criminal.

Conrad Black's criminal status is a fact, but the way by which he was determined to be guilty of crimes is not objective. He was found guilty by a judge and jury based on subjective interpretations of evidence.

Similarly, these buildings are LEGALLY DESIGNATED, at which point all your "subjective" measures of significance are out the window. If the designation debate were taking place now, it might be a different matter. That's my point.

I don't understand your logic. The buildings were designated as heritage a long time ago by a group of people who used subjective interpretations of what is important for preservation. If the designation process were taking place now, it would be by a different group of people judging the building's merits on their own subjective interpretation. Two groups of people would not reach the same conclusion about the building, so therefore its heritage merits - or whatever you want to call it - aren't objective.

I don't know why people can't wrap their heads around the difference between a subjective debate about the buildings' merits, or lack thereof, and the objective fact that their legal status prevents them from being demolished or unduly modified without council's permission. They are two different things and only the latter is germane.

My argument is that the building's legal status was arrived at subjectively in the past, so that's not a reason to prevent us from opening up the matter again. To use an analogy, this is no different than the right to appeal a court decision.

Or, put another way, you can't just end the discussion by saying "Stop! These warehouses are designated heritage buildings. Game over! The heritage value of this building is an incontrovertible truth and you are forbidden from building anything on this site for the indefinite future."

 

[adma]

I don't understand your logic. The buildings were designated as heritage a long time ago by a group of people who used subjective interpretations of what is important for preservation. If the designation process were taking place now, it would be by a different group of people judging the building's merits on their own subjective interpretation. Two groups of people would not reach the same conclusion about the building, so therefore its heritage merits - or whatever you want to call it - aren't objective.

Actually, if anything, the designation process would be *more* inclusive now, *not* less, even towards stuff like this--that is, if the body consists of people actually within the heritage field. And the only way you can reverse that trajectory is by either nickel-and-diming the City's delegating body into unwieldy-backlog oblivion (which some have claimed has actually the trend ever since Megacity); or, by common-sense-revolutioning it by stacking it with Koolhaas/Glaeser types, which'd go down w/the heritage community a little like James Watt's tenure in the Reagan Cabinet (even if it might satisfy a few UT regulars).

Or else by fine-tuning the process by making it less of a "dumb" listing/designation process and something more nuanced, involving colour/letter/etc gradings of properties, etc, which might soften some of the "much ado about nothing" sentiment among the heritage-hostile out there...

 

[Wrenkin]

My argument is that the building's legal status was arrived at subjectively in the past, so that's not a reason to prevent us from opening up the matter again. To use an analogy, this is no different than the right to appeal a court decision.

Or, put another way, you can't just end the discussion by saying "Stop! These warehouses are designated heritage buildings. Game over! The heritage value of this building is an incontrovertible truth and you are forbidden from building anything on this site for the indefinite future."

I don't think you understand what a legal appeal entails. Because usually the Court of Appeal doesn't just reconsider the same evidence that the lower court did, and substitute its own decision as to the facts. Rather, the panel will defer to the earlier findings of fact and will only interfere if there is a palpable and overriding error, which is to say that the trial judge really messed up. Most appeals are about whether the trial judge got the law right, and in that area appellate judges will give no deference.

Of course, Council is not exactly a court, so the analogy is perhaps inapt on both sides of the argument.

 

[buildup]

Or else by fine-tuning the process by making it less of a "dumb" listing/designation process and something more nuanced, involving colour/letter/etc gradings of properties, etc, which might soften some of the "much ado about nothing" sentiment among the heritage-hostile out there...

This has nothing to do about people being either heritage-hostile or advancement-hostile. Obviously rules exist so developers cant demolish buildings before anyone has a say. We all know that.

But if M+G does not proceed, I hope city council & Kesmatt are not under the mistaken impression they will slip off the hook with 'if only M+G had worked with us...'

M+G did their bit in advancing an astonishingly creative project. Now city council needs to make this happen. Their job is not to throw the rule book in M+G face. It's to enthusiastically embrace rare opportunities. Send the message that great architecture will be welcomed in the Core.

 

[junctionist]

There are definitely objective standards to heritage preservation. If a building is an important example of a historical style like Neoclassicism, then it must demonstrate elements of that style in a discernible manner. It's not a matter of opinion; either the elements are there or they're not. Either something historically significant happened in the building or it did not. Though some aspects of a building's architecture or history may be debated for their significance, many considerations in a heritage designation are objective standards based on historical knowledge.

 

[Big Daddy]

Actually, if anything, the designation process would be *more* inclusive now, *not* less, even towards stuff like this--that is, if the body consists of people actually within the heritage field. And the only way you can reverse that trajectory is by either nickel-and-diming the City's delegating body into unwieldy-backlog oblivion (which some have claimed has actually the trend ever since Megacity); or, by common-sense-revolutioning it by stacking it with Koolhaas/Glaeser types, which'd go down w/the heritage community a little like James Watt's tenure in the Reagan Cabinet (even if it might satisfy a few UT regulars).

Or else by fine-tuning the process by making it less of a "dumb" listing/designation process and something more nuanced, involving colour/letter/etc gradings of properties, etc, which might soften some of the "much ado about nothing" sentiment among the heritage-hostile out there...

Have you ever heard of the term "run on sentence"?

 

[freshcutgrass]

You'd have a real uphill battle trying to argue that Toronto in 1949 (when Gehry was 20) bears any significant resemblance to Toronto of 2013. That's not to say the city isn't relatively conservative compared to some others, but it's a VERY VERY different place and methinks, hearing him talk, Gehry has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about it.

Actually, he is also referring to the present. Gehry's frustration with Toronto has been long standing....as is Myers'. But the person who snickered the most over AGO I imagine, was Jack Diamond.

In a trial, the burden of proof is on the Crown to prove guilt and in this discussion the burden is on M&G to dispute the buildings' significance.

Well, when it goes to the OMB, the City must equally defend its position. And developers win 64% of the appeals at the OMB.

The effect of designation may be that the city gets to decide but that's NOT THE INTENT of designation.

Since listed and designated buildings under the Ontario Heritage Act have been demolished in the thousands, then it has either failed miserably in it's intent...or.... that isn't the intent.

The truth of course lies somewhere else. Listing and designating is both a dubious and serendipitous process at best. If that were the intent, then it would be a mistake to have designated those warehouses in the first place. You like to quote the Act, but I think you are a classic case of not understanding the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

What it does do, is force the heritage issue as part of the narrative of any project. What this means is that it needs to be taken into consideration....nothing kore, nothing less. And in this case, all the buildings involved have been considered, and the developers have concluded that the Royal Alex is to be preserved, and the rest to be demolished. The city has considered it, and has sorta concluded that some kind of compromise is possible and has set up a "working group" to see what they can come up with (the city would just like to avoid the OMB, where it costs them money and they just lose lots of the time). We shall see what the OMB thinks when it takes it under consideration.

Municipalities always have a say in buildings being demolished. The designation gives them more power to prevent it for buildings deemed significant.

Except you're ignoring the fact that the city takes into consideration what is replacing the demolished building, and why as part of its decision making process. Designation is not the sacred cow you keep saying it is. The city deemed the Our Lady of Mercy Wing at St Jo's a significant example of the Art Deco period, yet it was allowed to be demolished because it was not practical for the hospital to expand including it. It is far more comprehensive than you keep suggesting.

You're sounding like Rob Ford explaining why his own personal definition of "conflict of interest" should trump what the legislation says.

Of course I never suggested any such thing. But that's funny, cause it's your myopic little sloganeering approach to the debate that screams Rob Ford.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Conrad Black's criminal status is a fact, but the way by which he was determined to be guilty of crimes is not objective. He was found guilty by a judge and jury based on subjective interpretations of evidence.

Right. And once he's guilty, he's guilty.
Here's another example: No matter how long you live in an apartment you're renting, you can't suddenly say you own it, no matter how much subjective evidence might make it appear you. You either own the building or you don't. Someone has been found guilty, or not. A building is designated, or it isn't.

My argument is that the building's legal status was arrived at subjectively in the past, so that's not a reason to prevent us from opening up the matter again. To use an analogy, this is no different than the right to appeal a court decision.

And there is a time limit on how long you can appeal and how many appeals you have. You don't understand how appeals work. If the city rejects a demo and Mirvish goes to the OMB the fight won't be over how pretty the buildings are or are not in relation to his proposal, or any of the other debates you have here. "But there is only a DONUT SHOP there now!" is not an OMB argument. The intent of the legislation is crucial and, for the 20th time, the intent of the heritage act is NOT to give council a hard second look at a demo request. It is TO PREVENT DEMOLITION. That is their legal right. If we were only now beginning a designation process, much like if we were starting a trial, we could debate the "evidence" on both sides. But the trial is over and your side lost. Now all we are dealing with is the legal issues, not the prior "subjective" determination of the legal status. Get it?

Yes, old buildings were lost before but the legislation was strengthened maybe 7 or 8 years ago to stop it. That's the world you're operating in. Obviously it doesn't literally mean buildings don't get destroyed (and obviously listed buildings don't have the same protections as designated) but it gives a LOT of ammo to city council to make that call.

Y'all seem to think this would be like a normal OMB case where the fight about heights and density, but you're wrong. It is outside the OMB's jurisdiction to revisit the designation process. (That's what the CRB does, or would have done if Mirvish had appealed the initial designation.)

This, to come back to the criminal analogy, is not a case in which the city must also put up a strong defence. The onus is on MIRVISH. Obiously the city will defend itself just as a criminal defence attorney would, but the onus is on the OTHER party. Instead of presumed innocence, we have presumed heritage. See? I hate to go one at length but I'd like to see some people grasping that we're not fighting here about whether any of us think these are significant heritage buildings. Let's try to wrap our heads around the idea that that fight is done: legally they are. That's the starting point for discussions of their future.

 

[buildup]

Right. And once he's guilty, he's guilty.

This, to come back to the criminal analogy, is not a case in which the city must also put up a strong defence. The onus is on MIRVISH. Obiously the city will defend itself just as a criminal defence attorney would, but the onus is on the OTHER party. Instead of presumed innocence, we have presumed heritage. See? I hate to go one at length but I'd like to see some people grasping that we're not fighting here about whether any of us think these are significant heritage buildings.

I know the analogy isn't meant as literal, but sadly for some this is the prevailing view - that M+G are criminals who must prove something or oversome something because of presumed heritage. This anal orientation so typifies this thread. The designs are astonishingly beautiful, Toronto has long pined for something like this, interest are aligned as architect and developer have demonstrated committment to Toronto, and are first rate individuals.

City Council should leap at this and do THEIR bit to ensure it happens, rather than drawing up increasingly bizzaro criminal defendent analogies. Lets not provide more fodder to Jimmy Kimmel 'this is what Toronto endorses <Mayor Ford>, this is what they obstruct <M+G>. So far the proverbial Man In The Street has shown more common sense than the academics.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Y'all seem to think this would be like a normal OMB case where the fight about heights and density, but you're wrong. It is outside the OMB's jurisdiction to revisit the designation process.

Except the appeal would be regarding Council's refusal of consent to demolish. In that sense, it is similar to any other appeal over the city's refusal to consent to any application.

This, to come back to the criminal analogy, is not a case in which the city must also put up a strong defence. The onus is on MIRVISH. Obiously the city will defend itself just as a criminal defence attorney would, but the onus is on the OTHER party. Instead of presumed innocence, we have presumed heritage. See?

First of all, an "appeal" at the OMB is not the same thing as an "appeal" in criminal court, so you should drop the criminal analogy. The case basically starts from scratch. The only thing I would say, is that the OMB is slightly more sympathetic towards municipal authority when it comes to the Heritage Act than other issues.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is at or heading to the OMB in terms of appeals for this project?

I hate to go one at length but I'd like to see some people grasping that we're not fighting here about whether any of us think these are significant heritage buildings. Let's try to wrap our heads around the idea that that fight is done: legally they are.

And you just keep on missing the point that we all get it...we got it the first time. What you don't get is that the "designation" isn't as important as you seem to think it is.

But that brings up another point about designation and its inherent flaws. The fact that designation does not have anything to do with "importance"...it does not quantify anything...it just adds options. We could literally "designate" or "not designate" anything we want. In the end, it really doesn't matter, as it can simply be ignored if we so choose.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Except the appeal would be regarding Council's refusal of consent to demolish. In that sense, it is similar to any other appeal over the city's refusal to consent to any application.

If there's a lawyer here, I'll defer but I'm almost certain you're wrong. The OMB will say, "What's with this refusal?" And the city will say, "They're designated." End of story. The OMB can't overrule a heritage designation unless council has consented to modifications. It's not the same as any old demolition permit.

First of all, an "appeal" at the OMB is not the same thing as an "appeal" in criminal court, so you should drop the criminal analogy. The case basically starts from scratch. The only thing I would say, is that the OMB is slightly more sympathetic towards municipal authority when it comes to the Heritage Act than other issues.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is at or heading to the OMB in terms of appeals for this project?

Don't make too much of my criminal analogy; I wasn't implying that M&G are criminals. I was merely using criminality as an example of legal status. I think I also used marriage and home ownership as well. Because the designation is in place, the onus is on M&G, not the city. That's my point. If they were going to the CRB now to argue about designation, then it would be more complicated.

The appeal to the OMB right now is merely council's non-decision on the proposal within the given timeframe. That's very common. The OMB will give them a chance to eliminate any disputed issues. The OMB won't rule on anything the two parties have agreed to. (Technically they can make up whatever decision they want but overruling a negotiated compromise is awfully unusual

We could literally "designate" or "not designate" anything we want. In the end, it really doesn't matter, as it can simply be ignored if we so choose.

No, you could not literally designate whatever you want. There is a legal process in place and criteria set out in the legislation and regulations. Some of those criteria may be subjective but there is basically zero chance the city would be successful in designating the local Mac's Milk or even, say, Hummingbird Centre, especially if the owner objected.


As for ignoring or changing it, sure, just like (to use another analogy) you can get married "til death do us part" and then get divorced. Legal status is the legal status until you change the legal status. I didn't mean to imply something is designated and frozen in time forever.

 

[waterloowarrior]

An developer can apply to repeal the heritage designation, which they could appeal to the Conservation Review Board if refused. Or they could apply for a demolition permit (of a designated building), which would be appealed to the OMB if refused.

It may be confusing because while neither type of application has been made (only rezoning has been applied for), city staff recommended refusing demolition in a 50+ page report. Not sure how that slipped through the cracks. That report has basically been put aside for information purposes after a letter from the developer's lawyer pointed out they can't refuse an application that doesn't exist.

 

[Wrenkin]

If there's a lawyer here, I'll defer but I'm almost certain you're wrong. The OMB will say, "What's with this refusal?" And the city will say, "They're designated." End of story. The OMB can't overrule a heritage designation unless council has consented to modifications. It's not the same as any old demolition permit.

I'm not an expert, but is that true? Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990, c O.18, says that in order to demolish a building designated under section 29 (as "heritage") you have to apply to council. Section 34.1(1) says that you can appeal council's decision to refuse demolition (or its decision to allow demolition, with conditions) to the OMB. Section 34.1(6) says that:

After holding a hearing, the Board may order,
(a) that the appeal be dismissed; or
(b) that the municipality consent to the demolition or removal of a building or structure without terms and conditions or with such terms and conditions as the Board may specify in the order.

Since the appeal presupposes that the building was designated as heritage, then it does not seem enough to say "oh well, the building was listed, we (the OMB) aren't going to do anything". Why then would it have the power to order the municipality to consent to demolition? Again, I don't have any knowledge of how the board operates in this area, so perhaps the power is not exercised? And if it is exercised, are we just talking about a procedural review of council's s. 34 decision making process? But in that case, you would think a new hearing would be the remedy.