This Week in Heritage Preservation Crimes

[adma]

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.

Unfortunately, hysterics or not, I'd reckon that even "the greater group" would dispute your dismissal of the Scarborough case as merely a "politically/NIMBYist motivated heritage designation". Though perhaps your experience has fatally coloured your perspective on all such causes, including the present Austin Terrace one.

And frankly, if you're the sort who'd choose this over said NIMBY ratepayers, well, maybe it's best that you take your ball and go home on behalf of a "xenophobic" Urban Toronto. And in principle, I reckon that the "greater group" would agree there, too.

 

[Archivist]

Speaking as one of the greater group, I will support adma in this discussion, and his frustration with Eug's no-nothingness on heritage issues. Please don't speak for me, or take my relative lack of posting in this lacklustre argument to signify any kind of agreement with anything Eug has said.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

+1
Once these buildings are gone, they cannot be replaced. Sometimes there is more at stake than the right of an individual to make a profit.
AmJ

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Eug:

So, NIMBYs manipulate the process - exactly what's new with that, considering others with vested interests such as developers also do so. That's the nature of decision making in the public sphere where everything is essentially political. That doesn't equate to heritage preservation being worthless, or that physical appearance being the only judge of heritage value (god forbid someone should apply that criteria to say, oh, the MacKenzie House).

In addition, I suppose you should understand the sentiments of the NIMBYs best - afterall, they are only trying to "preserve" the value of their investments in their own twisted way, no?

Beyond that, nothing suggest to me that this is a case where there won't be deals made even when the structure is declared a heritage structure. It isn't like there aren't any cases where such structures are selectively preserved, moved or even torn down (after a record is being made). To undertake action that would preempt all these possibilities and callously destroying something with the explicit understanding of its' contested nature is the real "xenophobia" towards the heritage of the city.

AoD

 

[Eug]

+1
Once these buildings are gone, they cannot be replaced. Sometimes there is more at stake than the right of an individual to make a profit.
AmJ

Oh I agree completely. However, it's interesting to note that when a developer does want to preserve a place against the will of the NIMBYists, that same developer may not want to enlist the help of heritage preservationists. Full disclosure: I am not a developer, nor do I have anything to do with developers (except for getting my basement done next year ). I also have actual historians in my immediate family, and no business types.

I suspect it has to do with the hysterical and preservation-with-everything-else-be-damned attitude that a few in this thread have already demonstrated. Such designation is considered the kiss of death, due to the very harsh inflexibility that such designation sometimes requires, and the fact that you have very many self-proclaimed preservationists breathing down your neck who aren't even willing to put their own money into such preservation.

So, NIMBYs manipulate the process - exactly what's new with that, considering others with vested interests such as developers also do so.

That's not new, just as it's not new that developers manipulate the process. I was just calling him out because it was clear he didn't have a clue about the process in that particular case. He used it as an example, so I called him on it.

In addition, I suppose you should understand the sentiments of the NIMBYs best - afterall, they are only trying to "preserve" the value of their investments in their own twisted way, no?

Perhaps but the unfortunate part is many operate with blinders on. The unfortunate result in this case is a good example.

Beyond that, nothing suggest to me that this is a case where there won't be deals made even when the structure is declared a heritage structure. It isn't like there aren't any cases where such structures are selectively preserved, moved or even torn down (after a record is being made).

Moved? Nobody will invest the money to move this structure. Not only is moving it very expensive (and I wonder if it'd actually survive a move without some serious work on it first), you actually need a place big enough to put it. Fix it up? Maybe, but moved? Not a chance. I think the most likely situation will be that it will be torn down, and in this case I think it is precisely because it is a heritage property now.

To get it fixed up requires one of three options. 1) The city somehow manages to coerce the owner into doing it. Probably not going to happen. 2) The city steps in and does it itself, and bill the owner. That's one option that the city has looked into, but their own contractors are very frightened of heritage properties. According to one city person I've spoken with, the contractors they usually deal with are not interesting in wading into this fight. 3) Get the owner to sell the place to someone more willing to deal with the issues. Well, one big reason the current owner cannot sell it is precisely because it is a heritage property. Nobody will touch it with a ten foot pole. It's a low cost property on a main thoroughfare that is full of motels, gas stations, strip malls and used car lots. The ROI on a heritage-compliant restoration is difficult to justify. Most in the neighbourhood would now love it if someone did that even if it meant significantly increased traffic to the area (something they rallied against before), and those of you here with the love of history and who may be thinking of starting a business, I call on you to try to purchase the property and restore it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Eug:

That's not new, just as it's not new that developers manipulate the process. I was just calling him out because it was clear he didn't have a clue about the process in that particular case. He used it as an example, so I called him on it.

Regardless of the politics behind the case - which is not the purview of heritage preservation by itself but the context within which it operates, your statement of "POS" is sort of telling by itself, no? It may look like a POS, but it doesn't equate to worthlessness by default.

Perhaps but the unfortunate part is many operate with blinders on. The unfortunate result in this case is a good example.

Just like the unfortunate result in the news evidenced in the subject of this thread, I suppose?

Moved? Nobody will invest the money to move this structure. Not only is moving it very expensive (and I wonder if it'd actually survive a move without some serious work on it first), you actually need a place big enough to put it. Fix it up? Maybe, but moved? Not a chance. I think the most likely situation will be that it will be torn down, and in this case I think it is precisely because it is a heritage property now.

That's ONE outcome I've suggested - and I am not under any illusion this is (or should be) the right outcome for all but the most important of structures. The problem in this case is how these potential outcomes are being precluded.

To get it fixed up requires one of three options. 3) Get the owner to sell the place to someone more willing to deal with the issues. Well, one big reason the current owner cannot sell it is precisely because it is a heritage property. Nobody will touch it with a ten foot pole. It's a low cost property on a main thoroughfare that is full of motels, gas stations, strip malls and used car lots. The ROI on a heritage-compliant restoration is difficult to justify. Most in the neighbourhood would now love it if someone did that even if it meant significantly increased traffic to the area (something they rallied against before), and those of you here with the love of history and who may be thinking of starting a business, I call on you to try to purchase the property and restore it.

The owner (of the numbered corporation) purchased it what, last year? If it is the original owner I would have some sympathy - but in this case, I have a feeling the investor went it having done his homework. As such, I think the statement caveat emptor would apply. You buy a piece of property with history - there is a certain responsibility that comes with it. To willfully destroy something of potential value while the process of appraisal is in progress isn't terribly ethical, no? Not to mention, nobody has a clue as to what the structure will be replaced with in this case - and this should rightly so factor in whether something like demolition should be supported. And do not confound the interests of the neighbourhood with the interests of heritage preservation - the two are not the same, and as such, alliance between the two (or on that matter, between preservationists and developers) should be undertaken only when the goals are congruent.



AoD

 

[Eug]

The owner (of the numbered corporation) purchased it what, last year?

The house was purchased many years ago.

 

[adma]

Well, one big reason the current owner cannot sell it is precisely because it is a heritage property. Nobody will touch it with a ten foot pole.

Though re that "nobody", that's also saying something about an untold dilemma (which, in fact, "the heritage community" is working to resolve in whatever way it can): the myth within the real estate and insurance biz that heritage = kryptonite. But you also have to keep in mind (and the evidence can be seen all around the Scarborough example, or not far from the Austin Terrace example for that matter cf. the "Wengleization" of Forest Hill) that the fundamental culture of such industries is mercenary. Philistine, from a heritage-and-otherwise standpoint. It's about easy, efficient, by-the-book and in many ways (and not even necessarily heritage ways) needlessly wasteful solutions. The old aluminum-siding-salesman ways of thinking, or some newfangled facsimile thereof. And to them, the "heritage" dagger means: uh-oh, bad news. We figurative aluminum-siding-salesmen not welcome here, steer clear.

And I only mean that in an ingrained nature-of-the-beast way.

So? What needs to be done is to break down the unilateral aluminum-siding-salesman modus operandi, and in such a way that serves more than just the loaded and oftentimes insipid "heritage" argument.

And if you want proof of how such a tactic works, consider the stigma that the actual mythic aluminum-siding-salesman carries today. That "miracle" building product known as aluminum siding came to denote easily-suckered Archie Bunker trash--something that, in long-term net terms, wound up lowering rather than raising values, even re the physical integrity of what it "improved". (Though I admit there may be an ironic embrace in some circles of vintage "Archie Bunker" type sided-to-the-hilt neighbourhoods on grounds of "authenticity"; but, still.)

For an elsewhere comparison point: remember all the moaning and groaning about anti-smoking laws? Well, Toronto hasn't gone down the tubes because of those "anti-smoking fascists"--indeed, the wretched ghosts of many a Coffee Time smoking room vindicate their wisdom.

And just as it's useful to break down the "rip it up and start over" mentalities which guide the real estate etc industries, maybe there's a counter-point to address the NIMBYs who take "heritage" to be a positive cue for an absolutist freezing-a-place-in-amber or an indiscriminate embrace of an "Olde Unionville" ideal...uh, no. That can actually lead one to empathize/sympathize with Eug-style cynicism...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Eug:

The house was purchased many years ago.

I am not talking about the house in the report that you've cited. I am referring to the one that is the topic of the thread.

AoD

 

[Eug]

Though re that "nobody", that's also saying something about an untold dilemma (which, in fact, "the heritage community" is working to resolve in whatever way it can): the myth within the real estate and insurance biz that heritage = kryptonite. But you also have to keep in mind (and the evidence can be seen all around the Scarborough example, or not far from the Austin Terrace example for that matter cf. the "Wengleization" of Forest Hill) that the fundamental culture of such industries is mercenary. Philistine, from a heritage-and-otherwise standpoint. It's about easy, efficient, by-the-book and in many ways (and not even necessarily heritage ways) needlessly wasteful solutions. The old aluminum-siding-salesman ways of thinking, or some newfangled facsimile thereof. And to them, the "heritage" dagger means: uh-oh, bad news. We figurative aluminum-siding-salesmen not welcome here, steer clear.

And I only mean that in an ingrained nature-of-the-beast way.

So? What needs to be done is to break down the unilateral aluminum-siding-salesman modus operandi, and in such a way that serves more than just the loaded and oftentimes insipid "heritage" argument.

And if you want proof of how such a tactic works, consider the stigma that the actual mythic aluminum-siding-salesman carries today. That "miracle" building product known as aluminum siding came to denote easily-suckered Archie Bunker trash--something that, in long-term net terms, wound up lowering rather than raising values, even re the physical integrity of what it "improved". (Though I admit there may be an ironic embrace in some circles of vintage "Archie Bunker" type sided-to-the-hilt neighbourhoods on grounds of "authenticity"; but, still.)

For an elsewhere comparison point: remember all the moaning and groaning about anti-smoking laws? Well, Toronto hasn't gone down the tubes because of those "anti-smoking fascists"--indeed, the wretched ghosts of many a Coffee Time smoking room vindicate their wisdom.

And just as it's useful to break down the "rip it up and start over" mentalities which guide the real estate etc industries, maybe there's a counter-point to address the NIMBYs who take "heritage" to be a positive cue for an absolutist freezing-a-place-in-amber or an indiscriminate embrace of an "Olde Unionville" ideal...uh, no. That can actually lead one to empathize/sympathize with Eug-style cynicism...

Quoted for posterity. I love it. To summarize:

1) The problem doesn't actually exist. It's all in your head.
2) Anyone not on adma's side is a bonehead and trash.

 

[adma]

Quoted for posterity. I love it. To summarize:

1) The problem doesn't actually exist. It's all in your head.
2) Anyone not on adma's side is a bonehead and trash.

I offer a comprehensive, constructive response, and that's how you respond? Eeesh.

To reiterate my quote below

And frankly, if you're the sort who'd choose this over said NIMBY ratepayers, well, maybe it's best that you take your ball and go home on behalf of a "xenophobic" Urban Toronto. And in principle, I reckon that the "greater group" would agree there, too.

 

[adma]

From Cathy Nasmith's Built Heritage News #153

10. Ontario issues stop order to prevent further alterations or damage to century home
Ministry of Culture Press Release



Ontario issues stop order to prevent further alterations or damage to century home
McGuinty Government to Assess Potential Heritage Value

NEWS December 21, 2009

Minister of Culture, Aileen Carroll, today issued a stop order to prevent further alterations or damage to 7 Austin Terrace, in Toronto.

The stop order gives the Province time to assess the building’s potential cultural heritage significance while ensuring the building is not further altered or damaged.

Mayor Miller of The City of Toronto requested that the Minister intervene after the property owner removed numerous windows and architectural elements.

Built by notable architect John Lyle and the former home of John Maclean, founder of Maclean’s magazine, the home dates back to 1922 and is currently vacant.

The Ontario Heritage Act gives the Province and the City powers to protect buildings that may be of cultural heritage significance.

QUOTES

“This stop order prohibits further destruction of the building and allows the Province to assess its potential heritage significance. I want to ensure the building stays intact while the Province and the City of Toronto each considers the matter.â€
— Aileen Carroll, Minister of Culture

“This is an important step and I applaud Minister Carroll for her intervention. Residents have been asking for action and this order allows time for assessment and helps protect a building that the community feels strongly about preserving.â€
— Eric Hoskins, MPP St Paul’s

QUICK FACTS

• The Minister of Culture may issue a stop order for any property to prevent alteration, damage, demolition or removal of any building or structure, if the Minister is of the opinion that the property:
• may be of provincial cultural heritage significance, and
• is likely to be altered or damaged or a building on the property demolished or removed.
• A stop order prevents alteration or demolition for up to 60 days pending assessment of provincial significance and which procedures, if any, should be undertaken to conserve the property.

LEARN MORE

Learn more about the heritage conservation in Ontario.
Find out more about Ontario Heritage Act.

Sarah Petrevan, Minister’s Office, (416) 325-1676
Lisa Robart, Communications Branch, (416) 212-3928 ontario.ca/culture-news
Disponible en français





Editor's Note: Aileen Carroll is to be congratulated for halting this cultural vandalism.

 

[Eug]

I offer a comprehensive, constructive response, and that's how you respond? Eeesh.

Indeed.

 

[adma]

So, because I refer to boneheads and trash, it's insufficiently "constructive" for you, I suppose. Sounds like you're feeling an itch, even if I wasn't referring specifically to you there. (Well, quite obviously. Like, if you'd prefer a Wengle special in place of the existing Scarberia heritage thingy, I'd probably gladly recommend that you take a gun, put it in your mouth, and pull the trigger. Paradoxically speaking, you can't have constructive heritage-esque solutions without liquidating philistine hostility)

Ah well, when it comes to Austin Terrace, when we're at the point where the province is stepping in, you can tell it's more than just a "NIMBY ratepayer" issue here. So, score one for the heritage camp.

 

[Archivist]

Good on the province for doing this. I must say, I'm surprised. The company that was trashing this building must be very, very surprised by the publicity and now the stop work order on the building. It's clear that what will happen is that it will be designated, and his project is now some years away from the start of construction.

A nice little provincial Christmas present from the Ontario government. Thanks Dalton!

Oh, and this is picky, and I know the mods are busy, but would it be possible to correct the spelling mistake in the title? It's been killing me. Please, please and sorry for asking.