Toronto Grand Park Village | 133m | 40s | Minto Group | Wallman Architects

Yes, it was legal but demonstrates the fact the City does not have staff/time to deal with designations quickly and in advance. They wait until something is threatened before listing/designating. If the building is not listed/designated (or covered by another prohibition like being a rental building) the City must issue a demolition permit within x days. It also shows, again, that Peter Freed is not 'civic minded'.
 
City planner says gap in system allowed developer to demolish legally
By Kate McGillivray, CBC News Posted: Sep 30, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 30, 2016 5:00 AM ET

1-audley-street.jpg

By Thursday morning, the building had a number of walls knocked down. Its three distinctive chimney structures are still standing. (CBC)

A historic Mimico building was partially demolished Wednesday, despite a decision made that afternoon by the Toronto Preservation Board to recommend it be preserved under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The former factory, built in 1917, is owned by Freed Development, and signs at the site indicate plans to build five residential apartment buildings.

1-audley-street.JPG

For most of its life, 1 Audley Street was a factory that produced sporting goods. (City of Toronto)

The building, located at 1 Audley Street near Royal York Road and Newcastle Street in south Etobicoke, had been on the city's radar as a historic property for at least a year, when Mimico historian Michael Harrison recommended it be earmarked for preservation.

"It's one of the earliest industrial buildings in Mimico that still exists," Harrison told CBC News. But he said historical value often doesn't stop buildings getting demolished.

"If they're not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, they're not safe," he explained.

Not long after it was first built, the factory produced engine parts

But for much of its existence, the building was owned by the Schindler Company, which produced sporting good such as fishing line.

Chris Moore, president of the Mimico Residents Association, agrees with Harrison that the building should have been preserved.

"Every time I walk through there I've always enjoyed walking by that building. It just has a certain character that not much else has in the area," Moore said.

Building was weeks away from heritage status
The building at 1 Audley Street did go before the Preservation Board, but it still had to be approved by Etobicoke community council and Toronto city council before it could be designated an official heritage building.

"In cases where there is a potential imminent demolition it can become a race against time," said Mary MacDonald, senior manager in heritage preservation services for city planning.

In a statement to CBC News, Freed Development said it had received all the necessary permits for demolition.

"These activities were pursued with the full and complete permission of the City and in keeping with the permits that were granted," it read.

michael-harrison.jpg

Historian Michael Harrison had hoped that the building could be saved. (CBC)

Harrison mourns the loss, and said he's already seen other historic Mimico buildings suffer the same fate.

"What they did was legally correct, and they had a demolition permit, but it was morally wrong," he said.

Commercial buildings especially vulnerable
In Toronto, it's commercial buildings that are more at risk for knee-jerk demolition.

Residential buildings that are considered to have possible historical value fall under a bylaw that protects them.

"You are required to post a notice, there's a period of time when objections can be raised, and if there are objections then the demolition of that building needs to be considered by community council," said MacDonald.

No equivalent process exists for commercial buildings, leading developers to rush to demolish before any designation is established.

For MacDonald, this conflict is part of larger struggle for communities in Toronto trying to preserve their past.

"When we see things disappearing, we understand what it means to the local community, and I feel really bad for the people in Mimico," she said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mimico-factory-demolished-1-audley-freed-development-1.3784799
 
It's the exact same situation at Stollery's / Mizrahi then?
 
Last edited:
It is not the same situation as Stollery's . It is the same as the Inn on the Park.
 
The city had no intention of listing stolleries though, they were angry they just didn't get the chance to even determine its heritage value. Here they determined the value, and Freed demoed before they could list it.
 
Boy am I not losing any sleep over this...

I agree the building is insignificant overall, but for some weird reason whenever I passed it on the GO Train I always enjoyed looking at it - it stood out for me. Pardon my ignorance, but how far away from construction are these buildings?
 
I agree the building is insignificant overall, but for some weird reason whenever I passed it on the GO Train I always enjoyed looking at it - it stood out for me. Pardon my ignorance, but how far away from construction are these buildings?

These 2 towers sit where the current buildings are

33ykltx.png
 
I passed the site yesterday--it's worth noting that the gabled wooden tower (did it have something to do with the manufacture of strings?) is sitting on its side at the north edge of the property. Everything else is basically rubble at this point.

I'm presuming that it (probably the most visually distinctive part of the factory, more so than even the painted signage) is earmarked for retention and resurrection somewhere, somehow.
 
Under what authority would they pass such a by-law?
The Municipal Act immediately comes to mind, albeit there's others, like the Ont Heritage Act. If you really must know, I'll dig on the applicable legislation later.

Edit to Add: Clue to be had in the story I linked:
[...][Residential buildings that are considered to have possible historical value fall under a bylaw that protects them.

"You are required to post a notice, there's a period of time when objections can be raised, and if there are objections then the demolition of that building needs to be considered by community council," said MacDonald.

No equivalent process exists for commercial buildings, leading developers to rush to demolish before any designation is established.][...]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mimico-factory-demolished-1-audley-freed-development-1.3784799

I'll dig on why that's the case later, but highly suspect the lack of process is at the municipal level, not provincial.
 
Last edited:
The Municipal Act does not apply within the City of Toronto. I can't think of anything within the City of Toronto Act, Ontario Heritage Act or Building Code Act. that would permit the City to pass a by-law restricting the issuance of demolition permits any time the City might want to designate the building, assuming the applicant has met all the other requirements of the Building Code Act.

The issue with residential properties is that the entire City has been designated a demolition control area under Section 33 of the Planning Act. It's a response to the old block-busting techniques of developers in the 1950s and 1960s, which were used to destabilize neighbourhoods and make property assembly easier. Once cannot demolish a residential building unless one has a building permit for a replacement building (once the building permit is in hand, the Chief Building Official is obliged to issue the demo permit). If one wants to sidestep the replacement building requirement, one needs to apply to Council and follow the public process. The CBC article incorrectly implies that the protection of residential buildings has something to do with them having "possible historical value" - which is not the case. Although the demolition control tools often (but not always) allow the City time to get its heritage ducks in a row.
 
Indeed, I'm rushed here, but the Toronto Act, for the most part, is the Municipal Act with added powers and sections.

I'll delve later on this:
[In April 2005, the Ontario Heritage Act
was strengthened to provide municipalities
and the province with enhanced powers to
conserve Ontario’s Heritage. A number of
improvements were made with respect to
designation, providing a clearer process and
better protection for designated properties –
including protection from demolition.
Properties can be designated individually
or as part of a larger area or Heritage
Conservation District. This guide concen-
trates on individual property designation
under section 29 in Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act. It explains what designation
is, describes the steps in the process, and
explores how it helps to conserve heritage
properties into the future.][...]
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_DHP_Eng.pdf

Legal examination here:
[
IMPACT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT ON CHARITIES AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

By Terrance S. Carter, B.A., LL.B., and Trade-mark Agent
and D. Ann Walters, B.A., LL.B.]
[...]
http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2005/chylb63.htm

Must run, can't miss this incredible weather to do more distance cycling. Will continue discussion later, as what happened in this instance will happen again. A quick glimpse of some references show mention of trees, an issue on-going, and one that really irks...

Late Edit: [...]
Stop order
62. (1) Where the Minister after consultation with the Trust is of the opinion that property is of archaeological or historical significance and is likely to be altered, damaged, or destroyed by reason of commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential or other development, the Minister may issue a stop order directed to the person responsible for such commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential or other development prohibiting any work on the property for a period of no longer than 180 days, and within that period the Minister or any person authorized by the Minister in writing may examine the property and remove or salvage artifacts from the property. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, s. 62 (1); 2002, c. 18, Sched. F, s. 2 (40); 2005, c. 6, s. 1.
[...]
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18

Haven't the time now to examine, will do so later.
 

Back
Top