Toronto HighPark Condominiums | ?m | 14s | Daniels | Diamond Schmitt
junctionist
Senior Member
Remember that you're also making history by building new buildings. Who's to say what has "stylistic" merit when so many fairly generic Victorian buildings have heritage status? When buildings are built differently, the details in today's glass and steel towers like balcony and mullion placement, city-required artwork and perhaps materials will stand out more.
cdr108
Senior Member
That's where 1 St. Thomas was built and Minto St. Thomas will be built.
IIRC, those houses were bought in the 80s with the intent to develop at that time but never materialiized when the last RE bubble occurred.
So of course, the developer just boards them up and let's them deteriorate.
Yes and no, ... if an actual owner occupied house came into disrepair and it slowly but naturally deteriorated, I understand why it should be demolished. However, with the examples above, the owners accumulated the properties, boarded them up and let them fall apart due to neglect with the intent to re-develop.
digi
Active Member
Is that what little trinity church is doing with its heritage properties on the south side of king, just east of parliament?
cdr108
Senior Member
I'm not sure if it's still valid, but I heard that the church intended to re-furbish those properties to use but came upon hard finances many years ago and the plans never came to fruition.
digi
Active Member
they were in decent shape 10 years ago, not so much now.
cdr108
Senior Member
^^^
I guess it will all depend on how much $$$ the church has and if they own more property that can be sold to finance the project.
Alternatively, depending on how much land is owned at that site by the church, I'll bet there will be a proposal by some developer in the future to either build a new church (or reconstruct) with plans to build a condo tower. (ie. something along the lines of Tridel's Republic or Context's Sp!re).
I guess it will all depend on how much $$$ the church has and if they own more property that can be sold to finance the project.
Alternatively, depending on how much land is owned at that site by the church, I'll bet there will be a proposal by some developer in the future to either build a new church (or reconstruct) with plans to build a condo tower. (ie. something along the lines of Tridel's Republic or Context's Sp!re).
Eug
Senior Member
Agreed. Too many people think old = good. Often times old is just old, and a fresh injection of originality is a nice kick in the pants.
Also, I personally would be very wary of buying a heritage home, because of all the baggage that potentially comes with it, not the least of which is very specific (and often expensive) rules when it comes to renovating.
Heritage designation in general is a good thing, but I sometimes thing some people have gone way overboard in its advocacy.
One example I found to be an interesting (albeit not always ideal) compromise though was a neighbourhood (not in Toronto) which was mostly Victorian homes, and the neighbourhood planning committee declared that all new homes had to be the same style. However, there was no declaration of heritage status on any of the homes AFAIK. So, what a few people did was tear down older homes and rebuilt them from scratch, with an approved "Victorian" style externally but with all the modern building materials and amenities.
Archivist
Senior Member
Eug. I'm not even going to touch that. Over to you, Adma.
vic
Senior Member
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,399
- Reaction score
- 9,048
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Wow. Looks solid enough on the inside, and that it was vacated quickly.
adma
Superstar
Okay, "over to me".
That is a travesty of a compromise solution. It plays to a kitschy yokelville idiot notion of "heritage". It's a fate worse than simple teardown, and it is no ideal to be embraced at all, except among his diehards.
Given that alternative, you might as well forget about any "heritage gesture" at all, except for whatever coincidentally/fortuitously emanates from elementary zoning approvals and negotiations.
But you do have a point about heritage designation being at times too "unyielding", or at least misleadingly perceived as such. The best rule of thumb to consider when it comes to a heritage home (or even one that isn't officially "heritage", if it's a matter of respecting a certain common urban decorum), is that when it comes to "preserving" or leaving well enough alone, the "public face" (i.e. the street elevation) is what's most important. Unless specified otherwise, everything behind and beyond is open to free will--at least, within reason.
It's a rule of thumb that's come into question when it comes to main-street facadectomies, old facades pasted like postage stamps upon oversized office buildings or condos. But it's just fine for residential neighbourhoods, because homeowners typically don't build 7-story monsters behind 2-storey facades: and better a real Victorian face than faux Victorian, by far...
Last edited:
Eug
Senior Member
I figured that would be response, esp. amongst purists, but that particular home IMO was very tasteful. Obviously, much of the time that won't be the case, but in that particular case I personally thought it fit perfectly in an amongst the older homes.
However, I do think this illustrates the heritage designation divide. I personally would be very happy to see the heritage designation on some homes removed completely, with the homes demolished and something completely different built in their place. Variety is often the spice of life, as they say.
Eug
Senior Member
BTW, here is a recent ruling on a famous owner (Steve Jobs) vs. preservationist fight.
The tech mogul has been trying for years to tear down the dilapidated mansion and replace it with a smaller, presumably sleeker, home for his family to move into. He got permits from the town in 2004, but preservationists sued to save the structure and have prevailed in court so far.
---
Luce also said Jobs has not made good on his obligation to try to find someone willing and able to restore the house. She cited e-mails from a San Francisco resident named Paul Berger, who she said has been rebuffed in his bid to move the building to Napa.
Ellman contended Berger's offer wasn't serious. He said Berger wanted Jobs to pay almost the full cost of the relocation.
That was only a first offer, Luce rejoined. Besides, she said, Jobs should be expected to make at least a "reasonable contribution" to the project, perhaps in the neighborhood of $5 million. A final decision is expected at a future council meeting.
This is one (extreme) example as to why I'd be very wary of buying a heritage home, or a home that might soon be declared as one.
The tech mogul has been trying for years to tear down the dilapidated mansion and replace it with a smaller, presumably sleeker, home for his family to move into. He got permits from the town in 2004, but preservationists sued to save the structure and have prevailed in court so far.
---
Luce also said Jobs has not made good on his obligation to try to find someone willing and able to restore the house. She cited e-mails from a San Francisco resident named Paul Berger, who she said has been rebuffed in his bid to move the building to Napa.
Ellman contended Berger's offer wasn't serious. He said Berger wanted Jobs to pay almost the full cost of the relocation.
That was only a first offer, Luce rejoined. Besides, she said, Jobs should be expected to make at least a "reasonable contribution" to the project, perhaps in the neighborhood of $5 million. A final decision is expected at a future council meeting.
This is one (extreme) example as to why I'd be very wary of buying a heritage home, or a home that might soon be declared as one.
Archivist
Senior Member
(Thanks Adma). Eug, there are examples of newly-built Victorian imitations that I like as well - I'm fond of the big long row on Sudbury Street, for instance, which I think are urbane and attractive - in my mind, the sheer length of them and the gentle curve midway lend a new visual appeal to an old form.
Most replications are handled quite badly, though. And in no case does a Victorian-like building really emulate the old - people just aren't interested in being around faux-old architecture.
You should perhaps read up on what heritage designations mean and how they are entered into. For intstance, Heritage Conservation Districts only really get created where there is considerable agreement among the residents in a given area that they are needed; many have been proposed and worked on, but have failed due to local opposition. Most of the work in getting a District passed falls to the local residents. They are democracy in action, and when someone proposes something right in the middle of one that really jars the area, well, that's what they are meant to avoid. Even within a District, many buildings can be classified as "non-contributing" - meaning that they themselves do not contribute to what is being preserved, and these can be demolished and rebuilt from scratch (as often happens in, for instance, Rosedale) - but there are some controls on what takes their place. Without this, there is no reason to have a District in the first place.
As a close watcher of when (non-HCD) heritage designations are placed on buildings, I definitely see them occurring in response to development pressure - that is, a proposal is put forward to demo a warehouse in the Entertainment District and about a year later 20 warehouses in the area suddenly appear on the inventory. But, as we've seen time and time again (as with the Addison Dealership on Bay, Crangle's collission), there is more than a little leeway in what can be done with the buildings on the Inventory.
Most replications are handled quite badly, though. And in no case does a Victorian-like building really emulate the old - people just aren't interested in being around faux-old architecture.
You should perhaps read up on what heritage designations mean and how they are entered into. For intstance, Heritage Conservation Districts only really get created where there is considerable agreement among the residents in a given area that they are needed; many have been proposed and worked on, but have failed due to local opposition. Most of the work in getting a District passed falls to the local residents. They are democracy in action, and when someone proposes something right in the middle of one that really jars the area, well, that's what they are meant to avoid. Even within a District, many buildings can be classified as "non-contributing" - meaning that they themselves do not contribute to what is being preserved, and these can be demolished and rebuilt from scratch (as often happens in, for instance, Rosedale) - but there are some controls on what takes their place. Without this, there is no reason to have a District in the first place.
As a close watcher of when (non-HCD) heritage designations are placed on buildings, I definitely see them occurring in response to development pressure - that is, a proposal is put forward to demo a warehouse in the Entertainment District and about a year later 20 warehouses in the area suddenly appear on the inventory. But, as we've seen time and time again (as with the Addison Dealership on Bay, Crangle's collission), there is more than a little leeway in what can be done with the buildings on the Inventory.