Toronto HighPark Condominiums | ?m | 14s | Daniels | Diamond Schmitt

[adma]

(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.

And, just as critically, building these fake Victorian rows didn't involve demolishing "real" Victorian rows (though the John Martins-Manteiga camp would take them to task for replacing real early-to-mid-c20 industrial functionalism, but that's another kettle of fish).

I mean, imagine if everything NW of Queen and Woodbine were swept away on behalf of what's SW of Queen & Woodbine, and you can see the inherent absurdity...

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.

So? Don't buy it, then. Defer to someone who would be able to handle it, and don't discourage the motivation, either. (Which is also a lesson in doing your homework before purchasing, and not treating a property as a mere "dumb" tabula rasa.)

 

[Eug]

I mean, imagine if everything NW of Queen and Woodbine were swept away on behalf of what's SW of Queen & Woodbine, and you can see the inherent absurdity...

I don't see it as being inherently absurd. I see it as an option for individual homes or even small pockets, even if not a preferable one in most instances.

So? Don't buy it, then.

I don't.

Defer to someone who would be able to handle it, and don't discourage the motivation, either.

That's a very easy thing to say, but often times there is nobody who is willing or able to handle something like that.

For example, there is a dilapidated shack at Kingston and Midland which is a heritage home. After years of negotiation with the owner, it has become clear the owner has no desire to do anything with it. So the city threatened to go in and refurbish it itself and simply bill the owner. Not going to happen, now that they have found none of the contractors want anything to do with it as it is a heritage home with a limited construction budget. The story I have heard from the local city councillor is that their contracted companies would have been perfectly happy to renovate it on that budget if they were not constrained by its heritage-ness.

I think it'd be great if someone who values the history behind that home could purchase it and renovate it back to health, but that hasn't happened either. Nobody is interested. So, it continues to sit dilapidated. The owner did start some renovations, but then terminated it. My suspicion is that the only reason that was done was to extend the fight with the city.

From what I gather from members of the neighbourhood is that they would rather just see the place demolished, but that can't happen either.

 

[adma]

That's a very easy thing to say, but often times there is nobody who is willing or able to handle something like that.

For example, there is a dilapidated shack at Kingston and Midland which is a heritage home. After years of negotiation with the owner, it has become clear the owner has no desire to do anything with it. So the city threatened to go in and refurbish it itself and simply bill the owner. Not going to happen, now that they have found none of the contractors want anything to do with it as it is a heritage home with a limited construction budget. The story I have heard from the local city councillor is that their contracted companies would have been perfectly happy to renovate it on that budget if they were not constrained by its heritage-ness.

I think it'd be great if someone who values the history behind that home could purchase it and renovate it back to health, but that hasn't happened either. Nobody is interested. So, it continues to sit dilapidated. The owner did start some renovations, but then terminated it. My suspicion is that the only reason that was done was to extend the fight with the city.

From what I gather from members of the neighbourhood is that they would rather just see the place demolished, but that can't happen either.

Well, what's the constraint? Methinks that all parties concerned are making a mountain out of the "heritage-ness" molehill--not in the sense that the place is unworthy as heritage, but in the sense that the "heritage status" must fatally constrain what they can do with the joint--necessary renovations not excepted. It can actually be quite simple. (And the City can do its part in conveying exactly how simple it can be.)

Ultimately, we're talking about a Scarberian version of this--classic "demolition by neglect". So the guy who owns it is a jerk. He's willing to turn the place into such a rundown eyesore so as to render demolition all but inevitable--and then blame it on "heritage" the way some people might blame things on "feminists" or "immigrants" or whatever. But frankly, in calling it a "dilapidated shack", you don't come across as a terribly sympathetic party, either.

Besides, if "nobody is interested", it may be less to do with the property being "heritage" than with potential interested parties not wanting to step into a legal can-of-worms situation re existing ownership, et al. And if said "members of the neighbourhood" want it demolished, it isn't like they're inherently heritage-sensitive in other regards, either.

I've seen the place in passing. It's a shame; but even in neglect, it's less of an eyesore than a half-completed-and-then-abandoned McMansion would be...

 

[Eug]

Well, what's the constraint? Methinks that all parties concerned are making a mountain out of the "heritage-ness" molehill--not in the sense that the place is unworthy as heritage, but in the sense that the "heritage status" must fatally constrain what they can do with the joint--necessary renovations not excepted. It can actually be quite simple. (And the City can do its part in conveying exactly how simple it can be.)

I suspect you may be correct (although I am not privy to the details), but that likely won't solve the problem at this point. I suspect the contractors are now gonna stay clear of this regardless.

Ultimately, we're talking about a Scarberian version of this--classic "demolition by neglect". So the guy who owns it is a jerk.

Yes, apparently so.

He's willing to turn the place into such a rundown eyesore so as to render demolition all but inevitable--and then blame it on "heritage" the way some people might blame things on "feminists" or "immigrants" or whatever.

I don't see the analogy at all.

But frankly, in calling it a "dilapidated shack", you don't come across as a terribly sympathetic party, either.

I'm not, at least in this case. It's a complete eyesore. Either someone (ie. the city) needs to take the reigns and do something substantial with it, or else it should be torn down. I'd actually like it to be restored. It'd make a nice tea house again or something. However, I'm not going to do it with my own money obviously.

Besides, if "nobody is interested", it may be less to do with the property being "heritage" than with potential interested parties not wanting to step into a legal can-of-worms situation re existing ownership, et al. And if said "members of the neighbourhood" want it demolished, it isn't like they're inherently heritage-sensitive in other regards, either.

They probably aren't, but that's not a sin.

I've seen the place in passing. It's a shame; but even in neglect, it's less of an eyesore than a half-completed-and-then-abandoned McMansion would be...

Perhaps, but I'd prefer a completed McMansion to this rundown place.

To put it another way: Heritage site preservation is a good thing, but sometimes the baggage around heritage designation isn't.

 

[adma]

Perhaps, but I'd prefer a completed McMansion to this rundown place.

Ah, but if you prefer a completed McMansion *replacing* "this rundown place", that's exactly the kind of idiot mentality that heritage designation is designed to combat.

To put it another way: Heritage site preservation is a good thing, but sometimes the baggage around heritage designation isn't.

But is the baggage illusory? Actually at its best, something resembling a "heritage sensibility" can be the most sophisticated, sensitive, and constructive way of approaching a neighbourhood's continuing development and evolution. Indeed, if the regulatory stuff *is* "baggage", I'd flip it around that you don't even *need* designation et al to approach a property or neighbourhood in a, shall we say, "heritage-esque" way. To take one pertinent example, Jane Jacobs' house at 69 Albany isn't on the inventory, nor is anything else on her street. Yet thanks to what Jacobs engendered, one might view it all as a de facto "heritage district" in action--and maybe better de facto than de jure, if de jure is but a crutch. It sure wouldn't be easy to tear down on behalf of cloying faux Victorian/Edwardian there.

Maybe it's just that the residents of Kingston/Midland haven't developed that kind of sensitivity and sophistication re what goes on within their turf--or even what presently exists there. And I'm not just talking about this "dilapidated shack"; I'm talking about the sturdy little 40s/50s brick dwellings that compose much of the neighbourhood. Not that they're literally "heritage" in the designation-worthy sense; simply that they're worthy of a certain neighbourhood-defining respect. Like, if it's someone who stucco-mummified or tore down one of those dwellings for a McMansion doing the complaining about this "eyesore"; well, pot, kettle, black when it comes to sensitivity.

And besides, if you want proof that heritage community isn't a Faux Victorian Advocacy Society, consider Rosedale's growing network of HCDs--what triggered that wasn't the incursion of "modern" infill, but more along the lines of the traditionally-styled Schwartz/Reisman gargantua gobbling up Crescent + Cluny...

 

[Torontovibe]

Speaking of abandoned buildings, this street, just north of St. Jamestown, is one of the saddest sights in Toronto.

By torontovibe, shot with DSC-N1 at 2009-05-16

By torontovibe, shot with DSC-N1 at 2009-05-16

It's sad to see buildings in this state of decline, and it's been like that for years. With demand for housing so strong over the last few years, how do things like this happen? They're right beside the Sherbourne Subway too!

 

[adma]

Notice post #61.

 

[Eug]

Ah, but if you prefer a completed McMansion *replacing* "this rundown place", that's exactly the kind of idiot mentality that heritage designation is designed to combat.

It's responses like this that give advocates of heritage home preservation a bad name. Trust me, you're not going to win many converts with such a condescending and elitist attitude.

Maybe it's just that the residents of Kingston/Midland haven't developed that kind of sensitivity and sophistication re what goes on within their turf--or even what presently exists there. And I'm not just talking about this "dilapidated shack"; I'm talking about the sturdy little 40s/50s brick dwellings that compose much of the neighbourhood. Not that they're literally "heritage" in the designation-worthy sense; simply that they're worthy of a certain neighbourhood-defining respect. Like, if it's someone who stucco-mummified or tore down one of those dwellings for a McMansion doing the complaining about this "eyesore"; well, pot, kettle, black when it comes to sensitivity.

Some of those homes would literally require a complete gut and renovation to get them up to modern spec. Some of them have had that done, and they're great. However, others have torn them down and put a new home in its place. And yet others have constructed an addition to them. Personally, I think some examples of all of the above are quite reasonable, and add to their communities. It's sad that some can only appreciate a building if it happens to be 50+ years old or whatever and completely unchanged.

I'm glad we've had this conversation. It really puts things into perspective. I honestly didn't have such a negative view about this until today.

 

[adma]

It's responses like this that give advocates of heritage home preservation a bad name. Trust me, you're not going to win many converts with such a condescending and elitist attitude.

Look at it this way. Sure, the Edgewater might have been a grimy slummy old hulk of Moderne brick

but if you think stuccoing it was an aesthetic improvement

maybe the condescending elitism is merited.

 

[skube]

High Park & Bloor Development (WJ Properties)

Does anyone have any experience with WJ Properties? Apparently, they bought up the interesting homes on Bloor St between Pacific and Oakmount. Judging from their other properties listed on their website, I don't really see something that great replacing the existing homes.

http://www.wjproperties.ca/

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/804292--toxic-dilemma

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/806414--can-linda-sepp-possibly-be-helped

 

[interchange42]

Skube: your post has been moved here for obvious reasons! Thanks for posting the links. Once a proposal for the site comes forward, we will start a Projects & Construction thread.

42

 

[skube]

Thanks. I did a search for "WJ Properties" before I posted but somehow missed this thread.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Hume: Heritage battle heats up on Bloor

Hume: Heritage battle heats up on Bloor


May 16 2010

Christopher Hume

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/810289--hume-heritage-battle-heats-up-on-bloor

##########################################

Toronto exists in a state of permanent urban amnesia, with no past or future, just an endless present. One of the best — or worst — examples is unfolding now on Bloor St. W., where a block of 13 houses, some almost a century old, awaits demolition. What’s so disturbing is that the owners have no specific plans for the site, except for some vague concept of a condo — and not a particularly attractive one at that.

The houses, located on the north side of Bloor between Pacific. Ave and Oakmount Rd. across from High Park, are owned by WJ Properties. The firm’s portfolio comprises a number of late-model apartment buildings in Toronto, many apparently constructed in the 1960s and ’70s when architecture was at a low point. They are midrise slab buildings that conjure up images of the Soviet Union before the fall. Several WJ’s properties are listed in the “Bed Bug Registry,†where tenants either complain bitterly about their building’s condition, or insist that everything is just fine, thank you very much.

Indeed, WJ owns just such a slab at 22 Oakmount, which despite its ugliness appears well maintained. So it’s no surprise the company has been quietly buying houses in the neighbourhood since the 1960s. The block it has assembled has been in the news lately because the last tenant, a woman who suffers from multiple chemical sensitivities, was finally evicted after holding out for years. That means after much delay, WJ wants to go ahead with demolition even before it has a scheme with which to replace them. Although the city won’t grant a demolition permit without seeing the owners’ plans, when the company was refused in 2006 it simply went to the Ontario Municipal Board, which overruled the city and approved the tear down. The city then appealed the OMB decision; that hearing is expected in the fall.

Asked about its plans, WJ’s Parry Fryer admits, “It hasn’t been decided, but it probably will be a slab building.†Local councillor, Bill Saundercook, wishes the whole thing would go away: “I’m not happy about what’s happening,†he told the Star. “The zoning permits highrise, but I’d rather they not develop the site. I like the housing stock there. But Heritage Toronto didn’t designate the buildings. Everyone knows the day will come when they’ll be demolished. The city said no you can’t demolish until you have a plan, but I’ve been told there is no such plan. It’s so confusing.†No doubt about that.

“It’s a damn shame,†says Rollo Myers of The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. “It’s a lovely assembly of buildings. Our position is that every building that’s still standing is worth saving rather than sending off to a landfill. There must be rules.†Myers also points out that the houses could be retained, the streetscape maintained, and intensification restricted to the area behind them to the north. In fact, not only do the houses occupy relatively large lots, there’s an empty swath of land that runs from Pacific to Oakmount.

##########################################

 

[adma]

The houses, located on the north side of Bloor between Pacific. Ave and Oakmount Rd. across from High Park, are owned by WJ Properties. The firm’s portfolio comprises a number of late-model apartment buildings in Toronto, many apparently constructed in the 1960s and ’70s when architecture was at a low point. They are midrise slab buildings that conjure up images of the Soviet Union before the fall. Several WJ’s properties are listed in the “Bed Bug Registry,” where tenants either complain bitterly about their building’s condition, or insist that everything is just fine, thank you very much.

Indeed, WJ owns just such a slab at 22 Oakmount, which despite its ugliness appears well maintained. So it’s no surprise the company has been quietly buying houses in the neighbourhood since the 1960s.

In a Graeme Stewart era, Chris Hume's aesthetic knock against Soviet-style slabs seems obtrusive and anachronistic--indeed, the High Park slabsville might actually be at this point aesthetically preferrable to a lot of the so-called aesthetic "antidote" in the neighbourhood (streetfront urban + LoPo styling, etc). If there's anything of *that* latter-day ilk in WJ's portfolio, it might be more worthy of negative mention.

Now, the Bed Bug Registry is a different, non-aesthetic kettle of fish...

 

[kettal]

About half of the buildings on this row are not Victorian at all.