1.3K 
Toronto has always had a rocky relationship with heritage preservation. Some of the city’s most famous landmarks, from Union Station to Old City Hall, once faced the very real possibility of demolition. Since then however, many important steps have been taken to recognize heritage sites and structures for their cultural, social and architectural value. While there have been mistakes, failures and disappointments that have resulted in further loss of significant buildings, the legislation currently in place permits heritage buildings at least some safety compared to previous years. On August 6, Heritage Toronto held a symposium to discuss preservation and how heritage sites can be protected in the future.
Titled ‘Legacies Gained, Legacies Lost? 40 Years of Preserving Toronto’s Built Heritage’, the panel discussion looked back at the past four decades to celebrate the upcoming 40th anniversary of the Heritage Toronto Awards. The panel consisted of Toronto Chapter President of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Cathy Nasmith, Director of Urban Design at the City of Toronto Harold Madi, Windmill Developments’ Alex Spiegel, Baird Sampson Neuert Architects’ George Baird, and President of Carpenters’ Union Local 27 Mike Yorke. The discussion was moderated by Sean Fraser, the Director of Heritage Programs and Operations for the Ontario Heritage Trust.
The discussion began by summarizing the successes and failures of the past 40 years, ranging from the protection and relocation of the Campbell House to the loss of the Empress Hotel at Yonge and Gould. One particularly important achievement discussed was the creation of 16 Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD) between 2002 and 2011, with more currently being considered. These areas will now be protected from redevelopment, ensuring that alterations or the demolition of properties within a HCD obtains permits through City Council.
Another crucial moment in heritage protection came when the Ontario Heritage Act was amended in 2005. Up until that point, municipalities only had the legal authority to delay the demolition or alteration of a designated heritage building. Once a 180-day “cooling off” period ended, municipalities had no recourse and heritage buildings were often brought down. In 2005, property owners lost the right to demolish after the waiting period had ended but gained the right to appeal. “Things changed in 2005,” said Cathy Nasmith. “All we could do up until then was beg.” She also noted that heritage preservation work was and still is largely driven by volunteers. “The volunteer element has been essential,” said Nasmith. “So many buildings would have gone down otherwise.”
Some heritage buildings are saved from demolition simply by relocating the structure to another site. In 1972, the Campbell House at Adelaide Street and Frederick Street was to be demolished in favour of an expanded parking lot. Fortunately, the structure was relocated to University Avenue and Queen Street, though this did not please everybody. “Campbell House could have been a centrepiece for George Brown College,” said George Baird. “The location is part of their historical significance.”
Mike Yorke stated that it is often much less expensive for the property owner to demolish a building and construct something from scratch than it is to restore and maintain a heritage structure. “There needs to be flexibility to encourage preservation, such as exchanging heritage protection for height and density,” Yorke said. In cases where heritage buildings are saved as part of a redevelopment of the site, they are either taken down brick by brick and rebuilt or use steel scaffolding to retain the facade. “I have a problem with rebuilding because it looks like a new building,” said George Baird. “It loses its age value.” Nasmith agreed, saying that “when you keep just the facade, you’ve lost so much. If we continue protecting only the facade of buildings, it will turn Toronto into a very sterile place.” Though protecting only the facade of buildings has become common in Toronto, “we've begun to realize it’s not the only thing worth preserving,” said Harold Madi.
On the topic of recent heritage losses, Riverdale Hospital, an example of Modernism, was mourned. The building was no longer suitable for hospital use and was subsequently demolished. “The hospital could have been re-purposed as a senior’s residence or something similar,” said Alex Spiegel. Others mentioned the fire at the former Empress Hotel and the demolition of the “Provincial Lunatic Asylum” at 999 Queen Street West.
The panel ended with the question of how to do a better job saving significant buildings in the future, and agreed that education was important. Plaques installed outside historical structures and sites for pedestrians to see and read are vital to engaging the public and creating awareness about the city’s past. Heritage Toronto has been doing just that, with recent plaque unveilings at the Cecil Street Community Centre and Lower Don River. “Electing Councillors with some backbone,” would certainly help as well, said George Baird.
While heritage buildings are still being lost today, there is recognition that the current situation is far more favourable than the environment 40 years ago when the city’s oldest landmarks were slated for demolition without a second thought. As awareness increases, people begin to realize that heritage buildings contribute to the urban fabric and history of Toronto, and that once destroyed, they can never be resurrected.
For more information about Heritage Toronto’s work, visit their official website.
What are your thoughts on the state of heritage preservation in Toronto? What ideas do you have to further encourage protection? Share your views by leaving a comment in the field below.
