News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 329     1 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 187     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 643     0 

204 Beech - A Family's Battle to Build a Home

Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Sorry, but I'm on the other side on this one. They can build an accessible house many other places, even other places in the Beach.
Click to expand...

and so what makes this site unpalatable to you? They had some very narrow constraints on what would be a fit for them and it took them what nearly 2 years to locate this one. They did all the back work to ensure that it was not a heritage building yet now they are being told that they can't do as they please in their own house. To add insult they are then told that the city is fast tracking a movement to place this house on the heritage list without any consultation with them. Obviously this was an attempted end around to block the construction.

I really wonder if this were an existing "modern" house being torn down to build and faux-historic style house if there would be the same cries of heritage preservation as there is now.

Your comment "they can build anywhere else other than this location" reeks of NIMBY'ism IMHO
 
It's not like an accessibility ramp and elevator have never been added to a century old home. They're using the disability as an excuse to tear a house that contributes to the old character of the neighbourhood. Did they not realize that housing stock like the one they bought is part of what makes the neighbourhood special?
 
Last edited:
We as citizens cannot dictate how a family modifies their home to meet their living standards.

An elevator is only the tip of the iceberg. The house needs wider hallways, and doorways. Fixtures that accommodate her wheelchair (in the kitchen and bathroom), etc. That would be a major major reno of a 100 year old house that from what I've read was pretty derelict to begin with.

I took a look on google maps and I didn't see anything spectacular about this house that made it worthy of conservation. At minimum I saw house after house of the same design. So what is one house out of a street of similar ones? If this house is worthy of designation than I think those who oppose it should line up and have their houses designated as well.
 
Did they not realize that housing stock like the one they bought is part of what makes the neighbourhood special?
Click to expand...

They did their due dilligence and the city and neighbours stabbed them in the back. Hope no one else finds themselves in the same situation.
 
The key issue is this is that yes the home isn't designated, but I'm certain that at some point it would be designated. ERA Architects drew up a report a few years ago.

The reason why it isn't designated is simple - the City has an enormous backlog on designation and listing of properties because there isn't enough staff and resources allocated. Designation is often done as a reactionary - not pro-active - measure because of this. It doesn't mean that the home is not historically important, the City just hasn't been able to go through the designation process as of yet.

The home's age, neighbourhood and character would have been reason enough not to pick it as a site for a new modern home - maybe the City needs to educate the public better, but it's an obvious candidate for preservation and should not have been purchased with the intent to tear it down.

The Inventory of Properties must be completed so no one - a buyer, developer, etc - goes into a home purchase without implicitly knowing its heritage status.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
and so what makes this site unpalatable to you? They had some very narrow constraints on what would be a fit for them and it took them what nearly 2 years to locate this one. They did all the back work to ensure that it was not a heritage building yet now they are being told that they can't do as they please in their own house. To add insult they are then told that the city is fast tracking a movement to place this house on the heritage list without any consultation with them. Obviously this was an attempted end around to block the construction.

I really wonder if this were an existing "modern" house being torn down to build and faux-historic style house if there would be the same cries of heritage preservation as there is now.

Your comment "they can build anywhere else other than this location" reeks of NIMBY'ism IMHO
Click to expand...

As you might gather from my 'nom de plume', I don't live in the Beach. It's not NIMBYism, in the sense that I don't have an axe to grind. And, if they were tearing down a Don Mills '50s gem to build a monster home, I'd have the same objection. However, given yours and others' comments, I did take a look at the Google Street View. I had originally thought that the house was south of Queen, so (IMHO) the fact it is a decent chunk north of Queen makes it less of a travesty in my eyes. Still wrong, but lessens the blow to see that it's up by the school, which isn't exactly an architectural gem.

But to the other point of NIMBYism -- yeah, it can go too far. But, if given these guys set up a website and checked on this and checked on that... why didn't they introduce themselves to the neighbours? When we did our gut reno, we introduced ourselves to the neighbours and told them our plans BEFORE we bought our house. Given the media savvy and hugely extensive plans of this couple, why wouldn't they have thought to do that?

And, there are tons of communities where their house plans would be welcome additions to the streetscape. How about the row of modernist piles on top of the Bluffs? Just as beautiful and outdoorsy and park-like a setting (albeit not as close to Queen Street, but a heck of a lot flatter and therefore easier to navigate for a wheelchair-bound person, probably.) How about Casa Loma? West End? Leslieville?

I suspect that they want to live in the Beach because they want to live in the Beach and all that entails -- mature trees, the beaches, the boardwalk, Queen Street -- but they don't want to bow and scrape to the parts of the Beach others love but they don't care for -- the gingerbread houses, the feeling of Muskoka cabins in the city. Sort of like the guy who needed to park his Ferrari on a parking pad in front of his house, but no one else should get a parking pad in front of their places, because then his mature tree streetscape would be ruined. What's the opposite of NIMBY? Do as I say, not as I do? Maybe not, but that's what it feels like to me.
 
property in question

i think the area is beautiful but i'll state why it wouldn't work out for me.

-first of all, all the neighbours houses are at a high elevation above the street and sidewalk. it's understandable that being in a wheelchair, i can't really visit people in their homes but i wouldn't even be able to visit a neighbour on their property.

-the property poses a challenge for construction since it is elevated. also, some sort of elevator needs to be built to bring you from street level up to the level the house is at. you could build a tunnel from the sidewalk to the basement of the house.

-there's no driveway or garage. a garage makes life easier when it rains or snows. you can park in the garage and go inside through a door.

personally, i wouldn't buy this house for the property. i find the house more appealing than the property.

but may i add, the last thing i would want to do is tell a disabled person where they can't live because of their disability. if you want it, then go for it.

i would try to find a middle ground though and keep the exterior front of the the home.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this seems like a relatively poor lot for an accessible house, which makes me wonder if accessibility is a secondary motive behind wanting a neomodern cuboid mansion *and* a trendy Beaches address. Bizarrely, though, their website mentions them buying and lovingly restoring an older house in the area...who does that and then suddenly craves the demolition of another old house generally considered charming and worthy of heritage consideration?

They spent 1.5 years waiting for a large enough lot to come up for sale on this street and likely didn't bother looking a few blocks away, let alone another neighbourhood. Several years ago, I sometimes used to see a young neighbour of mine in a motorized wheelchair use accessible buses and then get into her house via the driveway (which was very level) and garage (which I assume had a small lift). Are they going to build some ridiculously long and winding ramp to get from the sidewalk to the front door? I'm sure the interior of the house itself could be built very accessible, but what's the point of staying on this street in the Beaches if getting out to the sidewalk/road is an obstacle?

Their inspiration photos are almost all of houses in places like York Mills, Bridle Path, Rosedale...blocky modern houses modelled on those built on massive ravine lots often look terrible squished into small lots in a more urban setting.
 
Why don't they just do a big reno and make the thing accessible for a wheelchair? They've obviously got the cash to do it if they are planning to tear it down and do a rebuild!
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
I really wonder if this were an existing "modern" house being torn down to build and faux-historic style house if there would be the same cries of heritage preservation as there is now.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. All the more so if an architectural figurehead (you know, like a Ron Thom, or a Jerry Markson) were involved in the design.

Between that statement and the following

I took a look on google maps and I didn't see anything spectacular about this house that made it worthy of conservation. At minimum I saw house after house of the same design. So what is one house out of a street of similar ones? If this house is worthy of designation than I think those who oppose it should line up and have their houses designated as well.
Click to expand...

...you're proving yourself one heck of a hack amateur when it comes to a 2010 standard of heritage judgment. Which needn't even involve the strictest listing/designation/do-not-touch parameters.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
Yeah, this seems like a relatively poor lot for an accessible house, which makes me wonder if accessibility is a secondary motive behind wanting a neomodern cuboid mansion *and* a trendy Beaches address. Bizarrely, though, their website mentions them buying and lovingly restoring an older house in the area...who does that and then suddenly craves the demolition of another old house generally considered charming and worthy of heritage consideration?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm wondering if neomodern/cuboid was intended as a stylistic Trojan horse, i.e. from a design-geek POV, more "politically correct" than faux-historical--therefore they could coast on the alibi that it's an "equal or better replacement", simply because architectural mavens adore everything uncompromisingly modern and contemporary...right? And it's also a ready excuse to paint the concerned neighbours and "hysterical types" as reactionary, because...ooh! They're Opposing. Modern. Design. Therefore they must be up there with the Prince Charles-ian fuddy-duddys...right?

Though in this case, the sensitivity quotient goes down once one realizes that the design came first, the site came later.

Look: even if you suffer physical disability, sensitivity goes both ways. Get a feel of the neighbourhood you're buying into; and don't fall back on the "it isn't designated, ergo it isn't important, ergo the neighbours and local history buffs won't mind" alibi. Innocently or not, you might get into more trouble than you bargained for. And it doesn't mean you can't "build modern" amongst older fare; just watch where you build. And don't say "woe is us, she is disabled"--it makes you look rather grifterish.
 
It's interesting that in the Queens Park thread, anyone suggesting preserving the Heritage view is labeled as a crackhead, but in this thread, the opposite is true.

As Adma implies 'Heritage' is an evolving term that will come to embrace the best of the sublime and the ridiculous of all ages and styles.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top