News   Jul 26, 2024
Amexon Looks to the Future of Transit-Oriented Living with Central Park
 1.3K     1 
News   Jul 26, 2024
Maple House Wins Sole Canadian ULI 2024 Americas Awards for Excellence
 1K     0 
News   Jul 26, 2024
Three Towers up to 55 Storeys Proposed near Sheppard West Station
 2.9K     2 

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

adma said:
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



...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.
Click to expand...

Than why not educate me. What makes this solitary house worthy of heritage designation and not any of the other houses on this street?

- The dormer? IIRC dormers were very common during the late 1800's early 1900's. What makes this dormer on this house so special?
- The turret? I wonder if when it was built if others saw that as a bit of self indulgence, what exactly did the turret add to the house other than being a turret?
- I can appreciate that it represents a "beech"/"cottage" style of construction, built on a plateau, lots of windows, big balcony; and yet the street is lined with examples of this type of construction. Again why bring this house up for designation and not any of the others on the street or have the entire 'hood designated as a heritage district?
- Was there something else that was specifically special/unique about this house? Was it built by some famous person? Did some famous person live here? Was it specifically involved in some historical event? Anything else?

I still cannot comprehend how someone can follow all the rules, and have their plans accepted by the city suddenly be told by someone else "oh by the way I like this house I think it's got historical value you can't touch it" and go so far as to have it brought to heritage discussion without so much as mentioning it to the family in question.

I think we, legally, have to let them go ahead because the did follow all of the rules at the time of their plan. Or the city must reimburse them their full costs if the building is designated. In future I think there should be some sort of easment on properties that are on the Heritage consideration list but that haven't yet been designated. So that prospective owners can have full knowledge going into their purchase.
 
At neighbourhood level, heritage often doesn't mean a one-of-a-kind architectural gem, but rather a component of a heritage neighbourhood. The houses are similar, but it's the neighborhood that matters. Allowing anyone to demolish the original houses creates a sort "death by a thousand cuts" effect.
 
Where are the designs of the proposed house? There's a couple of photos of some 1970s-looking really ugly stuff on his website, but I don't see anything that shows what is actually planned.

That school nearby is pretty ugly ... why aren't people protesting that?
 
junctionist said:
At neighbourhood level, heritage often doesn't mean a one-of-a-kind architectural gem, but rather a component of a heritage neighbourhood. The houses are similar, but it's the neighborhood that matters. Allowing anyone to demolish the original houses creates a sort "death by a thousand cuts" effect.
Click to expand...

Right and yet they've decided on declaring just the house as a heritage item and not the entire neighbourhood.

As one poster mentioned above "Do what I say and not what I do" the owner of 205 Beech can just as easily have her house designated and/or work towards designating the street. Instead she tells the Teehans that they must designate their house. Indeed she is telling them what they can and should do to their house without doing the same on her's.
 
Last edited:
Right and yet they've decided on declaring just the house as a heritage item and not the entire neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

...but only after someone had bought it and made their intentions known....that house, nor any others on that block, were not important to anyone else in the neighbourhood, until these people bought it.
Those neighbours are extremely selfish.
 
The neighbours having their own (potentially ulterior) motives is one thing - the architectural worth of the building in the context of the area (as a potential HCD) is another. Let's not conflate the two things. I would be equally supportive of any move to designate all the relevant structures in the area for that very reason.

grey:

There is a link in the Star article.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I can tell you what may have gone wrong with this scenario.

I could be the City's chain of contact - I don't believe Heritage Preservation Services was notified of any plans for development because it wasn't designated or listed building, which is a huge part of the problem. Planning looked at it, but they should have notified HPS even if it is not on the Inventory. There should have been that communication, if this was the case. Again, if the Inventory was complete, we wouldn't have this issue.

And I'm certain both the Councillor and HPS were only notified of it when there was public concern. And that is how many heritage issues/plans come to light, I'm afraid, as there isn't much knowledge sharing going on. And I'm certain there wasn't much communication within the neighbourhood as well. They are doing due-diligence though. Put yourself in their shoes - can they make exceptions for a personal circumstance of the owners? HPS mandate is to monitor heritage development, not taking into account accessibility of the owner. It is not their job. The heritage and accessibility issues are not related, certainly not by them, and shouldn't be treated as such.

And don't you see that it would be making yet another exception in this city for the sake of losing a heritage building? First, HPS needs to do its research and determine whether it is worthy of designation. If it is, it should be, regardless of the woman's disability. They can build elsewhere, but if that home is lost it cannot be rebuilt.
 
Last edited:
Since it was the city and HPS who dropped the ball here, They should buy the property at current market value from the homeowners, since it's so easy for them to just build elsewhere.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
grey:

There is a link in the Star article.

AoD
Click to expand...
Thanks!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73075185@N00/

The proposal looks friggin amazing. It contributes positively to the character of the neighbourhood and does not in any way scream "look at me" in terms of the shape or materials used. The neighbours are clearly jealous that it will look way better than their homes with their moldy basement model train sets and permanent cranky old-people smell. They have no business protesting this home and really ought to spend their energy trying to improve that awful junior public school up the street.
 
I saw the designs for this house long before this became an issue, even then I thought it was a rather lame duck. In context of the neighbourhood I'd see why it could be an issue. But having a handicap makes you special so the city should bend over backwards to help them build this house in place of that old dusty moldy possibly historicaly significant house.

nfitz said:
Where are the designs of the proposed house?
Click to expand...

4551440856_969e08ea3a.jpg


http://www.flickr.com/photos/73075185@N00/sets/72157623804283265/
 

Attachments

  • 4551440856_969e08ea3a.jpg
    4551440856_969e08ea3a.jpg
    32.5 KB · Views: 342
Last edited:
I saw the designs for this house long before this became an issue, even then I thought it was a rather lame duck.
Click to expand...

So? You don't have to live in it. I'm sure you'd design something so much better though...I like the design, not that it matters.

But having a handicap makes you special so the city should bend over backwards to help them build this house in place of that old dusty moldy possibly historicaly significant house.
Click to expand...

wow, got an axe to grind? Don't like people with special needs? Are you jealous that you don't have the means to build your own home? Is the city helping anyone build a house here? Seems like they're bending over backwards to prevent just that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top