91 King Street East (Albany Club, 25s, WZMH Architects)

[adma]

Would anyone have believed that in 2012 Toronto, a row of 1842 buildings on King East, designed by John Howard, could not only be unlisted and unacknowledged by our intrepid heritage bureaucrats (who have been listing buildings since 1973), but could be in danger of demolition?

Though not unacknowledged by heritage experts; after all, it was worth an entry in William Dendy's Lost Toronto in 1978. Just that for whatever political-combined-with-inertia reasons--it never got listed.

Wonder if there's any fine Conservative folk associated with the Albany Club for a little string-pulling...

 

[valkoholic]

Can I ask a dumb question about heritage designation? Let's say I own a building in the City that gets designated as a heritage building (which, correct me if I'm wrong is largely out of my control) what do I get in return? I'm not asking to be a pain (I'm not against designation, just naive) but it seems as though if owners are in it for the money then designation would be a huge financial blow during a redevelopment boom. Doesn't designation put a huge, unrewarded, cap on the value of a property?

 

[Automation Gallery]

Can I ask a dumb question about heritage designation? Let's say I own a building in the City that gets designated as a heritage building (which, correct me if I'm wrong is largely out of my control) what do I get in return? I'm not asking to be a pain (I'm not against designation, just naive) but it seems as though if owners are in it for the money then designation would be a huge financial blow during a redevelopment boom. Doesn't designation put a huge, unrewarded, cap on the value of a property?

Well, unless the landlord has a wad of cash and plans to restore, and keep it.....i believe it's the "kiss of death" as an investment property

 

[brockm]

I don't normally tell people that their opinions are wrong, but this is just wrong. Might as well raze everything over 20 years old, because the effects of age may be noticeable.

My problem with historical protectionism is that it is based on emotion romantic notions. Historical protectionism can certainly lead to the preservation of beautiful architecture, but it also leads to more expensive real estate for everyone as density increases.

The living museums that make up a lot of Europe's major cities with extreme historical protectionism that many feel we should emulate, have the effect of restricting city centers to the super rich.

The question is: does historical protection trump the benefits of having urban centers that are affordable to live in? I say no.

 

[neubilder]

My problem with historical protectionism is that it is based on emotion romantic notions. Historical protectionism can certainly lead to the preservation of beautiful architecture, but it also leads to more expensive real estate for everyone as density increases.

The living museums that make up a lot of Europe's major cities with extreme historical protectionism that many feel we should emulate, have the effect of restricting city centers to the super rich.

The question is: does historical protection trump the benefits of having urban centers that are affordable to live in? I say no.

I say with resounding emphasis, YES!
You sound like Wendell Cox.

 

[brockm]

I say with resounding emphasis, YES!
You sound like Wendell Cox.

I would probably say more like Edward Glaeser.

Your position trumps property rights. It trumps market forces. It trumps having affordable cities.

I think the scales need to be tilted, here. Since people like yourself demand we restrict property rights, restrict market forces and also impose a higher cost of living by doing the former, I believe it is incumbent upon you to justify why these restrictions are justified in favor of historical preservation.

You can dismiss me out of hand and compare me to Wendell Cox, but you do discredit to your position.

Historical preservationists talk of their position as a self-evident truth, that needs little in the way of justification; history is good, beautiful architecture is good, and that's it.

But affordable cities are also good. As is economic progress and freedom.

Turning city centers into boutiques for the upper class through zoning laws and preservation societies is to me, the very definition of elitism.

And before you go thinking I'm some suburban Fordite, I'd have you read my other posts. I'm a downtown-dwelling, high income professional, who doesn't own a car and walks most places and has a monthly metro pass. I am a urbanist to the core. But I'm an organic urbanist and see value in letting cities develop unmolested by urban planners.

 

[DSC]

.... I am a urbanist to the core. But I'm an organic urbanist and see value in letting cities develop unmolested by urban planners.

You might then enjoy Houston in Texas, they have absolutely NO zoning so one sees the most incongruous streeetscapes. For more info see: http://www.2mrealty.com/blog/houston-no-zoning-laws.html

Urban planners certainly make mistakes and are sometimes overruled but I think it best to make some effort to plan.

 

[brockm]

You might then enjoy Houston in Texas, they have absolutely NO zoning so one sees the most incongruous streeetscapes. For more info see: http://www.2mrealty.com/blog/houston-no-zoning-laws.html

Urban planners certainly make mistakes and are sometimes overruled but I think it best to make some effort to plan.

I am well aware of the Houston model. And while I think it makes a great point about how urban centers can and do develop organically, my main criticism is the limiting of density in favor of historical preservation.

 

[fouronesix]

My problem with historical protectionism is that it is based on emotion romantic notions. Historical protectionism can certainly lead to the preservation of beautiful architecture, but it also leads to more expensive real estate for everyone as density increases.

The living museums that make up a lot of Europe's major cities with extreme historical protectionism that many feel we should emulate, have the effect of restricting city centers to the super rich.

The question is: does historical protection trump the benefits of having urban centers that are affordable to live in? I say no.

Essentially what you are arguing is that historical preservation limits the supply of new housing, and that this limited supply coupled with high demand pushes up housing prices and reducing housing affordability. However, I think the role of historical preservation in this is overstated. Take the case of the condo boom in Toronto over the last decade. Certainly investment in new housing stock in downtown is at or near an all time high, but does this mean that housing in downtown Toronto is becoming more affordable? Hulchanski's "Three Cities" would appear to indicate otherwise. Perhaps investment itself is a cause of increasing affordability problems.

The notion that private market forces can produce "affordable" housing I think only works with a very limited notion of affordability - measuring affordability as the price of a dwelling relative to the price of another dwelling). A more holistic definition of affordability is one that measures the price of a dwelling relative to income. Under this definition, it is the case the private market forces cannot produce affordable housing as it is simply uneconomical.

 

[brockm]

Essentially what you are arguing is that historical preservation limits the supply of new housing, and that this limited supply coupled with high demand pushes up housing prices and reducing housing affordability. However, I think the role of historical preservation in this is overstated. Take the case of the condo boom in Toronto over the last decade. Certainly investment in new housing stock in downtown is at or near an all time high, but does this mean that housing in downtown Toronto is becoming more affordable? Hulchanski's "Three Cities" would appear to indicate otherwise. Perhaps investment itself is a cause of increasing affordability problems.

The notion that private market forces can produce "affordable" housing I think only works with a very limited notion of affordability - measuring affordability as the price of a dwelling relative to the price of another dwelling). A more holistic definition of affordability is one that measures the price of a dwelling relative to income. Under this definition, it is the case the private market forces cannot produce affordable housing as it is simply uneconomical.

Well, from a simplistic assessment, what you're saying seems to make sense. But I think the problem is a little bit more deep than that. Investment typically leads to falling prices. In almost all industries. Agriculture, electronics, textiles, etc. More investment means more productive capacity, economies of scale and all that.

Housing is no different, except for one thing: leverage.

When I can go and get a pre-approved mortgage for $750,000 and you can too, there's little standing in the way between you and I bidding up a $620,000 property to $700,000 if we both want it. But that's no investment. That's debt sloshing around the market, which is a result of loose monetary policy on the part of the government -- or, more simply: money printing.

Frshly created money through loose interest rates, go chasing assets. And they all too often end up chasing speculative instruments: real estate, stocks, commodities, etc.

So, investment does not lead to a drop in affordability: price inflation through debt monetization is.

Economic history is on my side, too: from the period of 1830 to 1971, house prices tracked wage trends. It was only in the post Bretton-Woods era of massive credit expansion, have we seen a sustained trend of housing price to income divergence.

 

[RC8]

I would probably say more like Edward Glaeser.

Your position trumps property rights. It trumps market forces. It trumps having affordable cities.

I think the scales need to be tilted, here. Since people like yourself demand we restrict property rights, restrict market forces and also impose a higher cost of living by doing the former, I believe it is incumbent upon you to justify why these restrictions are justified in favor of historical preservation.

You can dismiss me out of hand and compare me to Wendell Cox, but you do discredit to your position.

Historical preservationists talk of their position as a self-evident truth, that needs little in the way of justification; history is good, beautiful architecture is good, and that's it.

But affordable cities are also good. As is economic progress and freedom.

Turning city centers into boutiques for the upper class through zoning laws and preservation societies is to me, the very definition of elitism.

And before you go thinking I'm some suburban Fordite, I'd have you read my other posts. I'm a downtown-dwelling, high income professional, who doesn't own a car and walks most places and has a monthly metro pass. I am a urbanist to the core. But I'm an organic urbanist and see value in letting cities develop unmolested by urban planners.

I believe you are mistaken in your assessment.

Museum-like European cities are home to the super-rich because they are incredibly desirable places to live. Beautiful, well though-out, and quaint.

Preserving heritage increases housing prices only by making areas more desirable - and that's the market at work.

If I were for example to demolish the 'heritage' buildings at Reagent Park this would in fact increase the value of land there, for the area would be made more desirable without the remaining modernist blocks.

We should protect our heritage because ultimately it leads to more desirable places when it is preserved. History fully backs me up on that.

What happens then is not that cheap housing becomes unavailable, but rather that it gets built somewhere else. If urban planners make sure that this cheap housing gets built in an urban-savvy way (public transit, pedestrian friendliness, aesthetically pleasing streets, and retail + amenities) then there's no reason why we can't have both urban cheap housing and wealthy historic cores.

If we allow individuals to destroy a neighbourhoods' assets for short term profit all we are doing is tearing these areas apart. Think of the St. Lawrence market area - if we had razed the market and all around it you bet housing would be cheaper, but it'd be a consequence of the decreased desirability it would display today. Spadina and College on the other hand, where heritage preservation has been largely ignored, is cheaper... but because no one wants to live there.

Soaring prices closer to the core are the signs of a healthy well-built city. We just need to focus on making its outskirts as desirable as the core itself, and to ensure connectivity is maintained throughout.

 

[neubilder]

But I'm an organic urbanist and see value in letting cities develop unmolested by urban planners.

It's profit seeking developer interests that molest cities, not planners. If you believe that market forces alone will serve the best interests of the population you are gravely misled, or you are in the pocket of a developer.

 

[gristle]

My problem with historical protectionism is that it is based on emotion romantic notions. Historical protectionism can certainly lead to the preservation of beautiful architecture, but it also leads to more expensive real estate for everyone as density increases.

To your last point, you are wrong. Land speculation is what drives up prices. Add to that, once a specific area of the city is assessed on the basis of a large number of multi-storey towers and high land prices, the tax pressure on the historical mid or low-rise structures in untenable. It's at that point that the owners of these buildings are left with no other choice but to sell for development because the price of the land has been driven up on the market.

 

[Ramako]

To your point gristle, it would be a pretty hollow gesture in bestowing heritage status upon a building if it did not also entail significant tax breaks. Is that not the case in Toronto or Ontario?

 

[brockm]

It's profit seeking developer interests that molest cities, not planners. If you believe that market forces alone will serve the best interests of the population you are gravely misled, or you are in the pocket of a developer.

In one fell swoop, you have managed to completely undo my economic worldview and/or possibly exposed a conflict of interest at the heart of my argument... wait, no you haven't.