Toronto 335 Yonge | 55.2m | 16s | Lalani | Zeidler

"These series of events are too convenient for the developer..."
QUOTE: fedplanner.

They need not be; they being allowed to run riot over their property when the City has every right to effect repair(s) and do a charge-back

to the owner on the taxes if need be.


"there is no evidence linking them to the arson."
QUOTE: fedplanner.

Both the City & the Owner are linked, in that there was no fire planning/security on either's behalf. Blatant disreguard!


"Is the developer negligent due to the deteriorated condition of the property?"
QUOTE: fedplanner.

Both the City & the Owner were negligent, as for reasons noted above.


"would be possible to implement a tax rebate program or some other mechanism "
QUOTE: fedplanner.

At this point in time 1:15 AM - i dunooo .


Regards,
J T
 
Last edited:
J T CUNNINGHAM said:
"These series of events are too convenient for the developer..."
QUOTE: fedplanner.

They need not be; they being allowed to run riot over their property when the City has every right to effect repair(s) and do a charge-back

to the owner on the taxes if need be.


"there is no evidence linking them to the arson."
QUOTE: fedplanner.

Both the City & the Owner are linked, in that there was no fire planning/security on either's behalf. Blatant disreguard!


"Is the developer negligent due to the deteriorated condition of the property?"
QUOTE: fedplanner.

Both the City & the Owner were negligent, as for reasons noted above.


"would be possible to implement a tax rebate program or some other mechanism "
QUOTE: fedplanner.

At this point in time 1:15 AM - i dunooo .


Regards,
J T
Click to expand...
Do you know how to use the multiquote button? Just click the button for each quote you want to reply to. Then insert your reply after each quote and then submit ;)
 
It is such an odd reply since I was more or less agreeing with his prior post. I also feel a little misquoted on the last umm.. quote.
 
khristopher said:
That's because you didn't properly quote, so when I used the quote button, it quoted the whole post.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion... talking to JT's post.


"would be possible to implement a tax rebate program or some other mechanism "
QUOTE: fedplanner.

At this point in time 1:15 AM - i dunooo .
Click to expand...

What I actually said:

I wonder if it would be possible to implement a tax rebate program or some other mechanism to ensure that existing heritage properties are well maintained and kept in productive use.
Click to expand...

In other words, is there anything that can be done that could prevent loss of more heritage properties in the future. I do agree with JT that the city probably could have taken enforcement actions, charged back to the landowner, in the interest of public safety. The pile of bricks that were allowed to just cover the sidewalk after the partial collapse always struck me as odd.
 
I can't believe the Lalanis got away with it... They wanted to demolish it and turn it into a condo, got rejected, so let it collapse and burnt it down, then still get the condo they wanted all along.

Disgusting.
 
The_Architect said:
I can't believe the Lalanis got away with it... They wanted to demolish it and turn it into a condo, got rejected, so let it collapse and burnt it down, then still get the condo they wanted all along.

Disgusting.
Click to expand...

Let's not write anything about anyone group or individual that can be construed as libel, for example ".....and burnt it down".
 
So many conspiracy theories in this thread. There are better forums to discuss that. Every time I think there might be an update on the rubble, I see someone else claim that someone burned down the building. As for the tax break, there's no way tax payers will support it. I know I won't. Why should rich entrepreneurs who own valuable property be allowed to pay less taxes than the average citizen? Ultimately, these are private buildings you're talking about. you can't force people to make certain business decisions in order to fit in your ideals.
 
fedplanner said:
These series of events are too convenient for the developer... However, there is no evidence linking them to the arson. Is the developer negligent due to the deteriorated condition of the property?

I wonder if it would be possible to implement a tax rebate program or some other mechanism to ensure that existing heritage properties are well maintained and kept in productive use.

-edit

At least robust code enforcement with substantial fines for noncompliance so something like this never happens again.
Click to expand...

From my understanding of the Heritage preservation laws - once a building is "designated" Heritage (as opposed to simply being "listed") the building owners do get tax credits that relate to the historical aspects of the building (someone correct me if I am wrong).

The problem with this instance is the building was only "designated" Heritage after the wall collapse, i.e. after it was too late. Prior to that the building was only "listed" and the owner had the ability to tear it down. As such there was no incentive for the owner to put money into preserving the building when the property was obviously worth so much more with no building on the site. IIRC Kyle Rae had arranged a grant to be used to fix the facade but the owners never made use of this pot of money (not surprisingly).

While the politicians and others lament the demise of this building (and rightly so) the fact is there are scores of similar heritage properties (including many that are much more desirable) that are currently without Heritage "designation" and nobody is doing anything about this! As an example the block of buildings from 684-680 Yonge are currently only "listed". Why haven't they been "designated" ? There is no incentive for the owners to maintain this block since the property is obviously worth much more if they let the buildings fall into disrepair and collapse onto Yonge street.

I think that the politicians need to get busy "designating" the important buildings that we have left. As an added measure I would provide special credits and requirements that these buildings, once designated, be retrofitted with sprinkler fire protection systems because even when in pristine condition may of these older buildings are tinderboxes.
 
Last edited:
Peepers said:
I think that the politicians need to get busy "designating" the important buildings that we have left. As an added measure I would provide special credits and requirements that these buildings, once designated, be retrofitted with sprinkler fire protection systems because even when in pristine condition may of these older buildings are tinderboxes.
Click to expand...

But the problem is this: given the present conditions of staffing, bureaucracy, civic initiative and the amount of properties concerned, it might take until the 22nd century until said "important buildings we have left" are fully designated...

Just like environmental assessments, designations aren't just something you can whip up with a snap of the fingers, you know. "I hereby dub thee--DESIGNATED!" It ain't that simple...
 
adma said:
But the problem is this: given the present conditions of staffing, bureaucracy, civic initiative and the amount of properties concerned, it might take until the 22nd century until said "important buildings we have left" are fully designated...

Just like environmental assessments, designations aren't just something you can whip up with a snap of the fingers, you know. "I hereby dub thee--DESIGNATED!" It ain't that simple...
Click to expand...

I don't buy this argument. After the wall collapse of this building it did not take long for the city to designate this property Heritage. It was done "with a snap of the fingers". I think part of the problem is there is a finite number of buildings involved and so the bureaucrats involved are not in any hurry. They don't want to work themselves out of a job. Every important heritage building in this city should have been designated and protected decades ago!
 
Peepers said:
I don't buy this argument. After the wall collapse of this building it did not take long for the city to designate this property Heritage. It was done "with a snap of the fingers". I think part of the problem is there is a finite number of buildings involved and so the bureaucrats involved are not in any hurry. They don't want to work themselves out of a job. Every important heritage building in this city should have been designated and protected decades ago!
Click to expand...

A designated heritage building has legal status under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Act contains criteria that City staff apply to a building in order to assess if it is worthy of a heritage designation. City Staff prepare a report on this assessment and Council approves or denies heritage designation based on this report.

I don't know the specifics of the Empress Hotel designation, but I can think of two reasons that designation occurred so quickly after the collapse of the wall. First, a staff heritage assessment may have already been underway. Second, Staff may have prioritized the heritage assessment given the precarious structural state of the building in order to confer additional regulatory protection for the building as quickly as possible.

While there certainly is a finite number of buildings involved, I think it is mistaken to assume that this equates with a small total number of buildings. I'm sure that the staff at heritage preservation services would like to have all heritage-designation worthy buildings designated as quickly as possible, however, there are only so many heritage assessments that can be undertaken at any given time (there are only 15 staff in Heritage Preservation Services, including admin positions).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top