It's upsetting that we're having to wage the same battles to protect 19th century buildings that we had 20 years ago when this building boom started. My guess is that the architects and developer know they have to keep at least one original building on the site to win approval. Getting heritage designation for any property doesn't mean much. It just puts a 6-month hold on demolition. Whatever the city disapproves can simply be appealed to the OMB. Without heritage protections, these buildings can be demolished at will and without recourse. If these buildings had heritage designation and tomorrow the owner of the properties hired a demolition crew to remove these buildings, we'd get a similar outcome to this:
Was a three-storey, red brick 1886 heritage building at 267 Queen St. E. demolished without the proper permits?
The City of Toronto says so and it has served property owner, 2235434 Ontario Ltd., and demolition contractor, Stonehaven Specialty Contracting Corp., with a summons to appear in court to face charges under the Ontario Heritage Act. The city says the demolition was done without the consent in writing of the municipality and it claims that a demolition permit under the Building Code Act was not even applied for.
RELATED:
Hume: Wreckers of heritage building under fire at last
“The city is confused,’’ says Rick Kojfman, director of the numbered corporation that owns the site. “We have copies of permits and the judge will ultimately decide.... we hired a contractor, a legitimate demolition contractor to obtain permits and do everything 100 per cent legal. So as far as we’re concerned it was all done properly.’’
Article Continued Below
The demolition of the three-storey property – built for grocer Robert V. Lauder – took place last November. Not long before it was destroyed, the vintage shop and florist business on the ground floor of the building closed its doors.
A City of Toronto news release noted that 267 Queen St. E. was “designed in a simple Renaissance Revival style. Important features included the brickwork, the moulded-brick window heads, the wood storefront with decorated pilasters, and the ornate roof cornice.” It had been designated in 1989 under the Ontario Heritage Act, on architectural grounds.
But Kojfman said there had been a fire in the past at the site and the previous owner had sold it in a distress sale.
“We’ve been holding the property for three years. The property sat in a derelict condition’’ when held by the previous owner, he said. Kojfman’s company felt it was a good location.
“It’s not like (it was) a pristine historical building and we decided to take it down ... it wouldn’t have served my purpose to demolish a building that was in good condition,’’ he said.
Catherine Nasmith, president of the Toronto Architectural Conservancy, said “it’s a shame’’ the building was torn down. “It’s the kind of streetscape that anchors a neighbourhood,’’ she said. “These buildings, they’re so important just for visual cues in the city. They give a real sense of place. They’re impossible to replicate ... they give Toronto its character.’’
Older buildings like the one that was demolished, she said, are also important for giving small businesses a foothold. “People move in, they set up business, they rejuvenate the neighbourhood. A new development can’t make that happen.’’
If there is a conviction under the Ontario Heritage Act, the court may impose a fine of up to and including $1 million or a term of imprisonment of not more than one year, or both a fine and a term of imprisonment. The court can also impose a fine of up to $100,000 for a corporation’s first offence under the Building Code Act, 1992 and a fine of up to $200,000 for each subsequent offence under the act.
