News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Do you support Josh Matlow's approach to designating several properties as heritage at once?


  • Total voters
    8

DonValleyRainbow

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,867
Reaction score
1,926
City:
Toronto
Starting because I didn't see a thread for this elsewhere.

Josh Matlow announced a sweeping motion to include 258 main street properties on the city's heritage register, all in one shot. This is also labelled as 'Phase 01', to which I presume another sweeping motion is in the works for structures away from major streets.

The response I've seen so far has been smaller than I thought, but nonetheless polarizing; it's either 'ya way to go!' or 'this is NIMBYism and antidevelopment wrapped in a heritage blanket.'

Personally, I'm on the fence: I am for these registrations, but I have not been able to read the rationales for all of them, and as an economist I always fear unintended consequesnces.

Anyway, the motion is here, and it contains the documents with all of the building details and rationales.

wYCDzrn.png
 
Last edited:
Toronto could add 258 buildings to heritage register in unprecedented step

While several neighbourhood groups are applauding the move, others are voicing concern.

BILD, the home builders' association with some 1,450 member companies, said in a letter to the preservation board that it was surprised by the city's approach, especially given the limited information it received about the change.

...

Jack Winberg, the president and CEO of developer Rockport, which controls four properties on the list, expressed similar shock in his letter to the board.

...

At Thursday's meeting, architect Michael McClelland said while he supports a city-wide survey of heritage properties, he's alarmed by the city's aggressive stance, suggesting it should find a way to do more consultation with owners.

McClelland also questioned whether or not many of the buildings would qualify for full heritage protection, suggesting while they're "good, stable" structures, they may not meet the full criteria.

Coun. Kristyn Wong-Tam, who sits on the board, asked the same question to staff, and was told in response it would definitely allow city staff to move faster to block demolitions.

 
I guess this is a response to the demolition of the old bank buildings and Stollery's?

Overall, something that's needed, but definitely an overreaction that may hamper intensification projects in the area. I wonder if Jennifer Keesmaat even got any input on this?
 
Personally, I'm on the fence: I am for these designations, but I have not been able to read the rationales for all of them, and as an economist I always fear unintended consequesnces.

These aren't being designated. They are simply being listed. Two different things.

It simply gives the city 60 days to study a property and consider it for designation once an application is received. It will prevent developers from bulldozing before the city has a chance to act.
 
I guess this is a response to the demolition of the old bank buildings and Stollery's?

Overall, something that's needed, but definitely an overreaction that may hamper intensification projects in the area. I wonder if Jennifer Keesmaat even got any input on this?

Considering that the report comes from Heritage Preservation Services, which reports to Keesmat, I don't see why she wouldn't have had any input.

Her name is on the report:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-106207.pdf
 
Last edited:
These aren't being designated. They are simply being listed. Two different things.

It simply gives the city 60 days to study a property and consider it for designation once an application is received. It will prevent developers from bulldozing before the city has a chance to act.

This is a good point, and probably Matlow's biggest argument against those people freaking out. Nonetheless, I'd be curious about what additional burden is placed on current owners and operators, especially the small independent businesses.
 
I've lived in this neighbourhood basically my entire life. Very few of these buildings are heritage, they are just old from an era of streetcar suburbs.

That is not to say that the built-form of the area isn't worth perserving - I think it is because it preserves the walkable small-store and restaurant patio character of the neighbourhood. However, the physical building structures themselves are not of any heritage value. That existing built-form and character which is worth perserving can be replicated in a newer building.

This move is just anti-development-ism.
 
That is not to say that the built-form of the area isn't worth perserving - I think it is because it preserves the walkable small-store and restaurant patio character of the neighbourhood. However, the physical building structures themselves are not of any heritage value. That existing built-form and character which is worth perserving can be replicated in a newer building.

Agreed- it's better to mandate requirements like the number of storefronts, storefront width, additional set backs, etc. rather than blocking development altogether.
 
However, the physical building structures themselves are not of any heritage value. That existing built-form and character which is worth perserving can be replicated in a newer building.

Depends on what one means by "existing built-form and character"--like, as advocates of intensification might argue, if you're basically replacing in kind, what's the point?

In fact, let's reframe the argument--not in terms of the threat being "urban intensification" (which seems the primary motivating "heritage" concern here), but in terms of it being urban disfiguration. That is, along the lines of retail strips from Corso Italia to the Lakeshore in New Toronto being cursed with the EIFS Botox fungus.

It's not to say that mass listing/designation should be the solution here, especially if the optics look silly and reactive--however, ideally, heritage-type concerns ought to be baked into the planning system, so as to obviate the need to be silly, so to speak.

In fact, here's a case on Bayview where a respect for "heritage-type" concerns actually *worked*--even though it's been raised sneeringly as a "hey, look, hysterical preservationists are rallying on behalf of Dollarama" case. And yes, it's a Dollarama...but it's within the shell of a 1940 Kresge store, and the elegant Deco/Moderne brickwork remains as a reminder, and the present tenant sought to leave well enough alone. Remember: Dollarama could have chosen EIFS mummification. But whether the motivation was from within or from without, they chose otherwise. And while the old Kresge might not be *super*-important, under this circumstance to deem it "not of any heritage value" and thus consign it to the dogs is obtuse in the extreme. Maybe it'll be redeveloped/"intensified" some day; but in the meantime, treat it with respect. And the fact that this was done *without* requiring official heritage status proves, in its spot-instance way, my point about baking heritage-type concerns into the system...

DIGFREGXoAEXYHO.jpg
 

Back
Top