G
ganjavih
Guest
Score one for our new heritage rules
By ALEX BOZIKOVIC
Saturday, May 14, 2005 Page M4
Special to The Globe and Mail
Next to the shiny pavement and bright lights of Dundas Square, the building at 275 Yonge St. is easy to miss. Built in 1868 for storekeeper John Bugg, the brick structure is a modest example of Georgian Toronto. But it may have just become another kind of monument: the first building in Toronto to be saved by a new heritage law.
Bill 60, which received royal assent recently, alters the Ontario Heritage Act to extend preservation rules. Most significantly, it lets the province and municipalities stop buildings from being demolished. And while the law's impact will depend on further bureaucratic wrangling, the broad strokes are clear: This is good news for Toronto's historic buildings.
According to heritage architect Michael McClelland, the new legislation probably saved the Yonge Street structure. Though the City of Toronto designated it a heritage building in 2001, laws at the time only let the city delay demolition for 180 days. The owner, Prime Properties, was following a path typical for developers with heritage buildings, Mr. McClelland says. The company had obtained a demolition permit and was headed to the Ontario Municipal Board to push for the right to construct a new building.
"It was supposed to go to the OMB [a few weeks ago], but the owner dropped the case," says Mr. McClelland, whom the city consulted on this issue. "We think that's the first example of where the new legislation has discouraged a demolition."
Toronto's inventory of 2,500 heritage properties, spanning the early 19th century to the modern era, is a varied group. But, says Catherine Nasmith of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, they were, until now, all vulnerable. "Now, council can say no to demolition," she says. "The owner can appeal to the OMB and he may or may not succeed.
"That's a big change, and it brings us in line with [other] jurisdictions. In the rest of the world, 'designated' means that's a building that is going to be protected forever. In Ontario, it meant six months. This just begins to normalize the heritage system in Ontario."
Brian Gallaugher, preservation co-ordinator with the City of Toronto, argues that the city has already managed to preserve many historic properties by negotiating with developers -- who, after all, need the city's approval for building permits and zoning variances.
The Yonge Street property is a case in point. David Tang, the lawyer for Prime Properties, plays down the impact of the regulatory changes. He says his clients are negotiating with the city to put up a new commercial building for the site that will keep part of the original structure's façade, "and trying to integrate it with the [nearby] Dundas Square development -- we'd be proposing the [same] sort of Times Square signage."
But this is hardly a preservationist's dream, and Ms. Nasmith says there's no question that the City of Toronto will be able to defend heritage properties more effectively in the future. "We've moved from nothing being safe to all the designated buildings being safe," she says.
But an owner who has been refused a demolition permit by the city can still argue in front of the OMB that the heritage component is less important than other planning concerns.
As well, the province hasn't yet issued detailed regulations and it's not clear how the OMB, though these days widely seen as fair-minded on historical considerations, will weigh heritage against other issues. "No one knows what kinds of things the board is going to consider," Mr. McClelland says. "We won't know until we get some examples of cases.
"There will be high-profile discussion of what happens with particular buildings," he says.
"And no one knows how it's all going to work, so it'll be fun to watch."
By ALEX BOZIKOVIC
Saturday, May 14, 2005 Page M4
Special to The Globe and Mail
Next to the shiny pavement and bright lights of Dundas Square, the building at 275 Yonge St. is easy to miss. Built in 1868 for storekeeper John Bugg, the brick structure is a modest example of Georgian Toronto. But it may have just become another kind of monument: the first building in Toronto to be saved by a new heritage law.
Bill 60, which received royal assent recently, alters the Ontario Heritage Act to extend preservation rules. Most significantly, it lets the province and municipalities stop buildings from being demolished. And while the law's impact will depend on further bureaucratic wrangling, the broad strokes are clear: This is good news for Toronto's historic buildings.
According to heritage architect Michael McClelland, the new legislation probably saved the Yonge Street structure. Though the City of Toronto designated it a heritage building in 2001, laws at the time only let the city delay demolition for 180 days. The owner, Prime Properties, was following a path typical for developers with heritage buildings, Mr. McClelland says. The company had obtained a demolition permit and was headed to the Ontario Municipal Board to push for the right to construct a new building.
"It was supposed to go to the OMB [a few weeks ago], but the owner dropped the case," says Mr. McClelland, whom the city consulted on this issue. "We think that's the first example of where the new legislation has discouraged a demolition."
Toronto's inventory of 2,500 heritage properties, spanning the early 19th century to the modern era, is a varied group. But, says Catherine Nasmith of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, they were, until now, all vulnerable. "Now, council can say no to demolition," she says. "The owner can appeal to the OMB and he may or may not succeed.
"That's a big change, and it brings us in line with [other] jurisdictions. In the rest of the world, 'designated' means that's a building that is going to be protected forever. In Ontario, it meant six months. This just begins to normalize the heritage system in Ontario."
Brian Gallaugher, preservation co-ordinator with the City of Toronto, argues that the city has already managed to preserve many historic properties by negotiating with developers -- who, after all, need the city's approval for building permits and zoning variances.
The Yonge Street property is a case in point. David Tang, the lawyer for Prime Properties, plays down the impact of the regulatory changes. He says his clients are negotiating with the city to put up a new commercial building for the site that will keep part of the original structure's façade, "and trying to integrate it with the [nearby] Dundas Square development -- we'd be proposing the [same] sort of Times Square signage."
But this is hardly a preservationist's dream, and Ms. Nasmith says there's no question that the City of Toronto will be able to defend heritage properties more effectively in the future. "We've moved from nothing being safe to all the designated buildings being safe," she says.
But an owner who has been refused a demolition permit by the city can still argue in front of the OMB that the heritage component is less important than other planning concerns.
As well, the province hasn't yet issued detailed regulations and it's not clear how the OMB, though these days widely seen as fair-minded on historical considerations, will weigh heritage against other issues. "No one knows what kinds of things the board is going to consider," Mr. McClelland says. "We won't know until we get some examples of cases.
"There will be high-profile discussion of what happens with particular buildings," he says.
"And no one knows how it's all going to work, so it'll be fun to watch."