[matix]

To archivist… it's exactly why urbantoronto exist.. to share opinions, ideas etc. i started posting here for that reason alone. to get away from other sites that turn into bickering exchanges.

my point was childish name calling over a difference of opinion is just that - childish.

calling this guy scum is a little off side as well. i have to throw this clause out there.. i am totally unfamiliar with this matter, other than what's in the star article.

To scarberiankhatru.. i have to throw this clause out there.. i am totally unfamiliar with this matter, other than what's in the two Star articles. I’m not sure if you’re taking a jab at me or being sarcastic.
Did he need a need a zoning by-law amendment for townhouses? I’ve seen many nice retro fits of old mansions into multi unit buildings. And nice infill townhouses. You know, infilling done right.

To prometheau..
That’s what I questioned. Based on what I see.. there doesn’t seem to be anything that special about it.. just cuz the same guy did union station, doesn’t make this building special. And the arch treatments I see are nothing special in my opinion.

based on that, sure, it sounds like designation may have been in the works. but why?

the article hints at two reasons.. one - that it is because of the architect. just b/c he also designed union station, doesn't mean everything he did is worthy of preservation. two - it says the " demolished the architectural elements they say makes it worthy of consideration for historical preservation". i personally don't see much cultural value in the house.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Whether it is worthy of preservation is one thing; purposefully destroying the heritage features with the understanding that the building as it is is under consideration for preservation is another completely. It is the latter that is particularly problematic and points to a lack of morals, civic responsibility and quite frankly contravenes the spirit of the law, if not the letter; and as such individuals perpetuating such acts should indeed be condemned in a most strenuous way.

AoD

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

don't those features give the building value? why destroy that?

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

It is the latter that is particularly problematic and points to a lack of morals, civic responsibility and quite frankly contravenes the spirit of the law, if not the letter; and as such individuals perpetuating such acts should indeed be condemned in a most strenuous way.

AoD

Very well put.

 

[DavidJamesTO]

don't those features give the building value? why destroy that?

So it can be demolished and replaced by several homes that will make the developer more money than he paid for it. As long as there's nothing to designate, there's nothing to preserve either.

 

[junctionist]

The claims of those in the neighbourhood that the house is important to their built heritage should be formally investigated before its architectural features are demolished. This is irresponsible, antisocial, and contemptuous of those who find their neighbourhood a meaningful place to live. The greater city might not be affected by this heritage issue, but it sets a bad precedent.

 

[matix]

well..
stuff like this happens all the time. not designated, but on a LACAC significant list.

if you think every property owner that is on some significant list, will designate the house for the 'greater good', you're kidding yourself.

if you owned 900,000 worth of real estate, you'd protect your investment, and avoid designation too.

i still see know heritage value in this particular house.

and.. most importantly. remember kids.. just cuz it's old, doesn't mean it's significant.

 

[adma]

To prometheau..
That’s what I questioned. Based on what I see.. there doesn’t seem to be anything that special about it.. just cuz the same guy did union station, doesn’t make this building special. And the arch treatments I see are nothing special in my opinion.

based on that, sure, it sounds like designation may have been in the works. but why?

the article hints at two reasons.. one - that it is because of the architect. just b/c he also designed union station, doesn't mean everything he did is worthy of preservation. two - it says the " demolished the architectural elements they say makes it worthy of consideration for historical preservation". i personally don't see much cultural value in the house.

Matix, just to remind you: going by the above statements, you are to heritage judgment what Dr. Nick Riviera is to medicine.

 

[adma]

i still see know heritage value in this particular house.

And your grasp of spelling and grammar matches your heritage judgment.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

matix:

if you owned 900,000 worth of real estate, you'd protect your investment, and avoid designation too.

Is it protecting one's investments, or is it willfully circumventing the operation of the state with regards to heritage preservation?

i still see know heritage value in this particular house.

Others disagree - and therefore it is up to the elected officials (with recommendation of the Toronto Preservation Board) to decide.

and.. most importantly. remember kids.. just cuz it's old, doesn't mean it's significant.

That's up to others to decide - at issue here is the manner by which the owner willfully violated the process and the spirit of the law.

AoD

 

[adma]

That's up to others to decide - at issue here is the manner by which the owner willfully violated the process and the spirit of the law.

And maybe keep in mind that, paradoxically enough and despite protestations-through-his-lawyer, the owner wound up seeing more "heritage value" in the house than matix does--that is, he saw how the pawns were clearly aligning in his disfavour. So, in lieu of a demolition permit, he set out to defiantly destroy said "heritage value".

Just because you don't think Marla Hanson was pretty isn't an alibi for slashing her face with a razor.

 

[Eug]

Heh. Hysterical name calling. Why am I not surprised...

P.S. I really feel sorry for that policewoman in the pic.

 

[MisterF]

^Adma's petty insults are par for the course around here, unfortunately.

 

[adma]

Heh. Hysterical name calling. Why am I not surprised...

P.S. I really feel sorry for that policewoman in the pic.

After everything that isn't "hysterical name calling" in this thread (i.e. press releases, photo ops, Chris Hume piece, posts by those other than myself), you're still unsympathetic?

Oh well, you're also the sort of character who'd prefer a McMansion on this site...

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

Be careful what you wish for. At least he's behaving and not posting links to Barely Legal sites and upskirt photos as he was notorious for doing on the Frank magazine boards.