News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

The picture accompanying the story is futility personified. I mean, really, yelling at that cop accomplishes what, exactly? Like she's going to pull her gun out, fire off some warning shots, and order the demolition company to cease and desist? Yes, it's a lousy situation, but some people need to think and channel their energies in a more effective fashion rather than come across as hysterical, unhinged busybodies taking out their frustrations on the wrong people.
 
At a first glance it would seem that the plan would be to remove important elements of the exterior, board it up, and then present it as not worthy of preservation given that it is boarded up, missing its portico, etc. The submission of a demolition application really sheds some light on the owner's ambitions.
 
what a way to introduce yourself to the community.
 
The picture accompanying the story is futility personified. I mean, really, yelling at that cop accomplishes what, exactly? Like she's going to pull her gun out, fire off some warning shots, and order the demolition company to cease and desist? Yes, it's a lousy situation, but some people need to think and channel their energies in a more effective fashion rather than come across as hysterical, unhinged busybodies taking out their frustrations on the wrong people.
Click to expand...

They are.


Media Advisory December 16, 2009

Stopping the Demolition of MacLean House

Councillor Joe Mihevc, the Casa Loma Residents Association (CLRA) and members of the Heritage Community will be holding a news conference to preserve the MacLean Estate and reverse the damage already done.

When: Thursday, December 17, 2009, 10 a.m.

Where: Outside 7 Austin Terrace, in the historic Casa Loma neighbourhood

For more information: Lydia Hanson Executive Assistant to Councillor Joe Mihevc (Ward 21, St. Paul's West), 416-392-0208 or (cell) 647-886-5388 or Robert Levy, Casa Loma Residents Association, at austinterrace@gmail.com.
Click to expand...
 
Meh. They can buy the place and preserve it themselves if they love it so much.
 
i'm with eug..
if it was already designated, that'd be a different situation.
home owner rights man.
 
But maybe there's a deeper message here than raw "home owner rights"--especially when it's carried out in terms as insensitively mean-spirited as this. And really, matix: what kind of idiot, yes, idiot are you to assume that just because something isn't presently designated means that there's an inherent lack of heritage merit? If we were to go by that assumption, nothing would be added to the inventory, the (imperfect) lists of yesteryear would remain static into eternity, etc. Sure, it may technically remain "home owner's rights" (as even the quote below acknowledges), but that doesn't make it a model of such worth upholding.

So, on a note of "this machine kills Eug and matix", from today's ACO e-newsletter (courtesy ACO prez Lloyd Alter)...

Demolition by the Pound: Destroying a John Lyle House Bit By Bit

Click here to see video I took this morning of Councillor Mihevic (in a very cute hat) and author Glen McArthur

Catherine Nasmith talked about Demolition by Neglect; this morning I saw what I am going to call Demolition by the Pound. You don't need a demolition permit to take out windows, remove non-structural trim, eaves, soffits and details, so if you are a developer and you know that the City is looking at listing your house, (it was designed by John Lyle who did Union Station) you go for it; pretty soon there is not much of value left. Joe Mihevc and the Casa Loma Ratepayers can jump up and down, there is nothing they can do.

This is not an isolated case. All over the city, people are destroying heritage buildings and districts with careless "renovations", ruining the character of their homes and in fact reducing their property values by tearing out important historic elements like windows. They don't make them like John Lyle used to; the City should have controls on this kind of thing. Oh, I forgot, they do. They just don't use them.

It is a tragedy that this happened, and it is a scandal that the City cannot control it. It is demolition by the pound. It should require a permit.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, here's the book McArthur wrote

3503863581_89b01672e2.jpg


Eug--I trust you've never heard of the book, or maybe even of Lyle. If that's the case, shut your ignorant yap re "they can buy the place and preserve it themselves if they love it so much".
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/740496--hume-toothless-laws-led-to-shameful-destruction

Hume: Toothless laws led to shameful destructionComment on this story »

By Christopher Hume
Urban Issues, Architecture Published On Fri Dec 18 2009

Developers don't get a lot of respect in this town. Even when they're trying to do their best, many view them as little more than dressed-up vandals.

This week, we found out why.

Thanks to an unprecedented display of wanton destruction by John Todd, president of 1626829 Ontario Ltd., a historic Toronto house has been defaced beyond recognition.

Designed by architect John Lyle, he of Union Station and the Royal Alexandra Theatre, the century-old residential building at 7 Austin Terrace was reduced to a shell Tuesday as a small crowd watched in disbelief.

Todd, who bought the property in 2008, wants to tear it down to make way for a row of townhouses.

In theory there's nothing wrong with that, but rather than bother with the niceties of the heritage designation the city is seeking, Todd hired a gang of architectural thugs to tear the place apart, but not demolish it.

For that, a demolition permit would have been required, something Todd and his lawyer, Adam Brown, never asked for.

"Everything that was done today was in our rights as the property owner," said Todd, speaking words that have been heard many times before.

"There's nothing heritage about any part of that building," said Brown. "Today, the building is not listed or designated. My client bought it ... but it's not listed as a designated building. It's a vacant building."

Never more so than now.

"Technically, it wasn't a demolition," Toronto Councillor Joe Mihevc explained. "But obviously they are destroying all the heritage features. There's outrage at city hall that they can get away with this."

That's not hard to understand; the way the system works, however, means that until a building has been designated, it isn't protected. But designation takes time, and city council won't reconvene until Jan. 21.

"Once it's designated," Mihevc continued, "Todd can be charged. But you can't designate something that's been destroyed."

Todd may be an embarrassment to the city, but clearly this doesn't concern him. Why should it? Eventually, he will build his townhouses and people will buy them blissfully unaware of their shameful history. As long as his actions are not illegal, it doesn't matter if they're wrong.

But long after this nasty little battle is over and forgotten, we will still be waging the larger war between property owners and heritage rights. There are rarely any easy outcomes, but there must be better ways of resolving these disputes.

"What we need," Mihevc said, "is the ability to issue a stop-work order to cover the time between when we get an indication a building might be designated and the time when the designation process ends. Right now, shame is the only tool we have."

For Todd, Brown and their crew, that means nothing.

It doesn't have to be like this. On Sherbourne St. just south of Bloor, a late 19th-century house, the James Cooper mansion, was moved to a nearby site to accommodate a high-rise condo tower next door.

In other cases, facades of historic buildings have been incorporated not always happily – into modern structures.

The contempt shown on Austin Terrace is obnoxious for reasons that go well beyond the building. Indeed, it flies in the face of the very civic values behind which the John Todds of this world take refuge.

When the most compelling argument his lawyer can make is that his actions are not against the law, you know the bar has been set as low as it can go.

The barbarians might once have been at the gates, but now they are amongst us.

Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
Click to expand...
 
ok adma, before you go all willy nilly calling me an idiot, settle down. Just cuz we don’t agree, doesn’t make either of us an idiot.

when you buy property, it comes with rights, privileges and yes - restrictions.

In this case.. heritage restrictions wasn’t one of them. So, to come in and tell this owner what he should and shouldn’t do to his house is completely offside. Why should he be forced to live in some museum b/c he and you don’t see eye to eye on the aesthetics of a building appearance.

This is their home. no yours. Not the city’s.

I’m all for heritage conservation. I, probably like you, wish we have had done a better job of it already; however, be realistic - some nice house, on a side street tucked in behind St. Clair and Bathurst does little to contribute to the cultural landscape of the city.
 
matix, by your own logic, UrbanToronto shouldn't exist at all. We have no right to discuss how buildings look, meet the street, whether the retail is too wide, or too thin, or doesn't have high enough ceilings, or whether they should be taller, or whether they should be ripped down entirely and left as gravelly parking lots. Taking what you are saying, in this case, to an extreme, the sole consideration should be the economic advantage of the owner, who can do what they want.

The issue here is one of having some control and say over the built environment. It's true this house wasn't designated (there are only so many staff working on heritage issues), but the owner of this building is clearly a scum and his working around the law to deface a building deserves our scorn. I would love to see pickets when he tries to sell his houses. There is a public interest in preserving these structures, whether or not you see it.
 
matix said:
Why should he be forced to live in some museum b/c he and you don’t see eye to eye on the aesthetics of a building appearance.
Click to expand...

You do know that no one's going to be living here, right? That the developer wants to tear it down and build townhouses? That the city opposed this? And that the developer decided to trash the house - which doesn't require an all-out demo permit, which the city denied - before the city could get the heritage machinery moving? You know all this because you read the articles, right?
 
The "I'm not breaking any laws" justification does not excuse him from his unethical action, and his unwillingness to recognize the historical importance of the house disgusts me. I hope he is publicly humiliated.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top