Automation Gallery said:
Exactly, as soon as a developer buys a property, the city panics and runs around to designate a non-listed/listed property, even when there is nothing special about the structure
Gee, i wonder why
Click to expand...
You are looking at the back of the house in the last photo there. Look further up the page and you'll see that it's an entirely reasonable home—one which will now benefit from a move over to the cluster of Victorians on Glen Road which are being so beautifully restored right now. This one will help create more of a critical mass of preserved architecture from the area. While I'm happy to see redevelopment come to this and the surrounding plots of land, I'm also happy that the City is celebrating the original neighbourhood by preserving it, enhancing what's left, and giving it new life again, as opposed to allowing even more of the obliteration that allowed St. James Town to become what it is today. It's an important tangible and symbolic move to mark our rejection of the block busting that cleared the rest of the area in the 60s.

42
 
Automation Gallery said:
Exactly, as soon as a developer buys a property, the city panics and runs around to designate a non-listed/listed property, even when there is nothing special about the structure
Gee, i wonder why
Click to expand...

The house was listed in the 1970s so obviously there was some historical interest. True, the development application set into motion the proposal to designate which after analysis was seen to have merit and subsequently approved. I don't see anything wrong with that.

The house was completed in 1887. It still has many original attributes. It is of the Bay and Gable style that defines Toronto. It can be relocated for redevelopment.

https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/City Planning/Community Planning/Files/pdf/6/6 Glen Road 76 Howard HIA.pdf

Maybe its nostalgia. My very first project was a restoration of a Bay and Gable (simpler and smaller than this) and those pictures just remind me of all the trials and tribulations. It has exchanged hands a few time since and, unfortunately, the last owners completely gutted the interiors. It's beautiful what they did but, there's nothing left from 1882. Buy or built a new house instead, people!
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
Exactly, as soon as a developer buys a property, the city panics and runs around to designate a non-listed/listed property, even when there is nothing special about the structure
Gee, i wonder why
Click to expand...

Not how it works at all. There is a set of criteria a building must meet to be designated under the OHA. The city doesn't scramble to just designate any old building. The city does scramble to do the necessary footwork that is required to designate a building, but that doesn't mean that it will necessarily qualify for designation.

Its more of a case of scrambling to determine if the building is worth designation, not simply to designate.
 
interchange42 said:
You are looking at the back of the house in the last photo there. Look further up the page and you'll see that it's an entirely reasonable home—one which will now benefit from a move over to the cluster of Victorians on Glen Road which are being so beautifully restored right now. This one will help create more of a critical mass of preserved architecture from the area. While I'm happy to see redevelopment come to this and the surrounding plots of land, I'm also happy that the City is celebrating the original neighbourhood by preserving it, enhancing what's left, and giving it new life again, as opposed to allowing even more of the obliteration that allowed St. James Town to become what it is today. It's an important tangible and symbolic move to mark our rejection of the block busting that cleared the rest of the area in the 60s.

42
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but in no way is it in the class of the two that were moved on Jarvis street, and its just another old house that looks like many in downtown neighbourhoods
I'm OK with heritage, but come on be selective:eek:
 
Last edited:
That house is a classic and is worthy of what they are doing. The interior may have been changed over irrevocably but it's the exterior which counts, especially when you're considering planning for a city which has a respect for its roots and reveres its evolving sense of self.
 
This house has always been my favourite thing on Howard. It's so pretty, and creepy. Love it. Glad it's being saved. I love what they have done on glen Rd but I kinda miss how creepy that row was.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Exactly, as soon as a developer buys a property, the city panics and runs around to designate a non-listed/listed property, even when there is nothing special about the structure
Gee, i wonder why
Click to expand...
Are you incapable of looking past its rough condition and seeing the fine craftsmanship?
 
What about the large decrepit graffiti house on sherbourne just north of Howard? Any idea when they might begin restoring it? It needs some major help.
 
Automation Gallery said:
I agree with you, but in no way is it in the class of the two that were moved on Jarvis street, and its just another old house that looks like many in downtown neighbourhoods
I'm OK with heritage, but come on be selective:eek:
Click to expand...

This is being selective. The house can be saved by it being relocated to another property. It's not stopping development. What's your problem with it? No, this is not your typical Bay and Gable although there are a number of sisters and brothers around.
 
The homes along Glen Rd look as good as new.

27163538514_14d6f81777_h.jpg



The back of the homes, seen from Redrocket Ln:

27164224523_799b262070_h.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top