Whether they are "Victorian" or not isn't really the issue. Actually, whether they are "heritage" or not isn't really the issue - these houses are heritage only in the sense that they exist - given the amount of time that they have been abandoned and therefore threatened, I feel confident that if the city wanted to list or designate them that there was more than abundant time to do that.

My larger problem is with WJ Property's leaving them abandoned for so long, and then wanting to rip them down without plans for immediate construction on the site, leaving us with the possiblity of an empty lot or parking for several years. The city has a legitimate aesthetic, safety and land use interest in avoiding having abandoned building or empty lots scattered around. I wish there was some "use it or lose it" type of expropriation law that the city could use.
 
Archivist said:
I wish there was some "use it or lose it" type of expropriation law that the city could use.
Click to expand...

Wow, I sure don't! You would prefer that the City throw private property rights out the window because you don't like looking at an empty lot? I say let the owner do whatever he wants there provided he satisfies the zoning regs. He shouldn't have a gun to his head. AFAIK he's paying his property taxes.
 
You would prefer that the City throw private property rights out the window because you don't like looking at an empty lot?
Click to expand...

read these fora, you'll find the same posters who want the city to 'step in' are the same ones who want the city to 'stay out'...depending on weather they like the development or not.
 
Vacant buildings and empty lands detract value from neighbourhoods. A "use it or lose it" policy is extreme, but leaving buildings abandoned for longer periods of time is hardly acceptable either, whether or not the owner is paying taxes.
 
First off, Heritage Toronto doesn't designate the buildings. Heritage Preservation Services does and I cannot say for certain, but at some point designation must have been considered for the site. Listing is normally a precursor to designation, and they are not listed either.
 
junctionist said:
Vacant buildings and empty lands detract value from neighbourhoods. A "use it or lose it" policy is extreme, but leaving buildings abandoned for longer periods of time is hardly acceptable either, whether or not the owner is paying taxes.
Click to expand...

These houses are hardly 'abandoned' Juncts, they are just uninhabited. I don't see a Fight Club chapter starting up on Oakmount Road in the near future. This is a stellar neighborhood by all accounts. Access to transit, parks, shops and amenities. Can't be beat!

One man's crackhouse in another man's mansion. Have a look:

http://www.crackshackormansion.com/
 
CN Tower said:
These houses are hardly 'abandoned' Juncts, they are just uninhabited. I don't see a Fight Club chapter starting up on Oakmount Road in the near future. This is a stellar neighborhood by all accounts. Access to transit, parks, shops and amenities. Can't be beat!

One man's crackhouse in another man's mansion. Have a look:

http://www.crackshackormansion.com/
Click to expand...

Practically speaking, they're abandoned. They are unused and the owner has no plans of using them for anything. If more people did this, the neighbourhood would decline quickly.
 
kettal said:
About half of the buildings on this row are not Victorian at all.
Click to expand...

How about, all of them? After all, Hume said "some almost a century old". Victoria's been dead for almost a century and a decade...
 
Be careful what you wish for. We do not really understand the true behaviour of cities because the time-scales we appreciate are much shorter. Cities are generational and sometimes intergenerational. It's like looking at a garden and seeing a static tableau. In reality the scene is one of epic confrontation between organisms striving to survive. We don't see it because we don't appreciate the time-scale. Vacant and abandoned lots, great building decisions, bad building decisions, and yes even preserving and demolishing heritage buildings, all have their place in the urban symphony. I'm greatly in favour of heritage preservation in some instances and Toronto has so little so there is grounds to bias towards this outcome, but I believe that a city that forces blanket preservation is a city that is suffocating itself.
 
I don't think this is about "preservation" per se (at least, in the "historic landmark" sense); rather, it's about blockbusting tactics--though if there's a valid "preservation" argument, it'd be about preserving the continuous vintage Bloor streetline which fortuitously shields the 60s apartments from High Park...
 
I probably would have no problem with a proposal, were in on the books now, to demolish these houses and replace them with a well designed building. I would base this on the following notions:

- Proximity to subway and other highrises means that it is an area where intensification makes sense
- I think commercialization of that stretch of Bloor opposite High Park would be good for the city (assuming the new building has appropriate commercial at grade)
- The houses, though fine in their own right, are not especially different from many other exemplars of their sort north and south of Bloor. Though I might take a moment to mourn their passing in the same way that I take time to consider the departure of any structure that once graced our city, I would weigh the benefits of a new, more appropriate use in that area.

For me, the issue is not so much heritage, but the ugly scar that abandoned lots and buildings leave across the city. I frequently pass by the brick graveyard on Wellesley East and wonder how long we have to live with that now, or the unsightly wooden barriers around the last of the Opera Place development. And I stand by my assertion that I would support some measures to try and ensure this doesn't happen: tax rates on abandoned land that is easily developable that are high enough to encourage the use of the land, or its more rapid sale to someone willing to develop it, or perhaps some kind of tax break or tax exemption if the land is made available for a purpose other than parking (like a temporary park, as happened near the Eaton Centre where the Ryerson/Canadian Tire now stands). There may be parts of the city where there are significant obstacles to harnessing undeveloped land and owners should not suffer because of it, but across from High Park is not one of them, nor is Wellesley Street West. Policies that discourage urban scars only make sense to me.
 
I appreciate the sentiment and share it in some instances. The trouble is who ends up making these decisions? Does forcing something to happen soon work in the long-term benefit of the community? I don't know but I don't think the answer is clear-cut. It may turn out that the obstinate behaviour of a property owner now will reap fresh opportunity and exciting possibilities in the future. In this instance I doubt it. But I question the outcome of a general policy designed to force property owners to build for the sake of expediency of building.
 
Condo development plans across from High Park (Daniels)

"After years of uncertainty surrounding a block of houses on the north side of Bloor Street West between Pacific Avenue and Oakmount Road, nearby residents learned what's in store for the boarded up homes at a meeting, Monday evening, June 14.

The Daniels Corporation recently finalized a deal with land owner WJ Properties and "as a courtesy," said Neil Pattison, Daniels' manager of development, "we thought we'd come here to tell you what we're proposing."

Taking into account the height of the surrounding buildings, said Pattison referring to the high rise towers in the vicinity that range from 11 to 30 storeys, Daniels is considering developing a mid-rise condominium complex at 14-storeys."

Any ideas or estimates about a time frame of this? Thanks.
 
I was at the community meeting on June 14 with Daniels and they plan to submit the proposal to the city in July.

A few notes on the project.

Architect is Diamond and Schmitt!
14 storey tower on Bloor, 6 storey brick podium with retail at grade, glass tower on top
6 storey stacked townhouse fronting Oakmount and Pacific
300 units in total

Plan view is U shaped with parking access from the rear and in the middle
Green roof on the stacked townhouses and community gardens on the TTC land at the rear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top