LNahid2000
Senior Member
Wait so if they already have a permit to demolish the building, are they working really quickly so that its demolished before the next meeting? I found it odd to see them working on a Saturday.
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Unless Council calls a special meeting to give notice of intention to designate the building under Part IV of the Heritage Act ASAP, it will be gone.
Last edited:
Marcanadian
Moderator
I know that an intention to designate voids any permits already issued for the site, but what if an intention to designate is in place before a demolition permit is granted? I think that was the case with 81 Wellesley: an intention to designate already existed when a demolition permit was submitted and approved. So if that intention already exists, the property owner can still apply for a demolition permit? It's only after a demolition permit is granted that a notice of designation could have any impact?
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
The day the notice is given, any permits before that date are void. As of the day of the notice, Sections 33 and 34 of the Heritage Act apply (i.e. it's treated as if it's designated, and you can't alter or demolish without heritage approvals). There is a 30 day notice period. After the notice period if there are no objections Council can decide whether to move forward with the designation. If there are objections it goes to a Conservation Review Board hearing. After that hearing it goes back to Council for the final decision.
For 81 Wellesley the motion was:
"The Toronto and East York Community Council Directed the Acting Director, Policy and Research, to report back to the Toronto and East York Community Council on the possibility of designating the building at 81 Wellesley Street East under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act."
So staff were directed to look into this, but there was no formal motion by City Council with an intention to designate. After the motion for staff to look into this, the developer applied for an received a building permit through the normal process. Building staff are required to issue the permit if it complies with the Building Code and applicable law; there was no formal notice of intention to designate under the Heritage Act in this case that would prevent them from issuing a permit. By the time the Councillor heard about this the building was half down. They are supposed to be having a new internal process system where all demolition permits applications are circulated to the local councillors.
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
Parking lots were always considered a temporary stop gap between what were considered obsolete and developing the property for future needs. Few predicted it would take generations for the demand to arise to redevelop all these parking lots.
Clearing the buildings for the assembled One Bloor West site not only reduces costs but makes the property a lot more valuable to potential development. More options for Mizrahi.
Marcanadian
Moderator
Ah, I had thought the an intention to designate was already granted. I don't want to go too off topic, but couldn't that motion have been bypassed and gone straight to an intention to designate? Did they just not think the owner would apply for a demolition permit that quickly?
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Likely... In the 81 Wellelsey case, her motion came foreword on November 2. But the demolition application was not submitted until right after the last Council meeting of the year (Dec 1). The next regular meeting was Feb 6. The permit was issued Dec 14th. She heard about mid-January when demolition was already underway. So even if she had heard about the demolition permit, she would have had to convince Council to call a special meeting to deal with the issue.
Same situation applies in this case (1 Bloor West) with a large gap between Council meetings, although in this case KWT received notice about the pending demolition permit. Unless there is a special meeting called, or she reaches some kind of deal with the developer, the developer can tear down the whole building and the city can't do anything about it.
Last edited:
Marcanadian
Moderator
Thanks!
Back to Stollery's, I think if it were located almost anywhere else in the city, it might have been worth protecting. But given this is Yonge and Bloor, it's harder to make a case for its retention.
Uptowner
Active Member
That is very much my sentiment too. We have so few buildings dating from that time it does seem a shame to lose it completely. I feel about the same as I would about the Albert Britney book store building 50m north of it. Not worth keeping in place if it stops a beautiful 80 storey building being built but a net contributor to the streetscape nonetheless.
Does anyone in the industry have any idea what preserving and moving the facade might cost? Thanks in advance.
Canadian Chocho
Active Member
Bayer
Senior Member
Looks like this debate is about to become moot in a hurry.
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wow. They got their permit yesterday and wasted no time getting to work.
whatever
Senior Member
That's interesting that they're dismantling the facade and not just taking heavy machinery to it. I wonder if they have plans to sell off the stone, or if they were hoping to reuse it in the new building.
Also, this reminds me of the buildings that came down for 1 Bloor E. I thought there was one building midblock that had a window or part of its facade preserved. Is that still sitting in storage somewhere, or is it long gone now?
edit: And weird that they're hoarding in the space where the clay tiles are being removed. And also that they've left the billboard in place while all of this is happening. I'd have thought that if they were trying to clear the lot the first thing to go would've been the billboard. And once you've started demolishing a building there's really no reason to go to any length to protect it from the elements. I'm not so sure they're actually tearing it down.
Also, this reminds me of the buildings that came down for 1 Bloor E. I thought there was one building midblock that had a window or part of its facade preserved. Is that still sitting in storage somewhere, or is it long gone now?
edit: And weird that they're hoarding in the space where the clay tiles are being removed. And also that they've left the billboard in place while all of this is happening. I'd have thought that if they were trying to clear the lot the first thing to go would've been the billboard. And once you've started demolishing a building there's really no reason to go to any length to protect it from the elements. I'm not so sure they're actually tearing it down.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
probably racing against Wong Tam to make sure its gone before anything can be set in place to prevent its demolition. The rational start point for demolition would have been the rooftop billboards, but yet here they are removing the facade. Its pretty clear they are trying to get rid of it ASAP.
They are moving quick though, I walked by this last night and there wasn't even fencing up.
devjohnson
Active Member
Wow, they wasted no time.