The_Architect said:
I see myself as a centre-right, but I support heritage preservation, and green roofs, development in the downtown, think Ford is a buffoon and Don Cherry needs to keep his opinions to hockey.
I feel like I'm riding the fence in Toronto.. :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think left-wing vs. right-wing work well in this context. I am very libertarian on social issues, but fiscally conservative at the municipal government level and more centrist at the Provincial/Federal level.

But, let me ask you, would you support heritage preservation, green roofs and all that if there was a direct and specific tax attached to your property tax bill? Further, do you really believe folks not living in downtown would be okay with that in general?
 
Northern Magus said:
I'm always amused by faux-libertarian positions that never stand beyond their author's navel gazing.

Every major city in the developed world routinely "rides roughshod" over the property rights Maurice suggests to be inviolable -- through zoning, heritage laws, design review boards, and other means. If anything, the inverse of his proposition appears to be the rule: ultimately the market appears to thrive with these in place.

He also makes ludicrously unsubstantiated assertions about the psychology and interests of "the majority of the public" and yet cannot be bothered to furnish even the slightest modicum of proof other than his own personal, contemptuous speculation.

Given the creepy mysogyny inherent in his now-deleted remarks, his fringe views and his inability to support them should be completely unsurprising.
Click to expand...

Couple of points here:

1) You are correct that lots of major cities run roughshod over your definition of "property rights" under the definition you provided. I was making the larger point that "heritage" is like art, ie. a luxury - as compared to zoning and bylaws that deal with sewage, electricity etc. which are simply more important/essential. I'm for "important/essential" intrusions onto private property rights vs. "luxury" ones.

2) You're right, I am making assertions and I don't have a polling numbers. I have tried to say that the "public opinion" was my own conjecture - if you have any counter data, I would love to see it.

3) The creepy comment was a sarcastic response to an intellectually lazy post by someone else equating the views that I have with Mel Gibson or something like that. I guess the poster was saying that anyone who doesn't believe in heritage buildings thinks of women as property/pieces of meat?
 
Maurice said:
Yeah, I don't think left-wing vs. right-wing work well in this context. I am very libertarian on social issues, but fiscally conservative at the municipal government level and more centrist at the Provincial/Federal level.

But, let me ask you, would you support heritage preservation, green roofs and all that if there was a direct and specific tax attached to your property tax bill? Further, do you really believe folks not living in downtown would be okay with that in general?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I am also a bit biased, as I am a planning student who's main subjects of interest are architecture and history. Also in planning the green/sustainability thing is emphasized a lot.
So short answer: if I had the money I'd buy properties like 199 Yonge and the former 355 Yonge with the purpose of restoring them. (aka yes)

Also people not living in downtown voted in Rob Ford, so the validity of their opinion was pretty much lost to me at that point.
 
Maurice said:
You are correct that lots of major cities run roughshod over your definition of "property rights" under the definition you provided. I was making the larger point that "heritage" is like art, ie. a luxury - as compared to zoning and bylaws that deal with sewage, electricity etc. which are simply more important/essential. I'm for "important/essential" intrusions onto private property rights vs. "luxury" ones.

You're right, I am making assertions and I don't have a polling numbers. I have tried to say that the "public opinion" was my own conjecture - if you have any counter data, I would love to see it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your considered response.

I think, however, that your premise mistakenly conflates personal property (ie chattel) rights with those of real property. Since permission must be applied for and received in virtually any significant construction, demolition or renovation, they would appear to be much more qualified and limited in scope than those of chattels.

Regarding your query about public opinion research, just remember that in any debate the burden of proof lies with the asserter of a claim.
 
Last edited:
Northern Magus said:
I appreciate your considered response.

I think, however, that your premise mistakenly conflates personal property (ie chattel) rights with those of real property. Since permission must be applied for and received in virtually any significant construction, demolition or renovation, they would appear to be much more qualified and limited in scope than those of chattels.

Regarding your query about public opinion research, just remember that in any debate the burden of proof lies with the asserter of a claim.
Click to expand...

I concede both your points here - yes, I agree that rights are different for chattels and immovables, and, that the burden of proof always lies with the asserter. On point one, even though we're talking about real property - we are essentially debating the role of local government in describing to an owner how the outside of their building should look, based on an inherent assumption that preserving/maintaining the look of the building serves a public good. I guess where it gets difficult for me, is when that "public good" is really based on "aesthetics" as opposed to say "public safety".

For your second point, yes the burden of proof does fall on me - I was just asking more out of curiosity if you have data that counters.
 
Maurice said:
I guess where it gets difficult for me, is when that "public good" is really based on "aesthetics" as opposed to say "public safety".
Click to expand...

Yet if it's all about "public safety" to you, the irony is--nobody is arguing on behalf of the current Loblaw Warehouse status quo. Not those on behalf of demolition; not those on behalf of facadism; not even those on behalf of retention. Nobody, other than maybe some outer-limit Detroit-ruin-worshipper-types that I don't know of, is arguing that whatever facade elements "threaten public safety" be left alone and unaddressed. Even the retentionists are on behalf of fixing the problem--restore the exterior, and presto, good as new, no more falling-bricks-and-elements problem.

In fact, more often than not when "public safety" is an issue (as at Yonge & Gould), blaming the heritage folks is rather like the wife abuser's "she had it coming" alibi...
 
Maurice said:
Couple of points here:

1) You are correct that lots of major cities run roughshod over your definition of "property rights" under the definition you provided. I was making the larger point that "heritage" is like art, ie. a luxury - as compared to zoning and bylaws that deal with sewage, electricity etc. which are simply more important/essential. I'm for "important/essential" intrusions onto private property rights vs. "luxury" ones.

2) You're right, I am making assertions and I don't have a polling numbers. I have tried to say that the "public opinion" was my own conjecture - if you have any counter data, I would love to see it.

3) The creepy comment was a sarcastic response to an intellectually lazy post by someone else equating the views that I have with Mel Gibson or something like that. I guess the poster was saying that anyone who doesn't believe in heritage buildings thinks of women as property/pieces of meat?
Click to expand...

And who's to say a generic big-box grocery store is important/essential, at the expense of even more of our city's heritage? I do, of course, believe that every neighbourhood should have convenient access to food, but not when the outlet is a product of typical corporate greed. There's no reason why the space can't be re-appropriated for grocery use with a little imagination, but as is typical, the stringent bottom lines of Loblaw take precedent in this case. Or perhaps they feel their work at MLG is enough to say "to Hell with the Lakeshore property, we've done enough for the heritage crowd".

I don't want to sound like I pander to the anti-corporation pseudo-Socialist crowd, but here it seems to be another case of a narrow minded vision coming from our city's corporate citizens. So often they're unwilling to adapt to an urban environment, and insist on littering the landscape with visual pollution to save on any sort of architectural or development costs for their buildings. Saving 2 of the facades doesn't cut it, and at this point it seems they'll drag their feet until the damn thing collapses.

Again, to my point in my previous post, building a city to only meet the bare minimum "important/essential" standards (and I question your definition of important/essential) would make for a pretty bleak environment. Whether you agree or disagree, the physical heritage of this, or any city, is extremely important and essential.
 
Last edited:
Bravo EgoTrippin!

I'm hearing that the building may not be structurally sound.

My question is this - is anyone planning to hold Loblaws accountable for the fact that it can't be saved? Why is this any different between this scenario and the Empress Hotel, except that the later fell onto the street and was burnt down?

This is a designated building, deemed worthy of protecting, and yet designation is becoming more toothless by the day.
 
Rebecca - HT said:
I'm hearing that the building may not be structurally sound.
Click to expand...

The whole building; or just the facade? (Given that it's a 20s warehouse, I'd imagine its pretty sturdily put together--unless being on landfill and vaulted-over by a superhighway has compromised things.)
 
The presentation indicated that the facade was in very poor condition and that the internal structure is not satisfactory in accommodating a supermarket.
 
Rebecca - HT said:
Bravo EgoTrippin!
Click to expand...

Thanks Rebecca!

Gristle, seeing as it's largely a wide open space intersected with columns, I don't understand why a supermarket can't be put in the space. Also, considering trains used to enter the building, I'm sure there's room to accomodate a large shipping/receiving department. Did they offer any reasoning as to why the space is not suitable? It just surprises me, considering a warehouse seems like the most likely candidate to support a supermarket conversion.
 
They talked about the issues of the first floor being above grade and the large sewer line beneath the building. They said that these factors made the space very difficult to utilize for the purposes of a supermarket, although they had made some plans a couple of years ago with workarounds. Now, however, they said that the condition of the building does not allow them to proceed with those plans and they have reconfigured the project based on the current condition of the building.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top