The President's Pen: You Need Reports and Approval to Chop Down A Tree In Toronto, But Not a House

A couple bought a house in the Beach area of Toronto with the intent of demolishing it and building a nice new modern universally accessible house by a good architect. They took all of the required steps, including checking the City's inventory of protected buildings. (Read the Star here, and more detail at Openfile) and found no problem.

But there is a problem on a street like Beech in an area like the Beach. Houses do not exist in isolation but create the texture of the neighbourhood. It should have been part of a Heritage Conservation district, but  back in 2004 some hotshot lawyers screamed "property rights" and Beech Ave. didn't get to be an HCD.

So in the absence of any decent inventory of the houses and districts that matter to the City, the couple bought the house and all hell breaks loose and we are once again doing Heritage By Crisis, in which nobody wins.  

Seriously, In Toronto you cannot chop down a tree without getting an arborist's report and going to Council, but if a house is not one of the few on a list, you can chop it down without a second thought. It is about time that we treated our buildings as well as our trees, and made proper reports and Council approval mandatory for any demolition.

Comments

[Graham Smith]

Good point Lloyd however there needs to be much more rigorous criteria within the Heritage Act. Currently this legislation has the power to completely strip owners of the normal bundle of rights we associate with property ownership, the Tree By-Law doesn't have that affect. Similarly, forcing designation on property owners can be financially punishing and have serious consequences on property value.

The Beech house is a good example of a property that likely does not merit designation (wait and see) and as you suggest is an 11th hour heritage Hail Mary. What is most disturbing is that the the Beech house is being singled out. The Act is not being applied with any equality or accountability, if it was dozens of houses in the Beaches and thousands across the City should have designation thrust upon them whether their owners like it or not.

The City has failed to maintain it's registry, as the Act requires them to, and has failed to apply this extremely powerful piece of legislation with any consistency or fairness.

[Richard Longley]

Agreed, but I do feel nervous at the prospect of ACO taking on a member of what might be the most respected and powerful community in Canada - that of people with disabilities.

I wonder if ACO's architect members might provide the owners of this property with advice that would help them make their home accessible and livable without destroying it?

Otherwise, am I right in assuming that this house is not part of an HCD? If that is the case might the reason for that be the poor presentation of a proposal that the Beaches should become an HCD by its framers and its consequent angry rejection by a significant number of property owners? If that is the case it will surely be doubly-difficult to save this house.

Lise Rochon (of the Globe & Mail and a Beaches resident) has written about other conservation problems in that neighbourhood. I wonder if there is any point in getting her onside - unless she's a neighbourhood pariah?

Finally, if it must happen, I am sympathetic with the couple's plan to replace this house with a wholly different, architecturally contrasting, 'modern' structure. I write this as one who has had it with 'harmonization' and Victorian pastiche.

Having promoted that in my own neighbourhood and seen the result, I am now of the view that if a heritage building is demolished then its community should be reminded of that loss forever, by the construction in place of the lost building of a splendid example of contemporary architecture. (Regarding which, it might be argued that one place where that kind of rebuilding might be allowed is the architecturally anarchic Beaches.)

A tough and complicated issue - with no easy resolution, unless the couple in question chooses to sell their heritage home and build the house they need elsewhere. Good luck with it!

[Graham Smith]

I think what is important about this story is the heritage issue that is being raised. This is not about disability or modern houses, though I agree that faux-historic does more damage than good. The issue with the Teehan's is that they don't need this on top of the suffering they have already endured and I honestly do believe they are being victimized.

ERA's "report" was done without visiting the site (presumably by Google street view) and was solicited by Councillor Bussin herself. The Councillor's motion to study designation was done without any consultation whatsoever. This is not the way the City should conduct business.

Councillor Bussin is quoted as saying about the heritage designation process “I could drive by, or another person could drive by and say, ‘I’d like to have that property reviewed,’ which I have done in the past. You don’t need a petition, you don’t need a call from a constituent. It’s usually when a property is being sold and its value comes to light.” This is a cavalier attitude and is certainly not the intention of the Act. Councillor Bussin has suggested that the Teehan's should have checked with her before buying the property. Since when does anyone call the ward councillor before purchasing a house? Shouldn't calling Heritage Preservation Services, which they did, be sufficient?

Please ask every educated heritage professional and architect to visit 204 Beech. The house has the form of a vernacular cottage but that's where it's importance stops.

The exterior is modern stucco over EPS foam. The window and door casings no longer exist and the storm windows are a combination of 1950's and 1970's retrofits. None of the exterior trim is original and the characteristic railings we would expect to see around the verandah are missing. The scroll work brackets on the verandah are not original, nor are the posts.

The "five sided dormer(s)", there are two of them, are poorly detailed and clad with asphalt shingles. The soffits are plywood, with modern metal vents and the gutters and downspouts are distinctively Home Depot.

The originality of the turret is questionable but suffice to say it has about as much architectural merit as a bouncy castle. It is disproportionate to house and was clearly designed and executed by a rank amateur. The windows lack the distinctive curved glass that one would expect to see of this period and the octagonal faceted roof is clumsy at best, lacking the compound curves in the roof line and ornament of any kind. The turret does have any any of the whimsey one would expect of the picturesque cottage style.

None of the interiors are original.

204 Beech is masquerading as something much better and when compared to the Kew Williams House, or any other designated house in the Beaches, 204 Beech represents little more than nostalgia. The bar would have to be set pretty low for this house to warrant designation. The houses on either side merit designation more than this one as do many more in the neighbourhood that are neither listed nor in HCDs.

If the Teehan's are to be singled out then the City has a duty of fairness to designate all the other houses that have similar "heritage value". How do you think that would play out if Council simultaneously sterilized the development rights of thousands of residential properties throughout Toronto?

[Bill Greer]

A question :-

Is there a better way to identify, document and conserve architectural heritage value and interests in the city or to establish a reasonable method to manage the inevitable need to adapt or make changes in the built environment by individuals and society in contemporary Toronto?.

The answer is not simple but we should try.

[Graham Smith]

I think that listing buildings on the registry is the solution. It should be done by HPS staff and involve an informal visual survey of Toronto's streetscapes. Owners of projects of interest should be contacted by HPS and informed of the City's desire to list the building. An explanation should be given to owners that the purpose of the listing is to inform HPS of any major proposed changes or potential demolition of the building in future. This should be a voluntary process.

[coach outlet]

I agree with your idea.You look like very talented.It is very happy to meet you. Thank you!

[christian louboutin]

Agreed. Some folks use push/pull, and some of this comes from the "permission markeitng" concept from Seth Godin from about a decade ago. I also agree with you that social media and the ability to have a conversation (like this one) change the game. So maybe we need a new term?

You have some good points, and the best one might be that I prefer to debate less and do more marketing! If you are ever in Boston, look me up and I'll give you a tour of the HubSpot offices and buy you a coffee.

[MBT Shoes Uk]

I agree with your idea.You look like very talented.It is very happy to meet you. Thank you!

[LouisVuitton]

Thank you for sharing your stuff on blog. It is doubtless that we have similar interests. Something are very helpful to me.