204 Beech Ave.: A house or a home?
Reported by Josh OKane on Friday, June 25, 2010
-
Construction manager Morris Ortolan moves a paving stone as demolition begins. (June 25, 2010)Kathy Vey -
The house at 204 Beech Ave. sits high above the street, just south of Pine Ave. (May 27, 2010) -
Ann Teehan helps son Geoff wipe a tear after thanking supporters at a public meeting. (June 3, 2010)Josh O'Kane -
Several dozen showed up to support the Teehans at Sandra Bussin's June 3 constituency meeting.Josh O'Kane -
Supporters surround Melissa Teehan after the public meeting. (June 3, 2010)Josh O'Kane -
The stucco structure at 204 Beech Ave. has a small turret. (May 27, 2010) -
Some supporters of the Teehans wear Humanity over Architecture T-shirts. (June 3, 2010)Kathy Vey -
Beaches-East York councillor Sandra Bussin speaks at a June 3 constituency meeting.Josh O'Kane -
The front porch of 204 Beech Ave. (May 27, 2010) -
Rear view of 204 Beech Ave., which has a 54 1/2-foot wide lot. (May 27, 2010) -
Front elevation of proposed new house at 204 Beech Ave.Courtesy of Geoff Teehan -
The proposed house at 204 Beech Ave. would be wheelchair-accessible.Courtesy of Geoff Teehan -
Proposed rear elevation of 204 Beech Ave.Courtesy of Geoff Teehan -
Councillor Sandra Bussin's letter to Toronto and East York Community Council. -
Excerpt of undated letter from ERA Architects to councillor Sandra Bussin. -
A screengrab of the online poll before it was removed from http://204beech.blogspot.com/Posted to Twitter by Dave Stubbs (http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=517vro&s=6) -
Melissa and Geoff Teehan look on as councillor Sandra Bussin speaks. (June 3, 2010)Josh O'Kane
ORIGINAL FILE PITCH
UPDATED JUNE 24:
Now that the owners of 204 Beech Ave. have been issued a building permit, Beaches-East York councillor Sandra Bussin has abandoned her attempt to have the house designated a heritage property.
In an email circulated to residents and other stakeholders on June 23, David McCully, the Ward 32 councillor's executive assistant, wrote that “despite the Councillor best efforts, the attempt to save 204 Beech is not achievable.”
One person who didn’t receive that email was Geoff Teehan, who owns the property.
“No emails, no phone call, no nothing,” he says. “It was sent to me by someone else. That’s the only reason I’ve seen it.”
In fact, he hasn’t heard from Bussin since a community meeting she held June 3, at which she was grilled by dozens of residents over her stance to preserve the existing structure at 204 Beech Ave. rather than allowing the owners to tear it down and build a new home.
The Teehan family — Geoff, Melissa, and their two children — bought the 100-year-old, two-bedroom cottage in January 2010. They intended to tear it down in order to build a modern, accessible home that would serve the needs of Melissa, who was paralyzed from the neck down in 2007 after an illness.
After they announced plans to tear down the existing house, at least one area resident contacted Bussin with concerns that a historical home might be lost. Bussin mounted a campaign to achieve heritage preservation status for the cottage.
At the June 22 meeting of the Toronto–East York Community Council, Bussin presented a motion to rescind the community council’s request to expedite a Heritage Preservation Services report on 204 Beech for the June 30 meeting of the Toronto Preservation Board.
Mary MacDonald, acting manager of Heritage Preservation Services, confirmed to OpenFile that the request for a historical designation report on 204 Beech Ave. has been withdrawn.
“In short, that means that no report will be prepared or brought forward on the 30th,” she wrote in an email.
According to the letter circulated by McCully, because the City of Toronto’s Building Division issued a building permit to the homeowners June 11 to “to remove the dormers, the turret and related interior alterations to the existing dwelling, reasons no longer exist to designate or list 204 Beech Avenue as a heritage property because of the removal of its most significant heritage features.”
Geoff Teehan says he applied for build and demolition permits on June 7, after which he posted a “Notice for Demolition” sign for 14 days.
From what he has gleaned from correspondence with Toronto’s Building Division and Bussin’s assistant McNully, Bussin’s office complained to the Building Division on June 11 after being made aware of the demolition notice, only to find out that the Teehans had also been approved for permits to remove the turret, dormers and other portions of the home.
With the most historically valuable portions of the house’s exterior approved for removal, Teehan guesses Bussin must have realized “she had no point.”
According to McCully’s letter, Bussin’s office was “quite shocked” by the successful permit application, which was deemed legal because 204 Beech had yet to be designated as a heritage preservation property, he wrote.
McCully made it clear that Bussin continued to stand for the preservation of the existing house, and thanked residents for their support of the attempt to save it.
“The Councillor deeply regrets what has happened here. It is now in Mr. Teehan's court to do the right thing. This is unlikely and we suspect that the construction hoarding is being erected to perform the removal of the features.”
It’s too late for Bussin’s wishes to come true — the Teehans received the full demolition permit for 204 Beech Ave. on Wednesday, and are working with their architect and construction manager to get ready to raze the existing structure.
After having zero contact from his councillor, Teehan hopes she learns from the situation.
“She has the nerve to ask me to do the right thing? She should be asking herself that question,” he says.
The ordeal his family has been through over the past month and a half has made Teehan more cautious.
“To me, it’s not fully over until the current structure has been removed and the new house is up — until we’re living in it. Anything can happen, and if one thing’s become clear in this, it's that the process is completely in need of an overhaul.”
The heritage preservation process, he says, is “totally flawed, regardless of what side you lie on.” He calls it “reactive,” and is frustrated that decisions can be made without any input from property owners, sometimes leading to conclusions being drawn from street-view analyses of buildings.
Bussin, he says, “needs to start being open and honest with her constituents. She knows full well what’s going on, and she hasn’t even reached out.
Despite repeated calls to her office, Bussin has not responded to OpenFile’s request for comment.
“She determines whether or not she wants to respond,” McCully said Thursday morning.
UPDATED JUNE 3:
Councillor Sandra Bussin is sticking to her guns on 204 Beech Ave. but constituents at a community meeting have accused her of firing blanks.
Bussin (Ward 32, Beaches–East York) held a meeting June 3 at Adam Beck Community Centre to discuss the ward and take questions from area residents. Although she said it wasn’t meant to be a forum to discuss 204 Beech Ave., almost all of the meeting centred on the controversial address.
She fielded dozens of questions from the several dozen people in attendance, and was criticized repeatedly for not answering the inquiries directly.
When asked how many constituents oppose the demolition of 204 Beech Ave., she gave no figure, saying only that she had been approached by people in her ward concerned with the redevelopment of the property.
(She told OpenFile in a previous interview that she did not tally the contacts she receives from constituents.)
Beaches residents Geoff and Melissa Teehan bought the property earlier this year intending to build a fully accessible home for Melissa, who is quadriplegic. This would mean tearing down the existing house, a century-old cottage.
When it was purchased, the home at 204 Beech Ave. was not considered by the city to be a heritage property. But Bussin put forth a motion at the May 25 Toronto–East York Community Council meeting asking Toronto Heritage Preservation Services to examine the house for heritage significance. This was after an ERA Architects report commissioned by the city the week prior said 204 Beech Ave. had “heritage value.”
That report was commissioned and the motion presented — and passed — without the Teehan family’s knowledge.
Asked at the June 3 meeting by Teehan’s mother whether heritage status would affect her son’s ability to attain a building permit and subsequent demolition permit, Bussin evaded the answer.
“Yes or no?” Ann Teehan asked, with echoes circling around the room more than a dozen times.
Many in the room grew impatient and did not hide their displeasure with the councillor's replies. In explaining the steps of appeal to the Teehan family, Bussin said, “This isn’t the first development. There are properties—”
“This isn’t a development,” interrupted Geoff Teehan. “It’s my family. I have a disabled wife and two kids, and you’re stopping us.”
“And if it was a development, we wouldn’t be having this problem,” said onlooker Sarah MacLennan.
Z. Brozek, who lives down the street from 204 Beech, says he hasn’t seen the petition of area residents that Bussin has claimed to exist. (She has, however, gone on record saying that a petition was not necessary for her to go ahead in commissioning a review of the property.)
“I didn’t sign it. My neighbours didn’t sign it. I want to know who the other people are that signed it,” Brozek said.
The councillor didn’t make any indication of who had signed the supposed petition. She did note during the meeting that she would not disclose private conversations with her constituents.
Bussin insisted that her position as a councillor involves her not taking sides, and that she needs to follow through with the concerns of all her constituents.
No one in attendance spoke against the demolition of the property or for its preservation. Many wore T-shirts reading “Humanity Over Architecture,” designed by Jay Goldman and printed by Keltie Neville of the digital advertising agency Critical Mass. While the firm where she works is a friendly competitor to Geoff Teehan’s Teehan+Lax, Neville said the issue of human compassion trumps professional rivalry.
“I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” said Neville, who couldn’t sport one of the T-shirts herself because the crowd enthusiastically picked up all 20 she printed.
Bussin ended the meeting just past 8 p.m., almost an hour earlier than it was scheduled to finished.
“I’m overwhelmed and thrilled with the support we’re getting from the community,” Melissa Teehan said after the meeting. “And not just our family and friends — it includes people we’ve never met before.”
She and her husband expressed concern over the numbers they see backing the polarized arguments. Geoff said he’s heard from at least 1,000 people pledging their support for their plan to rebuild at 204 Beech, while the family only knows of two people who have confirmed they oppose the demolition plan: Councillor Bussin and the resident across the street, Elizabeth Brown.
Geoff Teehan was quick to emphasize that he walked away from the meeting “with incredible joy” because of all the support his family has received.
“When we move into our house, it will mean more than any other historic designation that a house could possibly get. Everybody here is going to be a part of that.”
Watch video from the meeting here or in our multimedia section below.
OpenFile's story from May 31:
Melissa and Geoff Teehan bought 204 Beech Ave. in January and drew up plans to make it their dream home.
Melissa became quadriplegic in 2007. They bought the house in order to raze it and build a fully accessible home in its place. This has angered at least one neighbour.
Geoff Teehan says he did his due diligence when he drew up the plans. Councillor Sandra Bussin, who represents Beaches-East York Ward 32, where the house is located, says he didn’t.
She says he should have contacted her or the city’s Heritage Preservation Services department before purchasing the home, instead of just contacting her after the fact.
“Anybody in the ward would have had an inkling that there may be an issue about the value,” she said in an interview on May 31. “He did make an inquiry somewhere, but not to the city and not me.”
She has set in motion a heritage review of the property, which could scuttle the Teehans' plans. Bussin says the situation the family is facing takes place in their ward from time to time, and that there’s nothing unusual about the process.
“It would have been helpful if [Geoff Teehan] called me in advance, because I would have advised him to be very careful.”
While he didn’t contact the city directly, Teehan says he looked at Heritage Preservation Services’ online property search to see if 204 Beech was a historical property. A May 31 search on the site yields 135 historical residential properties in Ward 32 — including four on Beech Ave., but not the address at 204.
Teehan says he has received overwhelming support regarding his family’s plight, estimating that he has heard from hundreds of people via email, Twitter, Facebook and blog responses.
Aside from the neighbour across the road at 205 Beech Ave., Elizabeth Brown, Teehan says he has heard of only a handful of people opposed to his plan to tear down the home.
When asked for specific numbers, Bussin said she has received emails from both the pro-preservation and pro-accessibility camps but that “I don’t normally tally them.”
She also would not confirm that the initial tipoff was an email from Brown — although Teehan has obtained a copy of such an email, dated May 13 — citing that information as confidential.
“I don’t discuss my discussions with constituents with anyone but the constituent.”
Rumours of a petition against tearing down 204 Beech Ave. have surfaced on the Internet, and Bussin made reference to an online petition in a May 28 interview with OpenFile. No such petition has been found, although the “Save 204 Beech” blog that surfaced earlier this month held a simple poll asking readers about their thoughts on the issue. It has since been removed from the site.
But a petition doesn’t matter, says Bussin, who emphasized the importance of preserving the history of her ward.
“It’s inconsequential to the issue,” she says. “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.”
In a May 28 interview, Geoff Teehan said he was deeply concerned that the councillor had commissioned ERA Architects to assess his property at 204 Beech Ave. without notifying him. Bussin says this is standard procedure, and that her office will be receiving the bill for the assessment soon.
“I think I was pretty clear when I spoke to Mr. Teehan that it would be reviewed, that I was going to seek an opinion as to the value of the property.”
Teehan says his first contact with her office was May 18.
Bussin added the item to the agenda of the Toronto and East York Community Council meeting on May 25, the day the meeting was held.
Michael McClelland of ERA Architects signed off on the opinion letter, which was undated but sent to Bussin earlier in the day of the community council meeting. (“We were in a rush to get it off to her,” says McClelland.) A verbal report had been given the previous Friday, May 21, and the property was examined by a researcher with the firm earlier that week.
He says ERA Architects actually won’t bill the city for the opinion — “We just gave them an opinion letter, and don’t usually charge for that,” McClelland says. “If we were doing a big fat report, we would. It’s just a comment to help the planning process.”
ERA Architects, which has a focus on heritage buildings, has done a lot of work with the City of Toronto. While McClelland didn’t visit the property in this instance, he’s familiar with the area, having worked in the Balmy Beach neighbourhood on other heritage preservation requests.
He hasn’t been personally involved with anything regarding 204 Beech Ave., he says, and has “no axe to grind.”
“It’s a really nice little building,” he says, referring to photos he has seen online.
Bussin's May 25 letter to community council says the house has “heritage significance”. The description is different in the ERA Architects letter, which refers to “heritage value,” but McClelland explains the two words are “defined differently, but have the same intent."
“From my point of view, it’s council that decides if something should be designated [a historical property],” McClelland says.
Bussin says she’s not there to debate with her constituents, but that a process is in place when someone wants to demolish a building.
“If [Geoff Teehan] was living in it, if he wanted to add on to it, that would be fine. But it’s not what he wants to do. He’s taking a unique property, and one that appears to add heritage value to the community, and the city, and he wants to demolish it. That’s the issue.”
The family and their supporters will have numerous opportunities to appeal the report that Heritage Preservation Services is expected to first bring to the Toronto Preservation Board in June, Bussin says.
OpenFile's original story from May 27:
On the tree-shaded street outside 204 Beech Ave., there's no traffic and little to hear but birdsong and the sound of children playing in a schoolyard nearby. But there has been plenty of noise in cyberspace over this chunk of Beaches real estate.
Area residents Geoff and Melissa Teehan bought the 900-square-foot stucco cottage in January, intending to build a new wheelchair-accessible home for their family on the generous 54-by-120-foot lot. The design that they chose with their architect is sleek and contemporary.
This upset some neighbours, who believe the existing house, about 100 years old with a quaint turret and a five-sided dormer window, should be preserved. A former resident of the house, now living in Germany, posted a blog, pleading "Save It!!" Ugly comments started flying back and forth on the web. Emails were sent to Beaches-East York councillor Sandra Bussin's office.
Melissa Teehan, who is paralyzed from the neck down, got a phone call May 26 from the councillor. Bussin (Ward 32) notified her that at this week’s community council meeting she had presented a motion asking the city’s Heritage Preservation Services to investigate the home as a potential heritage property. The motion passed.
If 204 Beech is designated as such, the Teehans’ plans to build on the site would be snuffed.
Geoff explains that he and his wife did their due diligence to make sure they bought a property on which they could build an accessible home. At a price of under $1 million, and after 18 months of searching, it was the only listing that fit the budget of the Teehan family, which includes young sons Sam and Cole.
“Our family has gone through massive amounts of change in the last three years, and our kids have felt a lot of that,” he says. “They go to a school that they love, they’ve established friendships. ... Rather than moving to a neighbourhood for a house that suits our needs, we decided to stay in the Beach and find a property we could modify or build new.”
Bussin says she has received “a number of emails and calls concerned about the future of that particular house,” as well as an online petition. She said she couldn’t give exact numbers of how many people were concerned.
These concerns led her to get an independent opinion of the property. She consulted ERA Architects, Inc., a firm the city regularly works with for heritage conservation issues.
In the undated document ERA Architects prepared for Bussin, Michael McClelland, a principal with the firm, “confirms” that the 204 Beech Ave. property has heritage value. He cites that it is a “Beach Cottage” type home with “typical elements found in buildings representative of the Cottage style.” He adds that a "recessed fully glazed entry porch, the rendered finish, and irregular pattern of fenestration are important elements of the dwellings character.”
The assessment is certainly news to Geoff Teehan.
“I was never made aware that they were doing that, that they were on my property sniffing around without my permission.”
If he had known that ERA was planning to examine his property, “I wouldn’t have allowed them to look at all,” he says.
At the Toronto–East York Community Council meeting this week, Bussin presented a motion — using the ERA document as evidence of heritage value — to ask the city’s Heritage Preservation Services to investigate the home as a potential heritage property. The motion passed, and the department is now required to present a report on its findings to the city in June.
Pending approval of each step, the issue of 204 Beech Ave. as a heritage property will be examined by the Toronto Preservation Board, the community council, and then Toronto City Council for ultimate approval.
While this gives him several avenues for appeal, Geoff Teehan is questioning whether Bussin’s independent assessment of his property will affect the outcome of the city’s decision.
“That report is now on public record. I’m totally unclear — is that going to now bias the approach for the typical process? Historic preservation services is supposed to do the proper assessment, not some independent architecture firm that does work for the city,” he says.
The Teehans didn’t have to worry about building a new house until three years ago. In July 2007, a previously healthy Melissa Teehan suddenly found herself going numb. She was diagnosed with transverse myelitis — a disorder that, in severe cases like hers, can leave someone quadriplegic.
After all they've been through over the past three years, all the Teehans want to do is stay in the Beaches. They’ve been living in the neighbourhood for the past decade.
“It’s impossible to explain what we go through every day,” Geoff Teehan says, referring to the struggles of dealing with his wife’s illness. “This is supposed to be a project that makes our lives easier, and it’s coming crashing down. We’ve had bad days, and this is up there.”
VIDEO COLLECTION
Where This is Happening
Related files...
-
_0.jpg)
Reported by Julia Belluz -
Reported by John Rieti
COMMENTS
The letter to residents was sent out sent out at 2:35 p.m. on Wednesday, June 23. Coun. Bussin’s office was contacted for comment at 3 p.m. on Wednesday. She hadn’t returned the call by 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, prompting me to give her office another call.
“I forwarded the message,” said David McCully, executive assistant to the councillor, over the phone. “She determines whether or not she wants to respond... I can’t give you any idea whether or not she will respond. I guess you’ll have to sit tight. OK?”
“If you get a chance and you run into her, can you pass it along?,” I asked. "I just want to talk to her for a moment."
“She has your message. Yep, OK, thank you.”
At the moment, I have no idea if I’ll be getting a callback.
Be careful in your sarcastic criticizing of others' comments here Pete M., your offerings have been of far less value than most here.
I think Joe's points can be reduced to :
The Teehan's quality of life will be forever diminished by not being able to build their box at this location.
Preservation is wrong because it necessarily means we have to preserve absolutley everything, which is hard.
Joe doesn't care about stuff so no one can care about stuff.
If you disagree with any of the above, you will end up in a non-existent hell
Thanks for your input, Joe.
Joe M.,
No one cares about the house you grew up in unless there was something historically or architecturally distinctive about it. Your own memories in the home are meaningless unless you are a person of cultural or historical significance. I'll fathom a guess and say that neither criteria fits you or the home you grew up in so your example is irrelevant.
In the case of this home, there are some who feel the home, or certain parts of it, are worthy of preservation based on architectural merit. If the city agrees with that assessment and the Teehan's can find a way to preserve the noteworthy aspects of the home while accommodating Mrs. Teehan's needs then all the power to them. I suspect the major (and perhaps only) reason the Teehan's want to build with the 1960's box design is because that is what appeals to them.
"Things", as you refer to them, are for some a tangible and physical link to history for themselves and later generations who don't have memory of what was because they weren't there to experience it. Sometimes something is important not because of a historical event but because it is emblematic of a certain period. History == roots.
And you missed the reason why I put Trump in as an example. He doesn't have any special needs to accommodate. Maybe he wants to tear it down because he's constipated. What should it matter, he's a property owner and should be able to do what he wants, right? If you're in any way objective about this situation then your reasons for wanting to have that house torn down shouldn't change whether its Trump or the Teehan's doing it.
Mister V wrote:
"Joe M.,
It's obvious you've been touched by Mrs. Teehan's situation. Just so you're not hypocritical about it, your reasons for wanting to allow that home to be razed should be consistent regardless of whether it was the Teehan's or Donald Trump doing it. If the latter was doing it would you still hand him the sledgehammer? Would you still be talking about "moral bankruptcy", "sensitivity" and "humanity over architecture"? "
In a word, yes.
I thought I’d made this clear: if the REASONS were the same – if Trump was, in a fit of altruism, doing the razing in the name of a family’s (his own, the Teehans, or somebody else, it doesn’t matter) property rights as well as their right to build a structure that will accommodate their needs, then yes, I’d hand him the sledgehammer.
Is this not clear? How can this possibly not be clear?
“People who destroy history are the ones judged harshest by future generations when those future generations realize what was lost.”
Incredible. Just absolutely incredible.
I have to wonder if you listened to anything I said. I don’t know how I can elaborate without just quoting myself verbatim, but here goes:
How, precisely, is destroying a house (or any object) destroying the history itself? I mentioned my own family’s home, bought and demolished a couple of years ago by a local hospital looking for more space. So much history there, let me tell you. Three generations of screeching kids, better than sixty years of Christmas mornings, Easter dinners, birthdays and graduations, people coming together to talk and eat after weddings and funerals alike. I didn’t even live there and I knew every inch of that place, which stairs creaked and why the kitchen had a bathroom built into it and the reason the big fireplace was no longer useable. And I could feel the OLDNESS of it all, the sense that its time, architecturally speaking, had passed.
And now it’s gone. There’s nothing there but an empty lot. I think the hospital had ambitions to build a new wing there or something, and that didn’t even happen.
Strange, though, how the house’s physical absence does nothing to detract from the history it witnessed. Memories remain. Stories will continue to be passed down, stories of all those good times, and the photo albums – dozens of them, packed cover-to-cover with a running record of those memories – certainly won’t hurt matters. The house is gone, but the history is still very much intact.
Because history and heritage are about PEOPLE, not objects, not things, not pretty vistas. It lives in them. It IS them. This is not sappy romanticism – this is cold, hard logic; we human beings are the ones who have the synaptic connections necessary to reflect on our own past. The inanimate matter we create is just that: inanimate matter, incidental, transitory, the mere product of history, not the history itself. Those who continue to insist otherwise … well, it kind of makes me think of that TV show “Hoarders,” where people refuse to part with their mountains of possessions because they’ve invested them with so much emotional importance. Something like a coathanger or a dinner plate becomes the vessel of their entire personal history … and they have to be gently or not-so-gently reminded that the history is in THEM, not in the STUFF. That’s not far removed from what’s happening here.
Now, maybe you’re right, Mister V – maybe people in the future will judge the Teehans harshly for knocking down one building and putting up another. Maybe those future folks will still be bickering over STUFF, placing such an inordinate amount of value on it that it swallows their capacity for empathy and human decency. If so, I’m glad I won’t be around to see it. I try to be optimistic, though, and so I would rather hope that such a complete moral apocalypse never happens, that the people of the future will in fact be sufficiently advanced, ethically speaking (owing, perhaps, to being able to look back on situations like this very one), to get their priorities straight.
Again, it prompts me to ask: what is the logical end product of all this preoccupation with “things?” Will we end up keeping everything under metaphorical museum glass indefinitely, adding to the pile as the years drag on, as new becomes old and old becomes historical, making it all holy, making it all untouchable? Where do we draw the line?
At any rate, I’m done. For one thing, I feel like I’m starting to walk a dangerous line, using the Teehans’ circumstances to exercise my own pen – if all I can do is find new metaphors and linguistic parlor tricks to point out the bloody obvious, it’s time for me to shut up. And I don’t know why I’m even trying when I said it myself – the traditionalists and preservationists here betray a religiosity and fetishism for “heritage” that is by definition utterly beyond reason. I think all I can do to sleep better is hedge my bets that there are more human beings involved in this fight than there are adherents to the Cult of the Brick, Mortar and "Primary View".
To the Teehans: best of luck to you. I can’t say I’ll pray for you, because I don’t believe in God. To those both working and speaking against the Teehans, you should probably start hoping I’m right.
Joe M.,
It's obvious you've been touched by Mrs. Teehan's situation. Just so you're not hypocritical about it, your reasons for wanting to allow that home to be razed should be consistent regardless of whether it was the Teehan's or Donald Trump doing it. If the latter was doing it would you still hand him the sledgehammer? Would you still be talking about "moral bankruptcy", "sensitivity" and "humanity over architecture"?
People who destroy history are the ones judged harshest by future generations when those future generations realize what was lost.
p.s. moderators, the "reply" button that I read about earlier in the thread seems to have disappeared or at least I cannot see it.
Thanks for alerting us to the "reply" button's erratic behaviour. We'll look into it asap.
Joe M. your comment, if spoken aloud, would have certainly resulted in a standing ovation. This part in particular:
| Heritage buildings should begin and end with buildings of some real, tangible historical significance, not just any old (literally) house or cottage that happens to hit the eye just right or date from a certain time period or display a certain architectural characteristic. It’s sad sometimes, true enough, but eventually, you have to let go. |
Very well put!
I have no doubt that there are issues out there that require very careful consideration and a tactful response, issues made up of many different competing ethical viewpoints that may not have an obvious solution, issues that are so thorny and multi-faceted that you’d need six episodes of the Agenda just to get through one of them.
And then you have what’s going on here.
My mind is officially blown. This is not moral rocket science, people. This is about as basic and as black-and-white as it gets: a person’s quality of life (not to even mention their property rights) trumps houses, “heritage” and the absurdities of bureaucracy. End of story.
Except it’s somehow not. There’s a debate raging. That a “debate” can even exist here is a dirty kind of miracle, but in a perverse way – and I mean no disrespect to the very real family at the center of this - you couldn’t ask for a better example of how far down the rabbit hole of relativism we’ve slipped. The thought that keeps occurring to me is: this is what can happen to people who live in a country where you don’t have to worry about rolling over an IED on your way to the grocery store. Living in a largely peaceful society has apparently started to seriously erode some peoples’ sense of perspective. A house begins to look more important than a wife, a mother, a family. “Heritage” and preservation of architecture has ceased to be a largely innocuous community hobby - easily swept aside when an actual problem arises - and is now displaying all the hallmarks of religious fervor.
Incredible.
Browsing the comments here, I see people – on both sides – jumping through the regulatory hoops, debating law and regulation, often with great eloquence. This is the regulation on X, this is not the regulation on Y, the Teehans did this, the Teehans didn’t do that. Could have, should have, would have. Is it right? Is it wrong? Well, what does the law say? What do the bureaucrats say? How can we make this right with their help?
This is very Canadian – trying to coax the ethical solution out of the rule book … the very rule book that’s creating the problems in the first place. I realize that the Teehans have little choice but to immerse themselves in the process now that it’s been kickstarted, but from this outsider’s point of view, the system is the problem (this is acknowledged), as are the individuals who make up the system (this is mostly not). One (or a few, it hardly matters) petty, morally bankrupt neighbor pokes one officious, morally bankrupt city official and bam! All hell breaks loose. Are you kidding me? Individual rights go out the window. Property rights go out the window. The rusty, broken machinery of officialdom takes over. I’m no political scientist, but that doesn’t sound like democracy to me. It sounds more like a couple of depraved, self-centered bullies picking on people for the mere sake of their own egos. And the system is helping them do it.
And I’m sorry, is that rude? That’s the other thing I notice here - nobody wants to be rude! This too is very Canadian, of course – turning a gold-plated opportunity to take the moral high ground (it’s right there, right in front of you, you can see it from space, folks) into a dainty, non-judgmental tea party of tolerance. Everybody’s opinions are equally “valid,” no matter how (I’m gonna drop the MB-bomb again here, get ready) morally bankrupt they may obviously be. Personally, I’m not too worried about hurting the feelings of people who clearly have all the emotional sensitivity of a moray eel. If you can’t understand the “humanity” in “humanity over architecture,” it’s probably because you yourself are in such very short supply.
So let’s take this very slowly – weighed against actual people with actual lives, houses, heritage, architecture, and aesthetics are barely significant enough to qualify as unimportant. If somebody bought and wanted to demolish the birthplace of Shakespeare himself for the same reasons, I’d hand them the sledgehammer. Bricks and mortar and nebulous, intangible concepts like heritage and tradition do not supplant human beings … unless you want to make a religion out of it. Which some very clearly have. And that zeal, displayed by some of the “preservationists” here, has gotten me thinking: why are we – I mean as human beings, that is, not Canadians or Torontonians - constantly defining ourselves through our past anyway? That’s not the direction life moves in. I like pretty old buildings, too, and I know I was saddened when I saw the house that sheltered three generations of my own family over a sixty-odd year period torn down. But I also have my priorities in a sensible kind of order, and I’m realistic enough to know that you can’t keep everything for ever and ever. Heritage buildings should begin and end with buildings of some real, tangible historical significance, not just any old (literally) house or cottage that happens to hit the eye just right or date from a certain time period or display a certain architectural characteristic. It’s sad sometimes, true enough, but eventually, you have to let go.
Look at it this way: what is the long-term goal of preserving historic buildings? The local regulations related to what gets designated “heritage” evidently don’t work very smoothly in Toronto, but even if they ran like a dream, where are they supposed to lead, exactly? A world where nothing ever gets torn down or altered? Where does that take you? When the scum is finally scraped away from this issue and the Teehans build their new house … could it be that a century from now people will be arguing to preserve THAT structure for the same reasons these ill-bred twits want to preserve the current one? Should all “heritage” structures be preserved indefinitely? No? How long, then? For “future generations?” How many future generations? How about one hundred years? Two hundred? Should 204 Beech still be standing in five hundred years’ time? Should it still be there in a thousand? Because here’s a fact: regardless of what happens in the coming months, it won’t be.
Further down the page, Scotty has already pointed out the obvious: history is not static, nor is it limited to the past – it is as much about where we’re going as it is about where we’ve been, the history we’re making. Things change. History is pliable, always in motion. History is being written right now.
There are some who will, I think, be judged rather harshly.
While the handicap issue is now only tacitly relied upon in this debate, the argumnet that the pro-demolition side of the debate continue to rely on is the percieved unfairness of retroactively designating a home and thereby placing the entire cost of preservation on the owner of the designated property.
This argument pre-supposes that there is no way to avoid buying a property which is later deemed worthy of preservation. This is not true. One way involves common sense: does the structure seem special, historical or other wise significant? If it does, it probably is. Mr. Teehan clearly had a sense of the significance of the cottage; it just didn't seem to matter to him. Another way involves respect for your potential neighbours. Take the pulse of the neighbourhood by talking to your councillor and those potential new neighbours about the home and its place in the neighbourhood. It would not take long to get the "leave it alone" vibe. Then you leave it alone.
This argument also assumes that there will be a cost to the designation and further assumes that this cost will be massive. Unfortunately, we do not yet know if there will be a cost. Once the home is designated, the Teehan's will presumably sell the home and build elsewhere. They may or may not take a loss on the property. If they do, it seems likely that any loss will pale in relation to the $1.5 million to $2 million value of the house they intend to build. Though not a great position to be in, it is hardly earth shattering. Some might say being denied an opportunity to build an accessible home is the loss. However, this isn't a site that they have occupied for decades and now wish to build on and no one is stopping them from building their chosen design. Thay just have to build it at another site, maybe down the street, maybe a few blocks away.
So why does a seemingly bland issue like the potential for a small loss on the re-sale of a retroactively designated home cause hundereds of people to rise up in a froth? Because that is not the issue that the frothy masses really care about. For those signing petitions, wishing cancer on their opponents and shouting down their councillor, this is still all about wanting the desire of a handicapped person to build a specific design at a specific address to trump historical preservation, simply because of the handicap. A lovely if poorly thought through sentiment. Bad public policy.
Hello Pete
Yes, my argument continues to rely on the unfairness of retroactively designating a home. And I don't believe that unfairness is "perceived," I think it's quite real. You say a designation has the "potential for a small loss." So let's try and estimate it.
I'll make the following assumptions:
1. The list price of the property is $500K. This is far less than other 50' wide lots in the Beach currently listed on MLS. Mr. Teehan said that this property cost less than others that had more functional houses on them.
2. I'll assume that they sell for exactly the same list price as they bought it -- i.e. the heritage designation doesn't affect its perceived value one way or another and only affects what the Teehans (and future buyers) can do with the property.
For a property purchased for $500K and then turned around and immediately sold for the same price, I estimate one would lose $40K right off the bat in fees. This includes the 5% real estate commissions, the land transfer tax and lawyers' closing costs. This does not include any money the Teehans had to spend on 204 Beech-specific issues such as hiring an arbourist or the design for their new house.
So I'm guessing a $40K loss. Does that pale in comparison to a $1M final price? Maybe. Is it small? I don't think so. And remember that the loss cannot be amortized over the life of a mortgage. The Teehans have to pay that immediately. I don't know about you, but a $40 K loss over a few months would be earth-shattering to me. And in my opinion, this is the extreme low end of the potential loss because it does not account for any decrease in list price of the property.
That's just the monetary loss. They lose more than that, with the loss of the dream of building the home they want. Mr. Teehan suspects that there are no other lots that meet their criteria (location, size, cost). So, I assert that the heritage designation *will* prevent them from building their chosen design. As far as I can see, "another site, maybe down the street, maybe a few blocks away" doesn't exist, and no one has shown otherwise. There is also the loss of certainty. They thought their living situation would be resolved within a short time period (Fall 2011 is the date I heard).
Maybe you think they deserve that loss because Mr. Teehan either didn't show common sense or respect for his neighbours. I disagree. With hindsight, and the fact that a number of neighbours who live on Beech have come forward to support the Teehans, it's apparent to me that your "common sense" view is not uniformly held in this case. Some share your views, and others do not. I think it's quite possible for a reasonable person to walk into that house and not think it's a heritage property. Furthermore, a significant number of neighbours support the Teehans. What type of survey does one have to do to get "the pulse of the neighbourhood?" How far does one have to go to establish what the neighbours' views are, and what constitutes "respect"? We know that Mr. Teehan would never have achieved consensus, because Ms. Brown at 205 Beech will never agree with him. So, in general terms, at what threshold does the "leave it alone" vibe kick in? Is it possible to discount one or two neighbours if the remainder say "oh, it's nothing special"? Finally, at what point do your neighbours have to respect your choices?
You say "Mr. Teehan clearly had a sense of the significance of the cottage; it just didn't seem to matter to him." I've followed this issue pretty closely, and that is not at all clear to me. In fact, I think the opposite. Can you please elaborate.
I think you are underselling the costs of what the community is asking of the Teehans if we designate 204 Beech as a heritage property. I think preserving heritage is important, but let's be realistic about what the process is and what the costs are, especially when we the community don't pay those costs. It's pretty easy to spend other people's money.
Like I said in a previous comment, it sometimes takes only one case to snap people to attention. That's what has happened for me. I believe that the system is unfair to the Teehans and will be unfair to others in the future.
Pete - you keep suggesting that there are other properties that could be easily purchased. Can you show us these properties?
A quick search on MLS for houses in the beach with a 50' lot turned up about 8 results. The cheapest is 40% more than what we paid for 204 Beech, though many are are double the cost. These prices are typical for the area, even we were looking. Properties like this typically have huge, newly renovated houses on them so that's what your paying for. In the case of 204 Beech the value was the property, not the home, which is why it was priced the way it was.
Hi Pete,
As you noted the other day, the commenting on this issue has been remarkably considered and non-vitriolic, something for which I'm grateful. I'm disturbed by your mention of "wishing cancer on their opponents" in your most recent comment. No such sentiment has been expressed in this forum. If it happened on another website, where participants are less thoughtful and there's little or no moderation, I would be saddened but not at all surprised. Is that sort of anonymous malice worth repeating? If we want to continue to have a respectful, productive conversation, probably not.
I posted this on Jim Graham's site and I think it bears repeating, so here it is:
***
You know, I came into this as a staunch heritage preservationist, and completely against the demolition, but in the end, this situation really is the fault of our city’s inability to take an inventory of those buildings considered historic or integral to a streetscape or both.
I can’t see justifying designating this building at this juncture. As a City we need to put an end to placing people like the Teehans – and their immediate neighbours – in this kind of position.
This isn’t to say I like the idea of demolition, I don’t, and not for just reasons of history.
No one talks about it, but demolition is a profligate waste of materials and puts an enormous burden on our landfill sites. It also doubles or triples the carbon footprint of the property. While we all carefully sort our recycling, the demolition approach to renewal of property throws entire buildings away. It has been estimated that demolition of an average 2-bedroom home is the equivalent of throwing away 2 million popcans. This is not an environmentally sustainable approach from any perspective – clearly the great majority of landfill comes from demolition. We need, as a society, to apply the same ideas re-use/ recycling of materials that we apply to popcans and newsprint, to entire buildings. All aesthetic or heritage arguments aside, demolition should almost never be an option, while adaptive re-use/incorporation should always be.
However, we can’t ask the Teehans to take responsibility for THAT huge paradigm shift alone, or for the fact that the City of Toronto can’t get it together regarding those buildings considered worth saving. They all should be listed en masse.
I wish the Teehans and their neighbours well as they move forward.
Gregg - I'm not sure how else to express the simple point that the handicap issue is irrelevant and has no place in a debate about heritage issues so I will stop trying. While insults and name calling seem to have become a hallmark of one side of this debate, I am still puzzled as to how my comment could be interpreted as "callous".
Regarding the balance of your comments, perhaps we have different definitions of "community". To you, community seems to mean only the tyranny of your (perhaps imagined) majority. To me, "community" is the entire polity in which we live and includes all citizens, all our institutions and our posterity. My "community" decided long ago that significant structures in the City would be preserved.
My "community" further decided that experts would determine what was and was not significant. My "community" did not legislate exceptions to that process based on an individual's health or the passing fancies of a few upset individuals. Oops, I'm back to explaining that whole irrelevence thing again.
Hi Pete, thanks for your comment back. I'm not certain by your response though that you correctly interpreted my comment. You spoke of two things in particular with your previous comment: 1) A t-shirt that offended you, and 2) a community's legitimate interests. My response attempted to outline the unwarranted reaction to said t-shirt, as well as point out a glaring inadequacy in your premise regarding this non-existent community that you spoke of. It would also certainly stand to mention that outlining either side of this argument as tyrannical to be completely invalid in this discourse, as this is purely a matter of bias - anyone on the Teehans side of things can say the same thing about their offenders, and with greater validity in terms of the actual definition of the word. This type of language should have no place in this forum. It would appear that your great bias is becoming more frustrated in recent comments, and that my attempt to 'reason' with you in regards to the historicity of the house, and the non-existent masses that are living in your philosophical community, have fallen on deaf ears.
As for 'callous', well I thought that was actually very well explained. Be cautious not to interpret such words as insults, I simply use them to describe observations. Here's an attempt to help you understand my intended use of the word - definition (Merriam-Webster): Callous - feeling no emotion; feeling or showing no sympathy for others. You view Melissa's condition as nothing more than fuel for a fire that is attempting to raze an old house in the Beaches, one which you clearly consider to have historical significance. You feel angry by the fact that people supporting the Teehans continue to mention the disorder throughout their arguments, even making a t-shirt in support of their cause that outlines humanity vs. architecture. What makes you callous is that the location does not hold historical property status, on a street that denied outright the option to have their houses considered as such, surrounded by a majority of neighbors (the true non-philosophical community in this issue) who approve of the Teehans plans. The Teehans purchased the house with a criteria designed to find a place they could demolish, allowing them to rebuild a house to fully accommodate their handicapped mother/wife. Her disorder is central to the discourse because it is simply central to the entire scope of what is occurring here with this family. To ignore this fact, and then label as inflammatory those who designed the t-shirt and wore them, shows an extreme callous towards the heart of the matter, the humanity of the matter. You may not support them, but there is no need to be callous regarding their situation and in understanding why their friends are outpouring such an immense volume of love and support given their life circumstances. Simply because you 'say-so' that this is irrelevant, does not make it actually 'so'. For the Teehans, it is the 'why' in this whole architectural mess. So if someone wants to show their support for the Teehans and make a t-shirt pointing out the 'why', then there is no need to be callous about it. It's not the central argument by any means, as the real argument is far more damning in terms of property rights and procedural issues.
As for your definition of community, well there simply is no valid argument to provide as a counter - your offering here is pure conjecture. You've provided a community that only exists within your head and scope of reasoning. It is not a physical community, and apart from a minority of voices supporting preservation in this issue, it is virtually non-existent. I can just as easily counter that my 'community' decided that peoples needs would be put above all else in a country founded on the freedoms of the individual over true political and religious tyranny. It's meaningless unless you actually consider the true community expressing itself in this matter. In closing, true tyranny, and again I quote merriam-webster, is an oppressive power exerted by government... a majority of people fighting for their individual rights, in a country founded on individual rights, is quite plainly never tyranny.
Pete
Do you have the expertise to give us an overview of how the Ontario Heritage Preservation Act is structured? As I said in a previous comment, I didn't know the levels of authority after the THPS delivers their report, so it is something that I need to educate myself about and would like to hear your views.
It seems to me that this is all coming back to Lloyd Alter's original comment -- very prescient of him! The city needs a coherent method of identification of historical houses to provide clarity to preservationists and to purchasers and owners (not that those groups are necessarily mutually exclusive). The Teehans are caught in a nightmare because of this system that lacks clarity. This is the key piece that I struggle with in this debate -- the very real costs of the designations are borne out not by those asking for or doing the designating. Is this just the cost that someone has to pay, and thank god it's not me? For example, in all of the THPS reports that I read last night on the City of Toronto website (thanks Brian Moffatt!), the THPS repeatedly uses the phrase, when presenting to council, "There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report." For council, maybe. Not for the folks getting designated. And yes, I am aware of the fact that there is funding and grants available to maintain a heritage property (can't find the appropriate links right now), but I still think it places a burden.
Brian Moffatt also pointed out elements of the process that I wasn't aware of. The experts submit reports (and part of the Teehans' complaint is that they would have liked to involve their experts as early as possible, but weren't given a chance on May 25th). But I believe it is the various levels of council that actually vote to accept. So in that respect, the blogging and emotions and shirts and signs are all very important, even before the experts come back with their report. The support that the Teehans are receiving tells the councillors of the very real consequences of their decision in this particular matter. Again, that is something that I believe the Teehans wanted Ms. Bussin to consider before her request to TEYCC on May 25th. It's not akin to a "legislate[d] exception," it's a very real and important part of participatory democracy. You may state it's the "tyranny of [a] (perhaps imagined) majority." Others might simply call it "lobbying."
Finally: the legislation. While it's true that our representatives have written legislation that is the current law, that doesn't mean that the law then persists immutable. It's cases like this that snap people to attention and force them to question, first, their assumptions, and second, how the legislation is written. Three weeks ago, my experience with ward politics was, like Jon Lax's, limited to watching "The Wire." I'm further in than I'd ever thought I'd be, and that's a good thing for me. It's a terrible thing for the Teehans. You have posited that at this point in the history of Toronto, heritage must win out over all other considerations, and I've respectfully disagreed. But what may come out of this is a far greater sense of how to get what we all seem to want; preserving the best parts of our past while informing and respecting those who own property. Like I said, I'm nearly tapped out of ideas and rhetorical flourishes (probably for the next few years -- you won't have to listen to me anymore), but at least now I'm engaged. As are many other people in Ward 32 and the city.
As always, thanks for the thought-provoking comment.
My friends and I were at the meeting last night. We were the group of young voters we range from 18 to 20 years old that were handing out the information regarding tuggs with the cartoon on the back.
I had planned to accompany my dad into the meeting with my friends. I was going to say to Sandra Bussin ," we are voters too we want to have a say in what our history is going to be. The Teehans desire to build a new home IS history, it is going to be our history and who are you to be dictating what we would like to tell our kids in the future. This new home is setting a precident for what is to come it will be historic.
My friends and I did not come in because my father Bruce Baker who is a candidate in ward 32 was barred from entering a public meeting by Sandra Bussin, She told him it was not public and he wasnt invited. Not to cause a scene and take away from the Teehans we left. Sandra Bussin is not only taking away the rights of homeowners, she is now dictating who can participate in a PUBLIC meeting.
My dad has met Mr. and Mrs. Teehan and offered them whatever advice and assistance they need.
My friends and I are discouraged by the example of arrogence set by Miss Bussin.
WE will continue to help the Teehan"s in their fight. We will be e-mailing. facebooking, and texting our friends to help.
To Mr. and Mrs. Teehan please do not give up on this , we support you.
Scottyb
I created an account solely to reply to Scotty. This is what we need more of - engaged young people who care about the history of their communities. I may be overly sentimental but the last few sentences of your comment made me tear up. Thanks for your support of the Teehans, Scotty.
Humanity over architecture t-shirts? The continued relience on a knee jerk sympathy inducing irrelevancy is unneccesarily inflammatory and unseemly and appears to reflect a me first/win at all costs attitude.
We're all sorry that Ms. Teehan is ill but that illness does in no way generate a right to ignore the legitimate interest of a community in preserving its history and character.
It's amazing that depending on how people view a subject, their perceptions on insignificant things become so affixed. Whether it's a t-shirt, or a well designed website, it amazes me that people actually look to make these items central to the argument. Seriously (with Seth and Amy)? A t-shirt offends you? A shirt that simply symbolizes an ACTUAL community that supports the Teehans? It truly has no pertinence to a knee jerking method or attempting to garner sympathy votes. It clearly doesn't work on you, so to assume that this is it's purpose seems rather contradictory based on your own propositions. The shirt was made by someone who supports the Teehans, and wanted to show her support in physical and tangible way. There's no need to be callous about it.
Pete, I'm not sure if you realized it, but your comment is actually self-defeating. You speak pointedly of a "community's legitimate interest in preserving its history". Where is this community that you're speaking of? Is this the same community that voted down having their street surveyed for historical preservation a few years ago? Is it the same community that is now in it's majority supporting the Teehans? Pete, if your only contention is what the community wants, then what are you arguing about? A community is made up by the majority, not the one or two. If anyone is actually ignoring the community, then by your own words it is actually yourself. Something to think about, truly. My intentions with this comment are not insult whatsoever, as I'm quite proud of the remarkable 'conversational' tone this forum is providing. I truly want you to simply see what you're saying in the light of day, and perhaps understand the situation a bit better.
I beg to differ. The only 'knee-jerk' reaction is this debate is from those who do not possess even a basic sense of empathy. I simply cannot believe that there are those in the community that would value a lousy little cottage over a decent family who simply wants to build an accessible (and very attractive) home for one of it's disabled members. By any reasonable standard, the 'character and history' of The Beaches community will not be adversely affected one iota from this house being built. It's not quite that delicate... or precious. And there are far greater things to be concerned about. Like maybe making sure our communities are inclusive. Now THAT would be something worth preserving.
Pete there are many dimensions to this issue, accessibility, property rights, community rights, preservation, abuse of power, process. To reduce it down to just preservation or just accessibility is wrong. There were people there last night who were concerned about the accessibility part of this issue, others who were more interested in the community rights aspect and others who felt the property rights issue was most important.
I didn't see you there which is too bad. I think it would have been important to hear from those who support the preservation of 204 Beech but no one showed up or if they did, didn't speak up.
I think those who are standing in the way of this family's plans should be fully ashamed of themselves. Hard to believe that there are those in the community that are so incredibly narrow minded and petty.
Just returned from the community meeting which was dominated by supporters of the Teehans. It was very heated and emotionally charged. There was a lot of frustration in the room when at first Bussin said she wasn't going to talk about Beech but the since 98% of the people in the room were there to talk about it she really had no choice.
My overall take away was that Bussin kept saying that the process starts now and that the Teehans can be involved in the process at the June 30 meeting. She seemed unwilling to acknowledge her role in starting the process.
There were many direct questions Bussin completely evaded. For example when asked why she never gave the Teehans a call to say she would be introducing a motion at community council with the ERA report. She evaded for a while and then said that she received the report while in council and made the motion therefore there wasn't time to call the Teehans. This raised even more questions like "so you just entered a motion with something that was handed to you in council?". "Did ERA examine the property or just look at photos?"
She wouldn't answer how much she paid of tax dollars for the ERA report claiming she hadn't received a bill yet.
Bussin looked very flustered at many direct questions.
I was personally very angry and frustrated with Bussin. I told her that "this is why people hate local politics". I just wished she could have not evaded so many questions. In the interest of being fair it was a very angry room. But she handled the crowd horribly IMO, She made no attempt to empathize and instead hid behind "the process" and completely didn't take responsibility for her role in the process.
She did acknowledge that without a proper database of homes that this process is flawed but didn't want to acknowledge that this put the Teehans in a nightmarish situation.
@geoff - i fully understand that you believe you have performed due diligence; my contention is that part of that due diligence would be putting your project to test before the community.you may disagree with that process, but it is supported by custom, regulations, provincial law, and public policy.
@ kathy vey - is there some way these comments could be made more user friendly/efficient? in order that a conversation thread might develop? and that the "changes" to the main story be made more evident? please no wikis.
@jt - to whom (and how) is this letter being distributed? immediate neighbours?
and i found this recent decision of interest (random choice) as context for the upcoming committee meeting.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-30409.pdf
summaries and decisions are available for review here:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2010/agendas/pb.htm
interesting reading.
Thanks Brian
Now I have to go read two years worth of THPS recommendations to see what they do. That's a lot of PDFs
Hi Brian,
Comment threads will form if you click "reply" at the bottom of a comment rather than creating a new one. You'll notice that my comment appears below yours, rather than on top of it.
We're looking at ways to improve the comments section, as well as ways to archive stories so that people can see how they develop. At the moment, our policy is not to change or rewrite the main story, but to add new information to the file, clearly marked as an update. It's a work in progress and we're open to suggestions as to how to improve the system.
As for your question to jt, I received a copy of the letter from Councillor Bussin at tonight's meeting, but only after I requested it specifically. Her aides had a file folder containing a number of them. They were not distributed at the meeting.
Uh-oh, I apologize. You're all saying "WHAT reply button? What is she talking about?"
You're right. My mistake. Clearly it would be better if someone other than me could respond to a comment and start a thread. We'll get working on it.
Okay, I'm told it's fixed. Does everyone see the "reply" button now? Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, it's magically appeared.
Thanks, Jim
FYI -- this is the form letter being distributed by Sandra Bussin about this issue. I wrote in support of the proposal.
/jt
June 1, 2010.
"Re: 204 Beech Avenue
Dear Residents,
The issue of the possible fate of 204 Beech Avenue was brought to my
attention by numerous inquiries and comments in early March of this year
from area residents concerned about the preservation of this unique
example of early Beach cottage architecture.
My office immediately contacted the City of Toronto Planning Division
and the Buildings Department to determine if there were applications for
redevelopment of the site. I was advised, at the time, that there were
no applications.
Recognizing the protective sentiment in the community regarding the
home located at 204 Beech Avenue, I also requested, in early March, that
City of Toronto Preservation Services investigate the property for its
heritage value and to determine if it would merit listing or designation
under the Ontario Heritage Act.
I undertook these actions prior to learning of the circumstances facing
the Teehan family, the new owners of 204 Beech Avenue, and their
intention to demolish and build a new home.
When it became clear, in early May, after they sent me an email
regarding their plans, of the Teehan family’s intentions regarding 204
Beech Avenue, I immediately contacted Geoff and Melissa Teehan directly.
I explained to Mr. Teehan that I had received a professional opinion
from a respected heritage architectural firm in the City, ERA Architects
Inc., that confirmed 204 Beech had heritage value:
‘The building, built prior to 1910, is an important surviving example
of the early development of the Balmy Beach Neighbourhood. In 1876, Adam
Wilson was the first to subdivide his lots, #1&2, south of Kingston road
to the lake. This subdivision created Balsam, Beech, Pine, and Maple
(Queen Street) Avenues, he also set aside a “private promenade” for
the use of those who would live there, this later became Balmy Beach
Park. This home is also representative of the local beach cottage
building tradition, and speaks of the districts beginnings as a summer
retreat.’
The opinion of the ERA Architects was forwarded to Community Council on
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 for consideration. Toronto and East York Community
Council voted to direct Toronto Preservation Services to review the
property and report on its heritage value and structural integrity.
Community Council also requested that the report be sent to the June
30, 2010 meeting of the Toronto Preservation Board. At that time, the
owner of 204 Beech Avenue and residents may make deputations to the
Toronto Preservation Board.
Presently, the house is not listed. Therefore, if the owner completes
his building application and demolition permit request, the request to
demolish would be posted for 14 days. At that time, any citizen, Urban
Forestry, or the Councillor may request that this be brought forward to
Community Council for consideration.
However, unless the property has been listed, there are no grounds to
refuse a Building Permit and the Demolition Permit.
It is unfortunate that this issue has been reported as it has been in
the media. This is not a matter of a person with a disability versus
those concerned with preserving an old house. It is about a community
having a conversation in an effort to achieve resolution to a
neighbourhood issue that will satisfy, as much as possible, all
interested parties.
A heritage listing does not preclude a property owner from making
substantial changes within the property, up to and including partial
demolition. Often, a listing will identify certain heritage attributes
of a property, such as its façade. This provides the owner of the
property the opportunity to work with Toronto Preservation Services to
accommodate the heritage attributes within the new construction.
Over the years, I have dealt with numerous heritage properties in the
Beach where accommodations have been made. I am confident that this can
also be accomplished at 204 Beech Avenue.
Yours Sincerely,
(original signed by)
Sandra Bussin
Council Speaker & City Councillor
Beaches-East York-Ward 32
City of Toronto"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SANDRA BUSSIN
Council Speaker, Toronto City Council
City Councillor, Ward 32, Beaches-East York
100 Queen St. W., Ste B28
Toronto ON M5H 2N2
councillor_bussin@toronto.ca
Phone: 416-392-1376
Fax: 416-392-7444
Website: www.sandrabussin.ca
Thank you, jt, for sharing this letter. It's the first mention I've seen of March inquiries from residents, or of contact between Councillor Bussin's office and the planning department and preservation services about the property. Does anyone have any details about these events?
@Brian: I know I've said this before but we searched HPSs database. It wasn't listed or designated. Yes it's a free service that claims to be up-to-date. As an aside, if free is worthless then what's ERA's letter of opinion worth? It was free too.
We did call HPS - granted not until after we saw the complaint from 205 Beech. Even at that point, with HPS on the phone, they knew nothing of 204 Beech and its apparent heritage value. So yes, we truly believe we did our due diligence.
@ Jim - i think the process is this. (i thought i had read a neat and tidy paragraph re: this on open file but now cannot find it). if the THPS designates, the appeal can then move to full city council* for vote (from my understanding the home can be designated and demolition still allowed) if city council turns down the appeal (in essence voting in favor of full preservation) it can then be taken to the OMB. broad strokes.
*hence the greater "city wide" lobbying appeal as suggested here is the comments.
With all due respect to the recent posters -- I don't think I agree with the "consensus." For example, if THPS comes back with a positive recommendation, I would still support the Teehans appealing to whatever higher authority there is. Of course, I have no idea what authority that is.
However, I'm all out of ideas and rhetorical flourishes, and even if I had any, I don't think I'd convince anyone at this point, so I'll call it a night.
I am also glad that this discussion is pretty non-vitriolic.
@pete - in full agreement.
but i do have some questions of a general nature in trying to understand this issue. i plead blessed ignorance on much of it.
1) there seems to be the notion floating around that 'designation' means absolutely no work is to be done on the place beyond restoration (i.e. no additions and no enhancements) how true is this? how far could an owner go? if anyone could point to online resources or had any experience with this situation in general that would be great.
here is a related article i found on the process now in place. entirely different circumstances and place, Ottawa) but it would seem the general arc to be expected. no?
http://www.emcottawawest.ca/20100429/news/Council+approves+heritage+desi...
any planning students lurking?
With credit due to all the recent posters. I dare say we've reached a consensus on this understandably divisive and emotional issue: let the experts decide in the cold hard light of day whether designation, and therefore preservation, is appropriate. If the cottage is determined to have heritage value, leave it be. If it does not, as Mel Gibson said in"Signs", swing away.
I truly appreciate the foregoing considered and non-vitriolic exchange.
@Brian You are right, let me clarify. The home in its current configuration won't be of much good to an owner. Anyone buying it will need to do considerable work to it and will need to alter the second floor. This alteration will impact the 5 sided dormer which is the distinguishing element of the home. What I was saying was that the house, as it is, is not really functional.
To make it functional may require significant alterations to it which runs counter to preserving it. So the mythic owner of this place who can purchase it at a market price, preserve its facade and work within a heritage designation may not exist. As I have said, the purchasers of the property that are known were all intending to tear it down.
In fact, prior to the home going up for sale to the public, it was in private sale to a developer who was trying to buy 204 and the adjacent lot to build townhouses.
As a "conservative" you can appreciate that the market has dictated the value of the property and that value, doesn't seem to include the structure.
At this point we will need the expert determine its historical value. Some think it has it, others don't. For better or worse this issue is now in the hands of politicians.
@ geoff - thanks for taking the time.
you are right, this is a 'larger' fight, on the civic level it is neo-liberlism vs conservatism. but the problem with the neo-liberalism displayed here is the demand for full sympathy (due diligence, transparency, property rights) while displaying zero capacity for empathy (that the other side might even have a point of view).
but really, was due diligence actually 'done'? obviously a mechanism was engaged (by bussin) and a clearly delineated process set up fairly quickly. is this really, then, all that rare? or precedent setting? was the advice you received sound? doing a 'search' on a government website sounds rather weak. not sure if your design expertise takes you into realm of usability, but seriously, if you can show me one city of toronto website that is even mildly functional let alone complete, thorough, and/ or authoritative i'd be thrilled to concede to you that point. here's my test: if they did not charge you for it then it probably means sqaut.
and if you are prepared to fight this cause on the higher plane, then the logical extension is to take on the legal underpinnings of the architectural conservancy board of ontario and or legitimacy the preservation society or whoever and what have you. i'll leave that to you.
as to all the bussin nonsense i will also leave that to you to figure out with her. pick up the phone and call her. as one who has had extensive personal experience trying to get the attention of politicians you need to rattle her cage. when you call tell the assistant it's 'George Foulidis from Tuggs', and you should be put right through.
but bringing it back down to reality, the open file story sums up next steps fairly nicely and i have not heard a huge outcry about the legitimacy of this process.
as to your assertion that the house is NOT of heritage significance, based on what authority? your skills in photoshop? you can no more make that claim with authority than i can that it is.
and i hold you fully responsible for the fact that i woke up this morning and find myself a conservative.
@ jon - two points -
1.that the residents of Beech chose not to seek heritage district designation does not mean that the single site at 204 Beech is not worthy of designation. and,
2. you quote:
' "The house (as it was when we moved out at the end of April) is not easy to live in. It was good for us because it gave us the ground-floor living space we wanted, but I suspect our skulls are permanently mis-shapen from collisions with the bedroom ceiling!"
This home is not worth preserving since it is not functional anymore.'
You cannot seriously be misreading this bit of wistfulness on the part of thew writer as serious testament?
----
As to the idea that someone from the preservationist side should ante up the cash to buy 204 and restore it, i'd do it but i am a conservative and as such would tend not buy at the top of a housing bubble.
@Pete
In this context, I'm probably "that hyperbolic Jim Graham"
Thanks for your input. Like I said, it's very thought provoking. I tend to disagree, like I've said here and on my blog. I hope I'm clear enough that everyone can judge my biases on what I say. I keep coming back to the idea that if this is so obvious that this is the house that "no one can touch," why wasn't codified that way, given the number of opportunities to do so? Jon Lax said that other potential buyers thought the same as the Teehans -- ie. it didn't scream "don't touch" to them. Perhaps it's only "true Beachers" that see the house that way. I drove by 204 Beech and I don't see it that way. I see a non-functional cottage. Like I said in the blog, if you want to inform people of expectations, you can't rely on them reading your mind or sharing all of your views.
The loss of heritage homes due to a "lack of a coherent heritage program" is disturbing, and since I've only lived in Toronto for 10 years, it's not an issue with which I'm deeply familiar. However, I've never let that stop me from having an opinion. This is the same point that Lloyd Alter made initially; we need a coherent heritage program and inventory, and I hope those who are dedicated to this issue (such as yourself) will start working on one. However, it does little to address this specific case. Again, I come back to the idea that there were any number of opportunities to register this house. Those living in it and near it on Beech Ave chose not to, and that is, in my opinion, indicative of their opinion of the nature of the house.
You say "the preservation of heritage structures HAS to win out over just about every other consideration." This is a place where we will have to disagree. I respect this opinion, but as I've said here and other places, I don't supported it unequivocally. Neither does the city, given that there is a process by which even heritage-designated buildings (which 204 beech is not one, yet), can be demolished. If it is a piece of history, one solution is for city should step in and make an offer to buy it at a price that recoups the Teehans' expenses. I don't think that will happen, because it's my opinion that everyone wants someone else to pay for heritage to be preserved. The current outcome places all of that burden on the Teehans and will financially ruin them for doing everything that was legally required of them. That is grossly unfair in my opinion.
Again, thanks for a thoughtful discussion.
But Pete if this house was so obviously historical and important why wasn't it protected in 2004 when there was an initiative in the neighbourhood to identify properties like this?
If this was such a no brainer then why wasn't it designated previously? I still can't get past that point.
Jim, - are you "THE Jim Graham" or just "a Jim Graham"?
I joke.
On the 50 ft. lot issue, again, homes, even of the accesible sort, can come in all manner of orientations and sizes, the point being that neither of us can categorically say a 50 ft. wide lot was required. I strongly dounbt it and continue to believe that Mr. Teehan's attachement to this specific design is what has driven the insistence on a 50 ft. wide lot.
Regarding due diligence, I wasn't trying to make a universal statement about the circumstances in which a home purchaser can be fairly subjected to retroactive heritage designation because I don't think it's an issue here. My point is that this home does not sit in any grey area where a prospective purchaser would be unsure as to the potential for heritage concerns. Other than the Gardener's Cottage, I honestly cannot think of another home in the Beach that cries out "don't even think about it" as loudly as this one does. Mr. Teehan needn't have conducted any due diligence. He should have looked at 204 Beech , said, "oh, it's this one" and walked away.
And at this stage in the life of Toronto, the preservation of heritage structures HAS to win out over just about every other consideration. I am not sure if you are familiar with the vast number of beautiful buildings and homes which were demolished in Toronto both before and after that war as a result of the lack of a coherent heritage program and unbrideld development. The City would be an architectural and historical gem but for that lack of foresight. Instead it is an ill-planned hodgepodge that pales in comparison to those cities which valued heritge appropriately. To implement an "anything goes before official designation" rule would simply ensure that the loss of hertiage continues unabated. And as some others have opined, once it's gone, it's gone forever.
We are aged 18 to 20 my friends and I and there are lots of us, we have a right to be heard. we will be on Queen St. on Sat. and Sun. asking all to sign our petition supporting Mr. and Mrs. Teehan.
We will be having signs on us saying we too are voters pay attention to us.
*NOTE* To Sandra Bussin.... The youth of the Beach will be heard. You can play word games with our parents but in October we will band together to Vote you OUT.
Scotty
Hello Pete
Again, good stuff here on OpenFile. I'd like respond to your comments.
First, you say "I simply cannot swallow that wheelchair accessible homes always require 50 foot wide lots." I don't think anyone is saying that all wheelchair accessible homes require 50' wide lots. What *is* being said is that the Teehans wanted to build an accessible two-storey home for 4 occupants. *That* required a 50' wide lot. Luckily enough for them, they found a lot that met their criteria. It's their choice to look for a lot that meets their criteria -- either they find it, or they search in vain and *then* reconsider their options. That's their choice.
Second, you say due diligence is not an issue. I really don't know how to wrap my head around this. Sure people might be upset, or have a different opinion of the property than Mr. Teehan does. But what does it say for control of your own property when there are no clear rules on what you are legally allowed to do with your property? I'm really interested in your opinion as someone who works in the legal profession. Is this a "strategic" issue in this specific case (ie. Mr. Teehan should have spoken to all the people that you have -- and how many people is enough? Does he need a plurality, or does he have to get consensus from all residents in the Beach, or the larger Ward, or the entire City?), or do you think that all homeowners can't rely on due diligence when they buy a house? I am honestly confused, and as a home owner in Toronto, a bit afraid of this precedent, to tell you the truth.
Finally, you say you don't think heritage issues have to be pursued proactively. We differ in that opinion, but it appears that's how it currently works. My concern is your statement, "Surely preservation is the key, not the means to that preservation." If preservation rules over all other considerations, then yes, you are correct, the ends then justify the means. Like I said above, as a property owner, I find that absolutism scary. I think the rights of the property owners have to compete with the preservation -- and preservation executed proactively is the clearest and simplest way to balance both those needs. Had 204 Beech been declared a heritage property before Jan 2010, there would be no issue here.
Again, thought-provoking stuff.
Jon - I though that we could at least agree to let the experts decide rather than importing our own definitons of what can and cannot be considered historically and aesthetically significant.
Regarding the ability to sell the home now that designation is imminent, there's surely one way to find out if there are any takers.
Thanks for not wishing any illness upon me.
Pete - Of the 21 residents which would be prepared to step up and buy 204 Beech and put in the dollars it needs to be turned into a functional home and preserve it?
Geoff is aware of 2 other purchasers who have contacted him who said it was their intention, if they had acquired the property, to tear it down.
I fear that there may not be a buyer of the property who is willing or can make the economics work. Geoff is obviously not interested since he has said he would never had bought the property. He is trying to do what he is legally entitled to do.
One thing that is not apparent from the exterior is that the roof on the second floor is slanted. The previous owner in an email said...
"The house (as it was when we moved out at the end of April) is not easy to live in. It was good for us because it gave us the ground-floor living space we wanted, but I suspect our skulls are permanently mis-shapen from collisions with the bedroom ceiling!"
This home is not worth preserving since it is not functional anymore.
We obviously will never agree on this issue but I appreciate your point of view.
Jon
Jon - I am not an architect or an engineer but I do represent engineers in my legal practice and therefore have some understanding of engineering principles. There is not much a good engineer cannot accomplish no matter the limitations. I simply cannot swallow that wheelchair accesible homes always require 50 foot wide lots.
Regarding due diligence, I am suggesting that it's not an issue here becuase Mr. Teehan had to know that he would receive significant opposition.
Finally, I don't see why heritage issues have to be pursued proactively as you suggest. Surely preservation is the key, not the means to that preservation.
Having just chatted with Beach resident number 21, I cannot express strongly enough how aghast and angry those who I have spoken to are about the plan to demolish. I think Mr. Teehan needs to take a step back, take a breath and assess what his continued pursuit of the tear down will do to his family's relationship with the neighbourhood.
@Pete - sorry one more thing.
The Web site, Globe article were all written prior to any outcry. I can tell you as someone who sits next to Geoff everyday, that those were not orchestrated actions.
He was documenting the building of the home with his blog. In fact, he's stated that the biggest mistake he ever made was putting up the blog. Because of the blog the Globe found it and reported on it. Yes the Blog is slick because Geoff is an award winning designer.
Your accusation here is unwarranted.