City
Downtown Heritage Battle Begets Hope and Despair
The fight to save Toronto's architectural heritage is a bitter one; passion is often the sole remaining motivation for so many fighters on the front line of this endless battle. This is a good thing, because it quickly becomes plain that reason and common sense don't stand a chance, especially in a system that's become increasingly stacked against them.
Over two years ago, a notice was put up in the window of a building on King Street East in Toronto's old downtown that a developer was seeking city permission to erect a condo on the site. This was the beginning of a battle for Robert Cishecki that continues to this day. A real estate broker and local resident, he's collected signatures and started a website to publicize the cause of forcing the city to enforce its own bylaws.
"Why are the citizens, the stakeholders, having to flip either for legal bills or hiring some kind of representation to defend the very laws that the city should be defending to begin with?" Cishecki asks me. "Why should we be defending the laws when we have politicians and bureaucrats and administrators to do that?"
The building in question is solid but unspectacular, except for the massive arched doorways that give it an indelible street presence. Built around 1861, the buff brick three-story structure at the southeast corner of King and Sherbourne began life as an inn, and was photographed by the city between the two world wars doing business as the National Hotel. Today it's the home of a law firm, though the street level windows are covered with architectural renderings of the Bauhaus Condos that Rams Head Development plans to erect on the site, with the yellow brick skin of the original building wrapping two of its corners.
Rams Head is virtually invisible online, and the phone number on the business card I was given by the law firm's receptionist is no longer in service, but their bid to develop the site is forging ahead, in spite of Cishecki's best efforts to stop it. An application for rezoning conspicuously languished in council for 120 days, after which the developers were entitled to push it forward to the Ontario Municipal Board, who will begin pre-hearings on the project on the 17th of this month.
It should be noted that Rams Head is being represented by Aird & Berlis, the law firm that Cishecki calls "pitbulls of municipal planning," where David Miller was a senior partner previous to becoming mayor. It's the sort of detail that makes paranoia and despair a constant companion for heritage groups fighting to preserve buildings.
"You should go to the mat for that building," agrees Alec Keefer, acting president of the Ontario Architectural Conservancy and a longtime player in the city's heritage battles. He's not hopeful though, as he's seen the city ignore heritage designation time and time again, in favour of woeful compromises like ruefully-named "facadomies" where nothing remains but a few external walls.
"Toronto is still tearing down what other cities would enhance," says Michael Comstock, president of the Old Town Toronto alliance - the BIA/community group that oversees the city's historic downtown area. It was Howard Levine, the executive director of Citizens of Old Town Toronto, who coined the term "facadification" 12 years ago, Comstock recalls. "This is what will probably happen to the National Hotel. Toronto is still tearing down what other cities would enhance. Toronto only saves buildings here and there, like the Flatiron set against the modern bank towers. Hell, they stole Campbell House from Old Town to put it on display on University!"
"What I've found the Heritage Preservation Board to be is a buffer," Cishecki says, "to allow developers to get greater density and height under the auspices of keeping a facade." Originally, the board supported the complete demolition of the building, claiming that the brickwork was spalling. Cishecki happened to attend a public hearing, and drew on his years of experience renovating and restoring buildings to point out that it wasn't unsalvageable, and that he knew of a company in the U.S. that could help. This led to an about face and the façade-preserving redesign, but Cishecki argues that the city has to force developers to preserve historical buildings like 251 King, especially when they're protected by heritage bylaws that they've written.
"Respect the law, respect the laws that are there for all of us, and force the developers to respect the law."
Archival image of National Hotel courtesy of City of Toronto Archives.
Discussion
35 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
It's ridiculous to think we have a solid original building from 1861 and they want to gut the thing and put up another ugly aseptic glass and steel building that looks like all the others around it we'll give it modern artist sounding name like say "bauhaus" and all the little artist wannabes with money will flock here. It's going to be UGLY!!
I like the way they "protected" the Distillery District by shoehorning in buildings that look like old folks homes, and crappy restaurants.
What exactly does the new design have to do with "Bauhaus"? Seriously, any of these Architect fellas ever open an encyclopedia?
Handfed, your naivete is refreshing.
The Bauhaus Condos project is, of course, named by marketers -- not architects. There's a good chance it was named by people who never laid eyes on the plans.
That's the nature of the RE business these days. Scary to think that people buy it.
The responses raise an interesting question, one that never seems to get addressed in discussions on gentrification. Who ARE the people buying all these ugly-as-shit condos? What motivates them to do so?
You have incorrectly identified Heritage Toronto in the quote by Robert Cishecki. We are not in support of the building's demolition by any means.
It was the Heritage Preservation Board that ruled on this decision.
We are an agency of the City that provides programs to create awareness of our heritage. Heritage Preservation Services is involved in the planning process involving historic buildings. We are different agencies/divisions of the City and it is important to keep this distinction.
Thanks Rick another good read, your stories and photographs here on BT are always so interesting, good to see you' ve found a platform.
steph
Rebecca - I've changed the story according to your comment. Cishecki did say Heritage Toronto, so I'm assuming it was an honest mistake. It is, to be honest, hard to figure out the city's bureaucracy, especially for heritage projects.
"An application for rezoning conspicuously languished in council for 120 days, after which the developers were entitled to push it forward to the Ontario Municipal Board"
And that my friends is the reason why the OMB gets to decide Toronto's planning - because so often the City fails to do so. If the City had made a decision within the deadlines the law requires, the developer would have an onus to show why the OMB should intervene.
That building should be saved. The developer should have to restore it to its former glory and build on top or around it.
Heritage Preservation Board = useless
City = f*cking morons
While some condos are ugly/poorly designed (Cityplace!) and the design of this particular building is in no way related to Bauhaus design principles, I don't think this development is all that bad.
On the NE corner of the same intersection sits King's Court, which is a pretty great building by any standard and also incorporates a heritage facade. Bauhaus is similar in this respect--not the worst glass & steel by far.
Toronto's lack of respect and reverence for its historical buildings is, in my opinion, one of the greatest drawbacks of this city - with potential to be a real downfall in the future.
Aird & Berlis may well be the "pitbulls of municipal planning" but sometimes their bark is worse than their bite (sorry, couldn't resist). The building at the corner of Richmond and Portland was originally supposed to be 14 stories but due to pressure from local residents and the Ontario Municipal Board, the plan was scrapped and the building was redesigned. My point? The buck doesn't stop with Aird & Berlis. They've lost before and with enough pressure, they will again. It's time to start pushing more buttons. If all else fails, find a legitimate complaint (i.e. the proposed condo doesn't fit with the look and feel of the surrounding neighbourhood), file it with the OMB and soon, the plan will be mired in bureaucracy.
Couldn't agree with you more there. mondayjane brings up a good point about the future of the city as a whole. Also I find it sad to think a body named the Heritage Preservation Board allows things like this to happen. But in the end it's all about closed-door greasy handshakes.. Prepare for the tumbling of another piece of Toronto history.
Old Montreal is what it is because the city and the people give a sh*t.
Toronto doesn't even think saving a 150 year old building is worth it.
So pathetic.
in the condos defence ... that building while 150 years old is ugly -- i'd rather have our squares full at night versus an empty eyesore just collecting just and property tax
Ugly?
Did you look at the photos?
Did you see the arch?
The ram heads?
The columns?
I guess not.
Oh well, why don't you take your complete lack of appreciation of architecture and history and get back to destroying the city's past.
LOL
Parts of this City's past were not so nice. Downtown East is flat thanks to our lovely past City Council. Today's City Council are people that can't get jobs. Today's City is too politically correct to say shit if their mouths were full of it. The problem is that today's new buildings are too mediocre and repeat the same stuff over and over. This boot shaped thing might actually be nice at the Hummingbird Centre. Hummingbird Centre was no Daffodil anyway.
Anyway I've not reviewed the plans, but I think there's a picture up there that keeps the facade of the building. I'm cool with that.
I agree with Sanjay. I'm all for Heritage preservation (and I agree that developers could stand to put some more imagination into condo development) but should we really be getting so worked up about a squat, non-descript building that's only architectually significant feature appears to be an arched doorway (a feature that can be easily maintained in any condo development).
Let's save the outrage for a building that's more worthy. All this indignation sounds very knee-jerk to me. Just because it's old, doesn't necessarily make it worth preserving.
Chris and Sanjay - I think you're missing the point. The building might be no Old City Hall (which was also once slated for demolition,) but it's part of a district that, by the city's own by-laws, has a priority for the preservation of its buildings and character. As Robert Cishecki pointed out to me, the height restriction on buildings in the old town was raised thanks to a "Trojan Horse" case - a building that applied for an exemption, then never built. Preserving heritage buildings is a rear guard fight by its very nature in Toronto, and every 251 King demolished or "facadomized" makes it possible to lose the next one, then the next one, then the next one ...
Rick, I appreciate your comments on this. Its nice (for a change) to see well-reasoned, thoughtful points made in an issue on an internet forum instead of the usual name-calling that takes place whenever anonymous people disagree.
I certainly understand the concern for about setting precedents regarding dealing with Heritage sites and such. I guess my primary point was that many of the complaints about this particular site were based on the "beauty" of the building, based primarily on the fact it's old. The building's ugly, and the reasons to fight for its preservation have less to do with the building's aesthetics and more to do with keeping control of the city' architectual heritage, at least if I'm understanding your arguments correctly.
I can agree with that.
Well, I'm not anonymous - I wrote the post, and I'm commenting under my own (full) name, so I don't see the point of incivility.
And you're right - it's not an argument over aesthetics, but legal and civil principles, and holding the city to them. As Alec Keefer said to me when I was interviewing him, the developers have probably argued that the building wasn't structurally sound as they were going to dig underground parking underneath it. The city has a requirement that parking be built for every metre of commercial space, which effectively dooms almost any heritage building being redeveloped. Alec has fought heritage battles for years, but he figures that as long as they stick to this requirement, they might as well just shut down the whole heritage preservation department and gut the city.
We have to ask ourselves how much we want to save the city's architectural heritage, and what we have to do to preserve it. Other cities have made the hard decisions (there's no underground parking in Chicago, for instance) - so why can't we?
Or is this a silly question?
Oh, and the rams' head? I don't know - take a close look. I suspect it's not original, and might have something to do with the developers' corporate name. Just a hunch.
For all you who think this building is nothing special, perhaps you should have a look through this forum thread to see what people with the same attitudes have already destroyed.
http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=6947&page=136
Oh, there's 136 pages of photos to show great examples of the destruction. Enjoy
sanjay, Rico, and Chris -- you are what is wrong with this city.
Good day, gentlemen.
"On the NE corner of the same intersection sits King's Court, which is a pretty great building by any standard and also incorporates a heritage facade."
=================
Personally, I feel King's Court is a clumsy comedown from MOZO across the way--and unfortunately, the heritage facade retention is a keynote part of why it's so. Maybe that can stand as an argument against facadism: as something which does no favours to either the old or to the new.
Also, let's not hyperbolize "other cities"--it isn't as if Chicago or New York or Montreal haven't been guilty of what we might deem unnecessary teardowns or heritage-torture in recent times, either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive better, though...just to keep our perspective straight.
One thing nobody's yet sought to raise about the National Hotel in this post/comment thread is that it suffered by far one of the worst 70s-style sandblasting jobs in Toronto--"spalling brick" is an understatement; one can understand (if not necessarily sympathize with) the merciful intention to take down on behalf of a *ahem* simulacrum...
Let me start by thanking Rick and everyone that has been so supportive regarding this very important battle. To start with, if I have somehow made a mistake regarding Heritage Toronto and Heritage Preservation Services I apologize and will make the necessary correction. Regarding many of the blogs, thank you. Regarding those individuals that find nothing or very little ascetically appealing with the National Hotel on a standalone basis if you were to use that argument you could probably justify tearing down the rest of historical King St, Front St, a good part of Queen West and countless other pockets in Toronto. It is the collection of all the buildings in a unique neighbourhood that bring the spirit and visual flavour to a block, a corner, a destination.
The National Hotel for me always represented the line in the sand, the fight for justice over pure corruption. The proposed development violates every by-law and every planning report written by the City since 1996. Buildings such as MOZO, Kings Court were gross violations of the planning by-law and the Official Plan but more importantly they were justified on the back of another gross zoning violation “The Richmond Centre” never built and as Rick so rightly stated was the “TROJAN HORSE” to justify the increase heights in the neighbourhood and the re-zoning of the neighbourhood through the back door. My battle goes all the way back to that original “TROJAN HORSE” which when I objected at the OMB was told my position was vexatious and was sued for legal costs to the tune of 17K and threatened with losing the family home if not paid. The City also supported the developer in that fictitious development, violated their own zoning by-laws and I suspect was the brain child behind the “TROJAN HORSE”. If people think this is a nice little neighbourhood debate I can tell you it is not . Height and density is about BIG MONEY, BIG PROFITS and increasing the tax base. It’s also about violating the law and hiring big lawyers to assist them in breaking the law. But more importantly the lost of a NATIONAL HOTEL is about the lost of respect for the law and a slap in the face to democracy. My wife and I have raised two children in this neighbourhood, and have always educated them about the need for respect of the law and our institutions what are we saying when the law makers (the politicians) ignore the very laws they have sworn to uphold?
These are the thoughts of Heritage Toronto's Conservation Committee:
The case of the former National Hotel is admittedly sad. Here is a heritage resource, that from earlier reports, appears to be sound and with some fine detail. The building, through its high visibility, provides a landmark status and links back to an era when this area of the city was considered prime real estate. A lot has changed over the years, but here we have a fine building that could have had a new life and stand the test of time if it were not for some very poor decisions. The City's Preservation Services staff are to be commended for providing professional advice based on experience and backed by highly recognized principles of heritage conservation. Conservation practice as well as our provincial laws are there to protect and conserve these properties. It's what many have been fighting to achieve and when we get the authority to retain such a resource, it is taken away by political will. One can only ask if the decision to remove this building was based on the true heritage value of the building and site, or was it only economics, which come and go and no doubt have a great influence, but neither will replace what is lost. Council represents the public at large. If the majority of the public really felt it was best to remove this building, then so be it. However, it is doubtful that the public really were aware or had an opportunity to express an interest or opinion. The former National Hotel is part of a neighbourhood and community that should have had more input into conserving its history.
http://www.heritagetoronto.org/news/issue/2009/11/05/national-hotel-and-canada-malting-silos
Thank you Rob and Rick and others for sharing, and exposing, what is really behind these oversized development efforts. I have to ask where our council representative, Pam McConnell, stands in all of this? I can answer my own question - SILENT. My inquiries to her office are not even acknowledged. She acts like she is supportive of maintaining the historical look and feel of the neighbourhood but look at how it is all disappearing - look at how there is no real attempt by the city to enforce its own zoning laws. My property, developed in accordance with zoning bylaws is now being surrounded by buildings that are well beyond the laws. I feel cheated by the city as what I was led to believe when I purchased my property was that I would be an area that would maintain its historical feel, and the zoning laws were in place to do so. I was obviously naive to believe that my interests would be representd and supported on city council.
"An application for rezoning conspicuously languished in council for 120 days, after which the developers were entitled to push it forward to the Ontario Municipal Board"
Why does this not surprise me? A couple of years back a new building mysteriously started to be built across the street from me. I contacted Pam McConnell's office to ask why I hadn't seen ANY notice for application for rezoning/building posted. The response? They told me that they are not only required to post something at the site, but also to inform people living within a 100m-200m radius and admitted that they must have failed to do so (I polled my neighbours as well in case I had missed it). They admitted to making a mistake, but offered no explanation or course of action. Nice. Councillor McConnell certainly won't be getting my vote in the next election.
Robert: all and fine, but somehow, when it comes to attacking MOZO, the argument over "neighbourhood preservation" takes a turn t/w the hysterical. In fact, as an award-winning fait accompli that's already been engrained for several years, it's probably a stronger "future heritage" candidate--and unlike King's Court or Bauhaus, it *didn't* require heritage demolition or facadomy, whatever the "by-law violations" that made it possible...
Thank you Adam Sobolak for your comments but please let me clarify by stating that I was not attacking MOZO per se on any type of aesthetic or design grounds. In fact, I find the building on its own merits to be a very attractive building which I often show units in to perspective purchasers. Having said that, I must be clear in terms of my reference to both MOZO and Kings Court in terms of their massing, density and height with respect to King St East and the wider neighbourhood they are too high and not properly stepped back for adjoining properties. I personally find the City made a very large error in planning judgement, was short sited in terms of long term neighbourhood goals and one can say the proof is in the pudding today. In the Cities exuberance to attract developers and push start a neighbourhood (circa 2000) that at the time appeared on the surface to be a dead zone the City in my opinion sold their soul to the highest bidder at the expense of some very good and concrete zoning by-laws that were and still are in place to protect the very abuses that have occurred and are still occurring, just look to “The East” (275 King St East).
The possible demise of the National Hotel does not just symbolize a standalone historical structure but it reflects in my opinion a loss in concrete values, respect for the law, respect for a community, respect for our heritage but even more importantly respect for our future. If we as a society cannot uphold and respect the very laws we so often pontificate to live by what legacy our we leaving for our children. My purpose for drawing attention to MOZO and Kings Court in terms of gross zoning violation on the backs of what has appeared to be a fictitious re-zoning “Trojan Horse” “The Richmond Centre” is to put into context how we as a community have gotten to where we are today. Yes, the National Hotel is our heritage but it is so much more than that.................
There's a gas station, Greyhound courier bunker, and two parking lots within a literal stone's throw of this lot. I know it's not simple because one entity doesn't own every lot in the city, but there really should be a system that prevents structurally sound protected buildings from being built on while underutilized lots still exist.
If I had my own way completely, I'd disallow any new development on a site with an existing substantial structure while a surface parking lot exists. Surface parking has no place in a downtown such as Toronto's. And along with this, Ill-conceived "facadomies" are as nearly as damaging to a building's integrity as tearing it down outright.
I remember this hotel in the early 70's.Every room was converted into a band rehersal space and it was called NASH Rehersal studios.Even the Legendary band "The Stampeders" used it.The landlord was a man named Gord Taylor.Does anyone remember this or have comments on that era of the hotel?? Many legendary Canadian musicians and bands made music and/or noise there.There was NO soundproofing between rooms.We had to take turns playing songs between each others rehearsing!! lol.