ProjectEnd
Superstar
It's going to sit vacant like this for a long while, unfortunately...
- Thread starter ProjectEnd
- Start date
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
CBC TORONTO story on the PALACE ARMS is now up and on-line...
Expect RADIO & TV versions later in the morning, unless they get bumped by Federal election coverage.
Long-form story that covers all the bases, other than the estimated cost of Heritage Retention - and/or Reconstruction, which our volunteers' HousingNowTO models have estimated at $3.5-MILLION to $4-MILLION in added cost to this specific redevelopment project. The equivalent value of between 6 to 8 additional new "Affordable Rental" apartments within that purpose-built rental development
---- CBC QUOTED ------
Some are arguing that as much as the hotel will be missed, Torontonians need to come to grips with a more pressing problem: The need for housing.
Mark Richardson, with the affordable housing advocacy group HousingNOWTO.com, raises a notion that's unthinkable to many history buffs: Heritage buildings may have to be sacrificed in favour of affordable homes, if the city is serious about providing affordable housing.
"These neighbourhoods have to change and some of these old brick buildings have to go," Richardson told CBC Toronto. "And sometimes they're not going to come back because our choice is ... retain the old bricks or do another half-a-dozen, dozen affordable housing units.
"I'll make that trade every day of the week," he said.
Threndyle says he's on board with the idea that we need housing. But he says there should be room for both new builds and a sense of history on the city's streets.
----------
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
It looks like they're planning on doing the rebuild like it was done with "Design" Haus. The only thing here is that the heritage rebuild there didn't look so great, to put it mildly... >.<
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
Interesting take that I don't think would engender sympathy here or among the general public.
I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice significant historical buildings any day of the week for (potentially) a few more affordable housing units. That's a short-sighted perspective that ignores the real economic and social benefits of historical sites. Toronto has so little history as it is, we shouldn't be treating this as an either/or proposition.
flonicky
Senior Member
"Some old brick buildings have to go." "I'll make that trade every day of the week."
I'm so tired of the HousingNow group. It's false-framing; it's not a real choice. Old brick buildings are being torn down non-stop, every day. Sometimes buildings that shouldn't be torn down are demolished and buildings that should be razed are preserved. Bellyache all you want about old brick buildings, we have a 20 year building boom that demonstrates that old brick buildings are not the obstacle to affordability.
Comments like the above just make us collectively dumber because suck up air and waste are time on myopic debates. They argue day and night about the need to tear up some of our older, valuable urban fabric when we have a VAST expanse of suburban wasteland than needs to be reformed and developed. Seriously, get some perspective.
I'm so tired of the HousingNow group. It's false-framing; it's not a real choice. Old brick buildings are being torn down non-stop, every day. Sometimes buildings that shouldn't be torn down are demolished and buildings that should be razed are preserved. Bellyache all you want about old brick buildings, we have a 20 year building boom that demonstrates that old brick buildings are not the obstacle to affordability.
Comments like the above just make us collectively dumber because suck up air and waste are time on myopic debates. They argue day and night about the need to tear up some of our older, valuable urban fabric when we have a VAST expanse of suburban wasteland than needs to be reformed and developed. Seriously, get some perspective.
Undead
Senior Member
Wow 6 units really gon solve the housing "crisis."
christiesplits
Senior Member
I like HousingNow. While I often disagree with them on heritage retention, including this site, they’re pushing an important conversation on housing and have achieved results in getting more affordable units for projects. Plus, there are some scenarios where I've observed overreach by Heritage (140 Merton comes to mind). Affordable housing advocates are obviously going to push for Affordable housing above all. I think in this case, the status of the Palace Arms as a Parkdale and King West landmark is worthy of retention and/or rebuilding, but let's not bad-mouth those who think otherwise.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I don't know about this punching down business on heritage would actually resolve our housing issues. Especially when this place seem to have gotten nuked for discount housing...which is different from actual affordable housing where folks living in tents have a better option to go, in the example. But even if this was, my reply will always be...
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Q: "Why don't we have BOTH?"
A : We don't have BOTH - because we don't want our City to regularly spend $800,000+ per bedroom on a "Heritage Compliant Affordable Housing Rooming House - Renovation, Remediation & Modernization" project as it makes it much less likely for higher-order governments to fund any of Toronto's other affordable housing projects in the future.
As we discussed on this other "Heritage -vs- Affordable Housing" site in Cabbagetown last week -
Toronto is in a housing crisis. Why are these city-owned historic row houses sitting empty?
The rotting buildings are home to termites and a pigeon. Here’s why the city of Toronto hasn’t fixed them up yet despite a housing crisis.
www.thestar.com
Northern Light
Superstar
Q: "Why don't we have BOTH?"
A : We don't have BOTH - because we don't want our City to regularly spend $800,000+ per bedroom on a "Heritage Compliant Affordable Housing Rooming House - Renovation, Remediation & Modernization" project as it makes it much less likely for higher-order governments to fund any of Toronto's other affordable housing projects in the future.
As we discussed on this other "Heritage -vs- Affordable Housing" site in Cabbagetown last week -
Toronto is in a housing crisis. Why are these city-owned historic row houses sitting empty?
The rotting buildings are home to termites and a pigeon. Here’s why the city of Toronto hasn’t fixed them up yet despite a housing crisis.
Affordable housing should not be placed in a row of lowrise heritage buildings.
There are no shortage of better sites.
****
Again, if you're turning UT'ers, the most YIMBY, pro-density, pro-affordable housing crew in Toronto against you..........you're not making the right arguments.
Worse......this forum IS the industry.......... this is the money.....the influence and the know-how.
You want these folks taking your calls, not realizing..... your group doesn't matter.
****
There are easy wins, low hanging fruit, lots of points of agreement...........focus on those..........leave this one completely out of all public speech. It harms the cause.
Achievement is everything; so harming achievement by actively courting opposition is an ill chosen path.
Last edited:
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
Q: "Why don't we have BOTH?"
A : We don't have BOTH - because we don't want our City to regularly spend $800,000+ per bedroom on a "Heritage Compliant Affordable Housing Rooming House - Renovation, Remediation & Modernization" project as it makes it much less likely for higher-order governments to fund any of Toronto's other affordable housing projects in the future.
As we discussed on this other "Heritage -vs- Affordable Housing" site in Cabbagetown last week -
Toronto is in a housing crisis. Why are these city-owned historic row houses sitting empty?
The rotting buildings are home to termites and a pigeon. Here’s why the city of Toronto hasn’t fixed them up yet despite a housing crisis.
The problem seems to be the lack of nuance in your position. Maybe it's worth preserving the Parkdale Arms while it's not worth preserving these row houses, given the cost. But by your logic (as I see it so far), the City should demolish Old City Hall to build a slab affordable apartment building because the need for housing trumps any historical value.
I would argue, like Northern Light, that there are so few affordable housing projects in Toronto that are significantly impacted by heritage concerns, or where alternative sites can't be had, that this argument is quite detrimental.
flonicky
Senior Member
Ok, there's two different things here. Criticizing a project for being unnecessarily expensive because it included a heritage component is not the same as criticizing heritage in general. Saying, "Duh, the brick buildings gotta go!" is a blanket statement against heritage preservation, not a critique of specific examples where the process went wrong. That's what drives me nuts; these lazy statements that distract from the things like provincial and federal neglect and the broader built form across the entire city. Do I think the process and results of projects like the tiny building at Queen & Broadview are ridiculous? Of course I do. But I don't see it as a blanket indictment of heritage. Heritage is a messy subject because it's clouded by emotion and nostalgia, it's often weaponized by NIMBYs and sometimes choices are influenced by looking back at all the things that were lost that should have been preserved and trying to hold on to what's left. In the Queen & Broadview example, did heritage determine the size of the addition or was heritage used as the "fall guy" by the city to do less than it should have done? Cause the city seems to be plenty happy to ignore heritage in many cases.
flonicky
Senior Member
Oh, and with this site specifically (which I used to walk past every day for many years), I generally think that replicas don't often work. If a building is lost, it's lost. For me, the preferred approach is to replace it with something of equal or higher value. But maybe not a giant wall of unbroken glass.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'll differ here a bit.
I'm prepared to entertain re-creation, where the reason for preserving what is, is aesthetic.
If people like the lintels, the cornice, the real masonry, or the bay and gable windows and those can be rebuilt in a high quality manner (yes that's a big if) ....such that people once more see what they appreciated, I don't really have a problem with that.
That's not to say I wouldn't love to keep an extant building up; or alternatively to replace it with remarkable, contemporary design.
Just that I'm not opposed to recreation done well.
Of course, if done well, it's not necessarily a big cost saver...... and the only justification is really an existing building so neglected, for so long, that it really isn't savable in its current form.
That latter situation would be avoided if more rigour was applied on compelling upkeep of buildings.......all buildings really, but particularly those of high value.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Funny though, in the anecdote I live in a heritage structure that has an affordable living component...or there is no way I could live here under my budget. Furthermore, I have seen other examples of both small and large projects with heritage conversions that suit the needs to more vulnerable dwellers. So thusly, I stand by my "¿Por qué no tenemos ambos?" question.Q: "Why don't we have BOTH?"
A : We don't have BOTH - because we don't want our City to regularly spend $800,000+ per bedroom on a "Heritage Compliant Affordable Housing Rooming House - Renovation, Remediation & Modernization" project as it makes it much less likely for higher-order governments to fund any of Toronto's other affordable housing projects in the future.
As we discussed on this other "Heritage -vs- Affordable Housing" site in Cabbagetown last week -
Toronto is in a housing crisis. Why are these city-owned historic row houses sitting empty?
The rotting buildings are home to termites and a pigeon. Here’s why the city of Toronto hasn’t fixed them up yet despite a housing crisis.