Comments on: My Take on 204 Beech (Part 1)

By: Carl

Carl — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:25:16 +0000

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 begin to apply the same ideas re-use, or 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.

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:36:54 +0000

What a wonderful expression of what must be the majorities point of view. The Teehans deserve to be able to live in their house and the previous owners should have kept their house of they didn’t want changes made.

By: Kerry

Kerry — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 02:44:18 +0000

@Mart – there is level access to the house from the laneway in the back.

@ZB – I agree with you about the mood on the street. I live just north on Beech and every neighbour I’ve spoken to has been supportive of the Teehan’s position.

My opinion: However charming and quaint the house may appear from the outside (although personally I’ve never been a big fan), the fact remains that this tiny two-bedroom cottage just isn’t functional by today’s standards. I think it would be horribly unfair to retroactively impose building restrictions on the new owners just to preserve the view for the rest of us.

I wish the Teehans well and will be doing what I can to help — starting with a letter to Ms. Bussin, who needs to answer for her handling of this situation.

By: omnivore

omnivore — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 00:22:51 +0000

My suggestion: let those who want to preserve it, like Kristen Campbell, pay to move it. And let Ms Bussin use her clout at City Hall to get a new site, perhaps in the park, to site it and make it a local historical center.

Given Ms Campbell’s passion about the house, it’s slightly ironic that it was Campbell House, at the corner of University and Queen, NW corner, that was probably Toronto’s most famous moved building:

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2010/02/20100203-CampbellHouse.jpg

If the city doesn’t think it’s worth contributing the land, and the preservationists don’t think it’s worth paying for the move, I think they should admit that if it’s worth nothing to them to preserve it, then it’s not worth preserving, in the face of clear property rights and a clear and pressing need on the part of the Teehans.

And by the way, and I’m not trying to spam here, if anyone want to make use of my site, http://www.urbanisti.ca, as a way to create a center for messages and ideas around this, more power to you. I developed it to allow communities to exchange messages, and maybe you might think this was good use of it.

By: Mart

Mart — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:04:35 +0000

A very difficult situation indeed, to look at this from another perspective, the house is not exactly on a wheelchair friendly street, have you been to this house, it is on a HILL, a big hill, at the top.
I am amazed they would not find a flatter street. Just look at the elevation of the house.
As a kid I used to visit my cousins in this house.
Does no one care about history, if you tried this in any other old town, in a european country you would be shut down without questions.

By: How you can help | 204 Beech Ave

How you can help | 204 Beech Ave — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:27:11 +0000

[...] National Post Love and houses – family tragedy shapes a living space – The Globe & Mail My Take on 204 Beech – Part 1 – Jim Graham My Take on 204 Beech – Part 2 – Jim [...]

By: 204 Beech

204 Beech — Mon, 31 May 2010 15:52:55 +0000

[...] My Take on 204 Beech – Jim Graham [...]

By: Kendra

Kendra — Mon, 31 May 2010 02:59:58 +0000

This makes perfect sense. The very concept of someone campaigning AGAINST a family rebuilding their own home to make the mother of the family who is wheelchair bound able to be somewhat self-sufficient in her own home is repulsive. I can barely conceive that someone is behaving that way without twirling their moustaches, cackling, and prancing off to tie young girls to the go train tracks. Architecture which is not that old and isn’t hard to find is never more important then allowing someone to live comfortably in their own home. …Are we /sure/ that this woman doesn’t have a Guy Fawkes mask in her closet, and an irrational fear of dogs? And curtains? And dog curtains? Because her behaviour resembles trolling to me.

By: Max

Max — Sun, 30 May 2010 21:39:15 +0000

Here’s the thing:

in all this talk of the historical significance of the current house (and there doesn’t seem to be much) there are other forms of significance, apart from architectural, that are as or more important. the new house will add much more to the area, in that it’s going to be a landmark for inclusion, compassion, and clearly designed to put a person in a wheelchair at an equal level of accessibility with their neighbours. that, in my mind, is significant, and deserves to be championed by a neighbourhood, and a city, and a government. it’s as deserving of a plaque. and a hundred years from now will actually make the new house stand out as more significantly special in the neighbourhood than the old one ever could have been.

two other quick things: the new house is attractive and more forward thinking; it’s more environmentally sound and will last longer; it will house their family better; and it’s designed by locals. all important. and i find it so odd that a woman who has lived in germany for seven years started this whole thing. i can’t imagine that she has a great sense of what the neighbourhood is now, and she seems to have no investment in what the neighbourhood will be in the future.

what can those of us who don’t live in the beach do?

By: Melissa Teehan

Melissa Teehan — Sun, 30 May 2010 21:11:14 +0000

Thank you Jim for your well thought out blog, and your committment to bringing our story to more people. What we continually learn (and ZB confirmed)is that there are many many supporters on Beech Ave. How is it that one woman on Beech, and three sisters who lived there decades ago have gotten the support of our councillor?