That means steel!

Furthermore, we are adding dormers to the third floor, to get more usable living space up there. The space was used previously as an office, but we found out during the demo that when the previous owners expanded into the third floor, they didn't add enough support to bring it up to code. So Jon and the guys revamped the entire third floor to modernize it.

We've gained a lot of new space up there.

The last piece of the puzzle is the big 16' wide glass sliding doors that we are putting on the back of the house, to replace two sets of french doors that were there originally. Given the large amount of glass, we have to provide a way to prevent the shear force of the side walls from deforming the back wall. Tom and our engineer Ken created a "spaceframe" that will encompass the glass doors and provide the structural rigidity to prevent shearing of the back wall. Sweet.

And after framing the second floor opening, with space for the windows on the second floor.

When we were there on the weekend, they had done most of the work in the attic, and then moved on to the two main floors.

Half of the main floor has been removed, and some of the ceiling has been taken down. In the above, you can see they’ve removed the radiators (the blue patches on the wall) so that the rads can be reused once all the work in the walls is complete.

In the following, you can see that the support beam under the second floor joists wasn’t really up to the task, and the joists were beginning to sag a bit. Where the short 2×8 is, you can see the joists starting to flex away from each other. That’s why our plaster was cracking. This is all going to be beefed up.

On the second floor, they’ve worked through our bedrooms and what will be the master ensuite. Very excited.

Finally, we are reclaiming the space on the attic balcony and making it back into a room. So they’ve removed the decking and are preparing it to be “reclaimed” space.

Seeing the house in this state confirmed our suspicions about what was going on underneath, and we’re happy we elected to do it all in one go. Even though there are some issues in the house, the basic bones are still good and we’re happy that we can get the solid house we want without having to change the shape or characteristics of the house.

We met with a number of contractors, all of whom came highly recommended. They were all great folks and gave very competitive bids. In the end, we went with Tom Cumming and his team at Severn Woods Construction. Tom’s a P.Eng and seemed to have a really detailed understanding of all the issues that go into a retrofit like our project. Plus he’s based in the area, and all of his references were incredible. Everyone likes working with him.

While our search for our contractor was ongoing, our architect Paul figured out how to get our building permits, just in the nick of time. There is a rumour going around Toronto that the "inside workers" union is going to be locked out by the City as a negotiation tactic. If that were to occur, no building permits would be issued, and our project (along with everyone else’s) would come to a halt. Fortunately, Paul and Donald got our permits to the City in enough time to get them issued.

Finally, we had to find a place to live. Our friend Margaret, who used to live on the street, bought a house and moved out at the start of February. The timing was perfect, as we were able to move into her (former) apartment on the same street, and get it with a month-to-month lease. As an even bigger favour, Margaret looked after our son for most of Saturday and Sunday so that we could supervise our move to the new apartment.

We’re all moved out of the house, and demolition has started. Crazy to see everything knocked down. Tom believes demo will take about three weeks. After that we should really start to see the project progress.

The biggest change to our house (with the exception of the dormers on the third floor) is that we are moving the kitchen to the front of the house. Initially when Paul suggested it, we thought it was a strange choice. But now we think it makes a tonne of sense. The front of the house gets the morning light, the stairs go to the front of the house, and with the placement of the stairs, the back of the house is more open, and we can then use that space for a bigger living room.

Yoko’s design has a peninsula coming from one of the walls, a bank for the range top and wall ovens, and a series of pantries. We’re a big fan of the pantries, and of the design that doesn’t have any corner units. Also, this design allows us to put a thin desk under the front window that can help with the “house-management” aspects. The one concern with this design is that it may not have enough counter space.

Here are Yoko’s designs. We’ve already decided to not use a big range hood and instead have upper cabinets above the range top on the north wall.

Thoughts? Comments? We’re interested to know what we are missing.

We need to add dormers to our third floor, and we are investigating two possibilities. The first is a straight dormer, where the walls of the dormer come straight down vertically, and create another “wall” surface.

The second choice is a hip roof, where the wall of the dormer come down at a 45-degree angle to create a more complicated roof line, but perhaps preserve the aesthetic of the neighbourhood.

There are pros and cons to both, and we have our opinions as well, but we’d like to see what everyone else thinks. These Photoshopped images come courtesy of Paul the Architect’s team. Shouts out to Steve for the photos.

The regular dormer is on the left, the hip roof on the right

Our appearance took about two minutes. Thanks to the excellent presentation by Paul the Architect, and the fact that we had the support in writing of our neighbours, the committee members voted to approve us, subject to Urban Forestry. It’s always subject to Urban Forestry.

Many thanks to Paul our architect and his team, our very supportive neighbours, and the committee.

The next step is getting a more finalized set of drawings so that we can talk to contractors about pricing out our job. Then permits and renovations!

I have been trying to read all that I can about 204 Beech. That means hitting “refresh” repeatedly on the #204beech Twitter search, reading the Save 204 Beech blog, and getting into the comments at OpenFile.

In my opinion, the best place to read about 204 Beech is OpenFile. They’ve done a killer job of breaking some of the major details of this story, all of which I will try to comment on below. Please, please, go read the article and the comments. It’s all gold.

The first comment is from Lloyd Alter, president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. He says that the over-arching issue is that there is “no real list of what buildings are architecturally significant.” He’s correct, and I hope he works hard to get such a list and inventory created, so that the BS that’s happening to the Teehans doesn’t happen to someone else. But nothing in what he said helps us determine what to do in this specific situation.

Further along in those comments, I ran off a bit and told a fellow commenter Brian Moffatt that he was guilty of “lightweight thinking.” Because I try to keep the decorum up and the negativity down, I later recanted and apologized for my poor choice of words. I instead said that for him to say “they [the Teehans] could easily sell and find a new lot” was cavalier, and I think that is accurate.

Then, in contrast to the well-reasoned comments on OpenFile, I found this on the “Save 204 Beech” blog.

A Jim Graham says (in the comments in the National Post) “…the “community” had decided that it was not a heritage property….” In fact, the “community” had not ‘decided’ anything. There was no need. The house was occupied and well cared for. It was only when the house was threatened with complete demolition – a plan the “community” learned about from Mt. Teehan’s website, and an article in The Star -that the thought of a heritage designation arose.

Ms Campbell, if you’ll allow me to respond:

1. In the context of the 204 Beech debate, I’m not “a Jim Graham.” I’m the Jim Graham. However, I will also accept “that Jim Graham”.
2. I should have been more clear in my comment to the National Post. Perhaps the community hadn’t “decided” that 204 Beech was not a heritage property. They couldn’t even get around to making a decision. Or as the English say, “you couldn’t be arsed.”
3. You’re not in the community. You’re 6000 KM away.
4. As to the overall point of “the community” getting to decide after the property is sold, allow me to present an imperfect analogy:

“I didn’t buy fire insurance before my house burned down. There was no need. The house was occupied and well cared for and in an unburnt state.”

Okay, a bit of hyperbole. But that’s how I roll. Hyperbolically.

My point is simple. Really, really simple. If you want to protect something, you should be proactive. Ms. Campbell’s parents had the opportunity to designate the cottage as a heritage home. They did not. As we’ve learned from OpenFile, the city worked with the residents of various streets around Beech Avenue and ERA Architects to get Heritage District designations for six areas from an original list of 14, starting in 2004. Beech Avenue was not one of those areas. Either the residents of Beech Avenue did not want a heritage designation, or again, they couldn’t be arsed to get it. That was six years ago.

So … seems pretty clear to me that the community of Beech Avenue, and specifically the former owners 204 Beech, have decided. That they did not want a heritage designation. And this point is really important. Perhaps in Germany there is uniformity of thought, and one can expect without saying so that the buyer of a house will share one’s exact tastes and viewpoints. However, in Canada, we have diversity. Of race, language, religion, and taste. So one absolutely cannot expect that the buyer of a house shares your views on how cute it is. One has to tell buyers what is expected, and that is done by writing a contract, or getting a heritage designation before the house is sold. It allows for informed choice on the buyer’s side. And that’s a component of the freedom we Canadians hold dear. This attempt by the “community” to get a heritage designation is a direct assault on the Teehans’ freedom.

Next, let’s discuss the “Community”. On the various blogs, mine included, and on Twitter, a number of people have come forward to say that there is a great deal of support on Beech Avenue for the Teehans’ plans to build their new home. And that the bulk of the opposition comes from the one neighbour across the street at 205 Beech. So as far as I can see it, the “community” that has decided that 204 Beech might be a heritage property has a nucleus of three people: the neighbour at 205, Ms. Campbell of “Save 204 Beech” (who lives in Germany), and Councillor Sandra Bussin. More people than that will actually live in 204 Beech when the Teehans finish building it.

That brings me to Councillor Bussin. Again in the comments of the OpenFile story, Brian Moffatt said “though you or others may not like her or the positions she takes, it does seem she listens to her constituents and acts on their behalf.” I respectfully disagree. She seems to listen to some of her constituents. It seems to me that if your vision of Beach architecture lines up with hers, you’re good to go. In fact, you don’t even have to be a constituent. You can get in the public record if you live in Germany, but happen to agree with Ms. Bussin. If you are a constituent, like the Teehans, but you don’t share her aesthetic, you might end up having your councillor ask an architectural firm to draft an opinion letter on your property without your knowledge and then have that entered in the public record without a chance to respond. All of this comes from the excellent reporting of OpenFile:

1. Upon receiving a complaint about the Teehans’ plans to build at 204 Beech, she asked ERA Architects to draft a letter about the heritage value of 204 Beech. From OpenFile:
   

   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.

2. Ms. Bussin did not inform the Teehans of ERA’s letter. Again from the article
   

   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.”

3. At the community council meeting, Ms. Bussin introduced a letter dated 25 May 2010 asking the Toronto HPS to report on designating 204 Beech a heritage property. She did not inform the Teehans that she would either ask HPS to do this, or that she would enter the letter into the public record. They were not aware of the meeting and hence could not respond.
4. The appendix of the letter was a screen capture of the “Save 204 Beech” blog. A blog created and maintained by a person living not in Ward 32 Toronto, but Germany.
5. Finally, on May 26th, Geoff Teehan reported that his wife received a call from Councillor Bussin indicating that Ms. Bussin was submitting 204 Beech for heritage status.

I’m not foolish enough to believe that Ms. Bussin has Solomon-like wisdom and can please all of her constituents all of the time. But I do think she owes it to everyone she represents to hear from both sides of the issue before she acts. We expect leaders to make decisions and take actions. I certainly don’t expect them to do so secretly and unilaterally, especially in an emotionally-charged issue such as this one.

So, to summarize.

The Teehans:

1. Bought the property at 204 Beech
2. Wrote in a clause to allow four days to do their due diligence (see Jon Lax’s comment at OpenFile)
3. Asked their architects and the City if 204 Beech was a heritage property.
4. Hired an arborist to ensure they could build without affecting trees on the lot
5. Spoke to a number of residents of Beech Avenue who supported their plans.
6. Wrote a blog about their plans.

The “Save 204 Crowd”

1. Did nothing when they lived in and owned 204 Beech.
2. Did nothing in 2004 when the City, other Beach residents and ERA architects were working to create Heritage designated areas around Beech Street.
3. Complained from Germany when their childhood home was to be torn down.
4. Complained to Councillor Bussin, who without discussing it with the Teehans (the most affected party) elected to ask ERA Architects to draft an opinion letter, and entered that letter and the German blog into the public record.

Whose team to you want to be on?

[Aside: We've learned from OpenFile that Ms. Bussin thinks there's nothing wrong with this, and blames the Teehans for not vetting their purchase of 204 Beech with her office first.]

To conclude: go read Geoff Teehan’s blog post. It is excellent, and succinctly makes all the points I’ve been gassing on about. If you live in Ward 32 The Beaches, please, please, please be vocal about your opinion in this matter. A very small number of people are speaking for “the community” and distorting the view of “Beachers.” And the rest of Toronto’s opinion of The Beach. If you want to be known as NIMBYs who don’t respect property rights, please stay silent. If that’s not you, please speak up, both to the Teehans and to your Councillor.

For my part, I’ve written to Mayor Miller, and I’m trying to get assurances from my councillor that he views this kind of behaviour as offside. I’d also happily contribute to the campaign fund of any of Ms. Bussin’s opponents who will state on the record that they will help the Teehans build their home.

I wrote an email to Councillor Bussin on May 27th (see below). I did not get a response, perhaps because I don’t live in the Beach. If you do, get out and make your voice heard. All politics is local, and it doesn’t get more local (or loco) than this.

Dear Councillor Bussin,

I have read on the National Post site (http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/27/family-plight-sparks-furor-in-the-beach/) that you have decided to recommend that the Teehans’ house at 204 Beech Ave be declared a heritage property. I have never met Mr. Teehan, but as a resident of Toronto, I do have an opinion on this matter.

I have to state, in the strongest possible terms, that this is the wrong decision. You are incorrectly placing the diffuse wishes of the community over the very real needs of this family. They bought the house in good faith when it was unencumbered by a heritage designation. It is wrong to try to add one after the fact. If the THS agrees with your recommendation, it will have very real financial, physical and emotional effects on the Teehan family.

In the article you are quoted as saying, “I have great empathy for the family.” It’s time to prove it. So far you’ve done nothing to help one of your constituents who is in a very difficult situation.

I hope you will reconsider your position.

Sincerely,

Jim Graham

Titus Brown has a very funny spoof about how scientists will probably react to the NSF’s moves towards data management plans. Go read it, I’ll wait. After detailing all manner of horrible data, licensing and source code management techniques, he closes with

Meanwhile we will continue publishing exciting sounding (but irerproducible [sic]) analyses

I’m not sure how I feel about this. All the disturbing practices he details are, well, disturbing. And not very scientific. However, he implies in his last sentence that the end goal to having well-structured data and documentation and source code in a version control tool is “reproducibility.” But there’s no offered definition of what “reproducibility” is.

This topic seems to come up a lot in the Open Science and Science 2.0 discussions. And the entry-level definition of “reproducibility” seems to be that another scientist or group will take your data and your tools and verify your result.

Sorry, but that’s not reproducibility. As the climate folks say, that’s replication. If you take all the same data and all the same tools, one of two things can happen:

• You get a different result. That only shows that one of us is sloppy and shouldn’t be doing science.
• You get the same result. That’s like plotting the same data point in two different colours and saying you’ve learned something.

There’s value in the first outcome, especially if you show I’m the sloppy one. I’m just not sure how much value there is. It’s going to be hard to convince some young researcher to take a year or five to figure out that maybe some other dude might be wrong. It’s just not that appealing. I’d rather work on my own ideas.

The real problem is that reproducibility or verification or whatever you want to call it is a lot harder than just running someone else’s code. It probably means designing a different experimental setup. Controlling for different biases. Getting a statistically independent data set. These things cost time and money, both of which are in short supply. But all these things are critical to say that a result has been reproduced.

A short example from my previous life. My thesis was about CP violation in the neutral kaon sector. We measured a parameter called Epsilon-prime. It doesn’t really matter what it is or what it describes. What mattered at the time was whether or not it had a value of zero. The Fermilab results said yes, consistent with zero, and the CERN results said no, it’s non-zero. A real “irreproducible” disagreement. And dammit, both groups had pride on the line and needed to be right.

So, both groups built new experiments. Both groups looked at each others techniques, and cherry-picked the best ideas. We went back for more funding. The second round of experiments got different results: now the Fermilab result was farther from zero than the CERN result. But by now, the two results were consistent within their respective uncertainties, and also consistent with a non-zero interpretation. That’s a win and reproducibility.

A similar thing is being reported in the New York Times from the DZero collaboration. No one is interested in looking at DZero’s data or their software. They are interested if the CDF collaboration has a similar, independent result that verifies what DZero is reporting.

This is going to be a bigger problem in the future, not just in physics, but also in bioinformatics. The scale of the data and the experiments is so large that no one will be able to mount a complementary experiment to confirm the results. Once the LHC produces peta- or yotta-bytes of data, that’s it. It’s all we got.

So in that respect, Brown’s points are good. You have to have decent data management plans. Scientists owe it to the people who will come later, and to the people (i.e. the taxpayer) who paid for the research. For some of these experiments will only be run once, and future scientists may have ideas to find stuff that we haven’t thought of yet. However, I’m not sure if he’s claiming it’s sufficient for reproducibility. I don’t think it is.

For source code that did the analysis; if it’s open and available and well architected and concise and documented — great. I’m not going to run it, but seeing it in that shape will give me confidence that you applied similar rigour to the rest of your experiment. It’s the reverse of the Climategate-East Anglia problem. I don’t believe those guys are doing good science because they sure aren’t writing good code. As Steve Easterbrook points out, there are other climatology groups writing really tight software with good development practices. I’m probably going to trust their models more. So there certainly are benefits to all the things Brown indirectly suggests.

Now, none of this discussion is new; new to me maybe, but the climate folks have been all over this for a while. And it’s a really tough problem. I don’t have any answers, but the first step that the community is having is at least trying to figure out what the terms mean.

So, if you got this far, here’s the summary:

• By all means, please make your data available after you publish your paper. In certain cases (LHC, bioinformatics) it’s all we got and we may need to look back at it for other stuff. Plus, since I paid for it with my taxes, I kinda feel I own a chunk of it anyway.
• Make sure you write clean, tight code. Use version control and tests. Make your code available; not necessarily because I want to run it, but because it indicates to me that you’re confident in the code, and that I should be confident in your result.

But let’s drop the idea that I’m going to take your data and your code and “reproduce” your result. I’m not. First, I’ve got my own work to do. More importantly, the odds are that nobody will be any wiser when I’m done.

I wrote this a few days ago and didn’t publish it, because I wanted to think about it a bit. But now the story has exploded since Councillor Sandra Bussin has gotten involved against the Teehans. More details at the National Post and Open File. I hope to add more later.

Original

I’ve been following with great interest the discussion about the house at 204 Beech Ave in The Beach neighbourhood of Toronto. It’s (so far) a discussion that pits the specific rights of the property owner against the more diffuse claims of the “community”. I got interested because we’re planning a renovation that will require a bylaw variance, and the desires of the community come into play there.

The backstory is that the Teehan family needed to find a property on which they could construct a new house that would incorporate accessibility into its design, because Mrs. Teehan has been afflicted with transverse myelitis. They found and purchased what they thought was the perfect property at 204 Beech Ave.

Geoff Teehan is a digital designer and a founder of Teehan & Lax. Maybe because of his profession, and also possibly because his partner Jeremy Bell had done something similar, Mr. Teehan created a blog to document the progress of building the new house for his family. After the blog received some press, a small but vocal opposition arose to protest the Teehans’ decision to tear down the small cottage that currently sits on the property. Now, literally, all hell is breaking loose.

Now, I’ve never met Geoff Teehan. I follow him on Twitter, and I commented on his blog (before he removed some of the posts). He responded in email to my comment, so I’ve communicated with him. But I couldn’t pick him out of a line-up. Having said that, my bias is that in this whole schmoz, I definitely support his point of view.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

The Teehans need to have a wheelchair-accessible home. That is incontrovertible. The debate surrounds whether the cottage currently standing at 204 Beech has to be torn down so that the Teehans can have what they need. The critics of the Teehans say two things: the first is that there are any number of other lots that would serve the same purpose, and the second is that the cottage currently on the property is a fine example of early Beach architecture and is important for maintaining the character of the neighbourhood.

Mr. Teehan himself addressed the first point in a blog post that he has subsequently taken down (but I hope that he will put back up). First, they want to live in the Beach. I assume it’s where their kids have grown up, and where they go to school, and they are integrated into the area and they like their neighbours (perhaps they are reconsidering that last one). Second, Mr. Teehan stated in the blog post that they needed at 50-foot wide lot so that they would not have to build a three storey home. The house will need an elevator, and going up three storeys is not an option. I currently live in a house on 25-foot lot, and I don’t like going up and down three storeys. Doing it in a wheelchair would be extremely difficult. Finally, the property has to be inexpensive enough so that they can still afford to make the necessary changes (renovate or rebuild).

At this point, the naysayers who say there are plenty of lots that fit that description should go off to MLS and find them. We’ll wait. According to Mr. Teehan (and there’s no reason to doubt him on this, otherwise he would have bought it), there’s been one property for sale in the last 18 months that meet the criteria, and that’s 204 Beech. He bought it, and plans to build the house his family needs. Case closed.

Or not. A group of neighbourhood activists has decided to try and do an end-run around the sale of the property and have it declared a heritage building. The kicker is that one of the instigators of this idea is a person who grew up at 204 Beech but has resided for the last seven years outside the neighbourhood. In Germany.

Kirsten Campbell, the owner of the “Save 204 Beech” blog, wants to apply to the Toronto Heritage Preservation Services to declare 204 Beech a heritage property, under the category that the property has contextual value in supporting the character of the neighbourhood. I’m not in a position to judge this property on those merits. I happen to think that there are any number of other cottages in the Beach that show similar characteristics, and that there is nothing exemplary about 204 Beech. Others will disagree. Ms. Campbell started her blog to try and gauge support for her idea to preserve her childhood home. She was at the receiving end of a tonne of comments (now removed) and some very strong language describing her as “selfish” and “despicable”. She also had her supporters who claimed that Mr. Teehan had marshalled his Twitter followers to lambaste her. She offered a defense that she was “express[ing] my opinion, as is my right to do so,” but never discussed the very real and very negative outcomes for the Teehans if her campaign is successful.

The problem as I see it is that her anger is misplaced. If there’s anyone she should be angry with for not preserving the cottage at 204 Beech, it’s her parents.

Her parents owned the home. If they felt strongly that it was a heritage property that needed to be preserved for future generations, they could have started that process. That process may have cost them actual money in terms of the eventual sale price of the house, but it would have set the expectations of what future buyers of the property were able to do with said property. They chose not to do so, and not to add any riders to the sale contract when the time came for them to sell the property. The future buyers should be able to expect that when they bought the property, it is theirs to do with what they want within the boundaries of the law.

And that’s what “selling” means in a country like Canada. When you sell something, you give up your claim to it in exchange for the money that the buyer pays you. The Teehans have acted in good faith according to the rules as existed when they purchased the house. They exchanged cash for the fair market value of the house so that they could do what they need to do within the bylaws, zoning and building codes as were written when the house was sold. The “save 204 Beech” community is trying to retroactively change the rules. It is fundamentally not fair or just. It is selfish. I understand that Ms. Campbell may be offended and upset, but that is really just too bad. Toronto isn’t governed by one giant restrictive covenant where you have to ask for your neighbours’ permission, and if you live here, you have certain freedoms to do what you want with your property.

Finally, let me say that while I don’t know him, I have huge respect for Geoff Teehan. I think he’d be the first to admit that his 204 Beech blog and its surrounding publicity was a strategic mistake. But in all the ways that I can see, he’s acted in the most stand-up matter that I can imagine. I hope that if, God forbid, something like what happened to his family were to happen to mine, I could act with 10 percent of his grace.

The person most affected by this tragedy is notably absent in the online discussion; that’s Mrs. Teehan. She’s been through an ordeal that most people can’t imagine, myself included. She not only needs this new home; she deserves it.

Godspeed, Teehan family.

So far, it’s been a great opportunity to introduce ourselves to the neighbours, and so far, no one has had any issues with the work that we are planning to do. The plans are to add two dormers to the sloped roofline of the third floor, and to possibly enclose the 10×10 front porch into a mudroom.

We’ve been going around and knocking on doors of the 12 most-affected neighbours. Five across the street that would look onto our house, two to the north side and two to the south, and three off of the alley that would also look onto the back of the house. So far, I’ve managed to talk to eight of the 12, and they’ve all been very warm and supportive. One is a contractor who pointed out a possible change that we could make that might make our dormers appear more in the Victorian style, which we appreciate.

The main benefit, of course, has been to actually meet our neighbours after 16 months on the street. They’re all great folks and very welcoming. This is in contrast to some other stories that I’ve been reading on the internet. I hope that when we start actual construction, the neighbours will be equally understanding.