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

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.

The City has confirmed what Paul our architect suspected. The "pre-application law" review showed that our plan to use our third floor will put our usable floor space of our house above 60% of the area of our lot. Since our neighbourhood is zoned as "R2 Z0.6", we are only supposed to be at under 60%. To get approval, the Committee of Adjustments has to approve a zoning easement.

The architect thinks we have a good chance. One advantage that we have is that we are not going to change the footprint of the house on the lot. In fact the only change to the envelope of the house is to add two dormers to the third floor. This should have negligible effect on our neighbours, so we hope that they will have no objections to our plans.

We’re tentatively scheduled for the first week in June. Wish us luck.

Paul had drawn up three ideas for the main floor, plus the layouts that we had discussed for the second floor and the attic. The great part of this is that we don’t have to do an addition to get all the parts of the house that we want; we can get the additional space from better use of the attic.

For the main floor, the most interesting idea was to move the kitchen from the back of the house to the front, right off the front door. This layout would allow us to use the full width of the house at the back for a living room, and also works better to hide some of the structural elements of the house, like the plumbing stack and the chimney through which the furnace vents. The downside is that we have to move some of the services, but that’s not a huge deal, as there is also a plumbing stack in the front hall closest that we can tap into. So far, this is the plan that I think we’re leaning towards.

The next step is to see how the new usage of the house works with respect to the zoning in our neighbourhood. By using the attic, we are adding to the square footage of the house, and that may push us over the zoning limit. So some exploration of the bylaws is required before we know what to do next.

All said, very exciting to see it take shape, even on paper!

We were extremely lucky to find our house when we did. We had given up on house hunting as we had lost out on three bids on previous houses (one under dubious circumstances). We happened upon this house somewhat by accident, and decided to buy it based on the fact that that it was in a great location and school district, was a fully detached house, and had a big footprint, so any renovations would not require any additions.

However, the house needs a lot of work. The couple who owned it previously were older and without kids. They didn’t eat in, so the kitchen was not designed to cook in, and the last renovation seems to have been done in the 80s. We were lucky that we could see past the decor, but it still means that we have to do the renovations to get the house to where we want it to be. We’ve also made three large decisions. The first is that we’d live in the house for a year to get a sense of what really needs to change about the design of the house. The second is that we’d have a master plan for the renovation, even if we can’t afford to do the entire renovation in one go. In our previous house, we’d do a room at a time, with not as much thought as to how the pieces fit together. And third, we decided to consider how “green” our decisions will be as we renovate the house. We’re big fans of the reno blog 360 Winnett and their Flickr photo stream, and we hope we can bring that level of thinking to our renovation.

So far, we’ve managed item #1. We’ve been in the house a year, and we’re pretty sure what needs to be done. For items #2 and #3, we’ve been lucky to find a great architect to help us start out. In our previous house, we had our kitchen designed by our friend Yoko, but we were unsure if she’d be up to designing our entire house this time around. Before we even asked her about it, she told us she had gotten her dream job working for architect Paul Dowsett.

Paul is a LEED-certified eco-conscientious architect who also happens to be a great guy. You can see some of his work in this straw-bale house, and the Globe and Mail review of the “eco/echo of deco” reimagining of a famed Art Deco mansion in Forest Hill. Paul’s ratings on Homestars.ca are off the charts. Plus he already employees Yoko, and his engineer of choice Ken Davies already has done an initial review of our house, so it seems that it’s “all in the family” to start.

Paul came over for an initial consult and spent a few hours with us. It was time well spent; he already has made two major recommendations for the kitchen and our master suite, and seems to know how the house will be laid out. His team has been by to make detailed measurements of the house as a starting point for the design.

We’ve also had a survey done of the property by Land Survey Group. I would recommend them heartily. They did the entire survey without me having to be on the property, which is excellent for me not having to take time off.

The next steps are an initial energy efficiency review of the house (our efficiency can only go up from here!) and then a review of the ideas that Paul comes up with. We’re really excited about going forward with this project!

Pretty exciting stuff, as it is a detached house in a slightly better area. By that I mean that we are now in the school catchment that we wanted to be in so the kid can go to JK with all his friends from his daycare. Still in the same neighbourhood, so all the same stores and meet-ups at Withrow Park.

I really love the house that we are in. We’ve done about all that we can do with it; new kitchen, bathroom and finished basement. There are some things we can’t change (common party wall and the school catchment), so it was time for us to move. We’ve been here for five years, so that feels about right.

The new place is owned by a couple who are “downsizing” to a condo, which means they haven’t updated their house in a while. We need to paint immediately, and probably revisit the kitchen and bathroom within the first year. But considering it’s the 10-20 year house, we have time to get on it.