Sunday, 30 May 2010
204 Beech Avenue
There are only a few houses on any
I owned 209 Beech across the road for a time, and used the small enclosed porch above its entrance as a studio. While I was there, I remember painting a small watercolour of the view from it of 204 and its neighbours. It is not nearly as good as my memory of it, but it does show 204 in context: all three interesting houses, but 204 clearly the more historic and interesting.
While I have sincere sympathy for the circumstances the Teehan's face, the only thing I can see about the site that recommends it for their accessible house design is the width of the lot - level access is available only from the back. They may, of course, also be attracted to this site by other attributes like the setting, a lovely tree-lined street, surrounded by the sort of houses that give the neighbourhood (that they have chosen as their own) its character!
I am an architect and have worked in
I like modernist buildings - I do them! That does not mean that I believe the context of a building should not influence/inspire its design, or that we shouldn't treasure and maintain the best of our architectural heritage.
Geoff Teehan said on his website that they had considered re-renovating their Elmer house to make it accessible, but chose not to because that would be such a 'waste'. However nice the house, and the design and quality of the work they put into it, I don't believe it is one the 'character' houses in the Beach. To replace 204 with a modern building - completely out of character with its context - would be more than a significantly greater waste.
I hope you are successful in preventing the destruction of your old home, and I hope the 'spectre' of a heritage designation only serves to increase the value of the house, allowing the Teehan's to find a more appropriate site in the area to build a house that suits their needs.
Friday, 28 May 2010
A few thoughts for today.
1. 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.
2. To see a great example of what has been done with a designated house in the neighbourhood, check out 93 Balsam Ave.
Friday, 21 May 2010
Others have missed the above points..intentionally, or not.
It is noteworthy on more than one count what a small army of Tweeters in their imaginary war can accomplish in a very short time, almost the blink of an eye. Closely following and then showing support for their leader is one. Realistic or unrealistic results of a poll, another. Many comments were deleted yesterday because of their personally offensive, distasteful, insulting and intimidating nature.
Nevertheless, I thank you for all of them! Though not exactly enlightening, they were very revealing.Perhaps yet another accomplishment.
As it appears that the blog has provided a forum for a verbal battle that can only cause undue stress to some, I will soon be removing it. Undue stress was never the intention.
Making sure my voice was heard in the matter, was.
And my opinion remains the same.
Friday, 14 May 2010
A little something to keep in mind, when you scroll down, read the Criteria, and possibly partake in the poll.
Here is what a trip to the Toronto Archives uncovered;
204 Beech was not built in the '20s as we'd thought. It was built circa 1909. And was, in fact, one of the very first houses on the street.
Happy Belated 100th Birthday, 204. Human lives have come and gone, but thanks to the TLC and respect with which you've been treated over the years...you're still standing proud and healthy, one representative aspect of why people flocked to the Beaches in the first place. How ironic that you should be taken down.
ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST
1. (1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 29 (1) (a) of the Act. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (1).
(2) A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest:
1. The property has design value or physical value because it,
i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,
ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or
iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,
i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or
iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.
3. The property has contextual value because it,
i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,
ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or
iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).