Ban Demolition, Especially by Greedy Universities
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 03.25.08
Colin McConnell, Toronto Star
In a growing city, one is used to the demolition by neglect practiced by greedy, rapacious developers to get around the rules preserving historic buildings; just ignore them long enough and the roof will fail, the water will get in and they will eventually be good for nothing. This doesn't happen in a University, where the landowners hold their assets in trust for future generations, respect the past and treasure traditions.
Or does it? At Canada's largest University, a row of perfectly charming Victorian houses are about to become another condo site. As Chris Hume says in the Star, "It is an urban tragedy. What's unfolding here is the disturbing spectacle of a city tearing itself apart, destroying itself, killing the very things that give it its character and constitute its identity....It's time we understood that heritage represents a rare resource, a civic asset, not simply an obstacle on the way to a developer's bottom line. Our willingness to sacrifice our history at every opportunity reveals a worrisome lack of self-confidence and sophistication."
But the University of Toronto doesn't stop there.
Just north of Toronto, the University is peddling 185 acres of greenspace surrounding the David Dunlap Observatory, built in 1935 by Mathers and Haldenby and enclosing a 75 inch telescope that can still do good work, even if the city has grown up around it. The forest around it is a naturalist's wonderland, and the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada says the observatory would make a great community resource to provide astronomy outreach. But the Astronomy Department would rather be on a mountain in Chile and can get a hundred million bucks from developers who will pave the site over.
Great universities treasure their assets, they don't sell them to the highest bidder. But this is Toronto and it isn't great.
See also ::Big Steps in Building: Ban Demolition
Suburbs are not sustainable. Condominiums, while not shangri-la, are at least high-density and have the potential to bring high density and a more pedestrian-friendly city.
Sure, 30 people would be very happy to live in old brick houses in that neighborhood. If every Torontonian lived in detached houses, then you could say goodbye to the greenbelt.
You're not alone in To... Here in Winnipeg, the University of Winnipeg got rid of twelve houses for their new science complex. They moved four of them but displaced a lot of people. They bought out the owners, but few of the houses were owner-occupied. They seem to ignore any possibility that the neighbourhood is not estatic about their expansion...
The Dunlop observatory seems like a really nice place. I heard a professor emeritus on the radio and it sounds like he is the only astronomer at UofT against closing the observatory.
It seems that universities regard themselves more and more as above the public good and run themselves as businesses. Many seem unable to balance being a public institution and their perceived budgets.
What about demolition of old, energy-inefficient buildings and their replacement by LEEDS-certified green buildings?
You report on this but not the demolitions of public housing in New Orleans? This situation is far more pressing. These will be replaced (but to a far lesser extent) by cheap, probably toxic, homes that will be run down in 15 years.
I feel most environmentalists aren't doing a very good job of tying economic concerns to the movement. Environmentalism got a lot of it's momentum here originally- lawsuits against companies dumping toxins in low-income areas. When did we become so bourgie?
And to respond to the first comment. The first buildings discussed aren't low density homes. They are 2 stories, 3 if you use the attic, which students would. I have lived in large homes, with a large number of rented rooms. They are pretty common near campuses. You don't need high-rise density to create a sustainable, livable city. Homes with less SF per occupants with adjacent public/private space (porches, a nice doorstep with a few plants) on small lots will make a better, healthier community than large condos any day. The latter just sounds like some future dystopia that will scare off most people.
Based on the pictures I've seen of public housing in NOLA, they NEEDED to be demolished.
Issues like this just go to show that good people with good intentions NEED to become the "highest bidder"
Many historic houses (including Frank Loyd Wright houses) have been saved by the highest bidder.
If you're motives aren't profit, how high you bid isn't as important as those who wish to profit from the transaction.
Demolition done with numbers and the buildings could be relocated, I'm not sure of this technology has gone this far but I have watched a house being relocated and it was a mansion. I'm not sure if I agree with it though. Any thoughts?
Thanks for drawing attention this issue -- and U of T's move to sell of the Dunlap Observatory. For more on how the University is using real estate to help fund itself, you may want to scan through U of T's 2007 Real Estate Strategy document. It discusses at length the need to "monetize passive capital" such as downtown heritage homes, historic observatories and green space that the University owns.
The earlier comment about suburbs not being sustainable is, of course, true. Believe it or not, there are quite a few condos and higher-density townhouses in Richmond Hill -- and at least half a dozen condos are under construction right now. Major arteries are slowly being redeveloped with much higher densities.
But density and so-called Smart Growth, should not mean paving over every square inch of available land. Certain parts of Toronto are livable because significant chunks of land such as High Park and the Humber and Don Valley green spaces have been preserved. Ask Toronto residents how they would feel about selling off half of High Park to build condos. That is exactly what U of T is trying to do in Richmond Hill. The Dunlap property is the Hill's last chance to preserve a large urban green space that is within walking distance for thousands of people. Eventually Dunlap Park will be accessible to Toronto residents by rapid transit -- just as it was in the 1930's when the Radial line still ran up Yonge.
There are no easy answers to any of this -- the grinding wheel of growth is bearing down on everything in its path. But a lot of people in Richmond Hill will be fighting for the Dunlap Observatory and Park for a long time. Let's hope the U of T community comes together to put an end to the University's unsustainable strategy of funding itself by selling heritage properties and green space.