Rocket Talk: When's the TTC Going to Roll Out More Fare Collection Methods?
Newsstand: November 9, 2009
Zack Taylor in Disney Mama Drama
Santa's Weston Workshop
The Daily Photoist: November 9, 2009
A boarded-up house on Sherbourne Street makes a desperate plea for attention and care. Sad, but much nicer than the "AVENGE ME" and "REDRUM" that you typically see on talking houses.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTIP US OFF
Most Popular
Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge (103)
Over Time, How Fairly Have TTC Fares Fared? (37)
Rocket Talk: When's the TTC Going to Roll Out More Fare Collection Methods? (25)
Drop Fees, End Poverty! And Also Do All These Other Things! (24)
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved (19)
Live Green Toronto's Bright Idea (18)- Newsstand: November 9, 2009 (18)
Sign of the Times (17)- Newsstand: November 3, 2009 (15)
Reel Toronto: The Tuxedo (15)
This is a real row of beauties and there are more around the corner on Glen Rd. It's tragic that they will likelly be torn down and replaced with a coffee time or something like that. It's kind of a grim intersection which is too bad because it's got a nice village-feel to it there.
can someone explain to me how an "Abandoned" house can exist?
clearly, someone owns it.
if not, I'll take ownership.
no, really, if you own it, please let me know and I will take it off your hands.
Is squating legal in Toronto? Because it would be awesome to stay for free in abandoned houses.
Somebody is clearly holding onto this block, waiting to develop it.
There is a row of townhoses on the west side of Glen Rd., behind house in the picture here. All of them are boarded up, except one which is still lived in. It's odd to see, one half boarded up and the other half with someone in it. This little dead end part of Glen Rd. is attracting movie shoots, Alyssa Milano was there on November 1st shooting some 'urban' movie supposedly set in Detroit. So that shows you how nice this piece of Glen Rd. is now, it can fill in for Detroit...
Here's a map of the area.
The house in the picture above is right on the corner of Sherbourne and Howard.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bleecker+and+howard+toronto+on&sll=43.671682,-79.375588&sspn=0.002735,0.005&ie=UTF8&ll=43.671897,-79.375722&spn=0.001368,0.0025&t=h&z=19
I used to work right near there at Rogers (bleh!) and would pass these once-glorious houses and swear out loud. The city should not tolerate "abandoned" or boarded-up houses or stores, period. They are an eyesore, potentially dangerous, and a hotbed for rodents. Always reminds me of the fact that Jarvis -- at the turn of the century -- was called the Champs-Élysées of Toronto. Christ!
I'm a resident of that community and I have to see these abandoned houses everyday with sadness. The houses in the picture and the ones on Glen Rd. are designated as Heritage Land. They're owned by a crooked real estate company called Excel Property Management and its obvious they have no interest in taking care of these houses or even selling them to willing buyers. One of them even has a hole in its roof with a tree growing out of it! They're just waiting for them to become dangerous enough that they can be bulldozed over to make some ridiculous box like the nearby Shoppers Drug Mart.
Sad, so very sad!
Flattening these buildings, as someone will inevitably do, is just another small tragedy in a long line of disregard for character and heritage in Toronto's buildings. These may not be exactly historic houses but neighbourhoods needs to hang on to character buildings like this.
You can't blame the developers - they're developers, everyone knows they don't give a crap about community, just money - but the City just rolls over for them.
Sometimes I wonder if the city wouldn't be better off just mandating the destruction of everything built before 1960 and making an honest go of it.
it is a shame, cool lokkin' house...I'm with atomeyes99, where do I sign?
Someone has to save this house.
For those masochists out there with an interest in old Toronto, pick up one of Mike Filey's terrific "Toronto Sketches" books, open it, stand in front of an old 'abandoned' building, and weep. Neglect of historic buildings is not a new problem (Don Jail, anyone?), and no one has ever seen fit to blame Toronto mayors of the past for helping to wipe out the city's history by replacing lovely old structures with modern, poorly-built pieces of shit.
Sooner or later these buildings will pull a Walnut Hall, and when they do, expect the marketing for the new condo tower to describe the location as "lower rosedale" rather than "upper st james town".
I have no problem blaming the mayor. The mayor's job is to bend over for anyone who will write him a cheque that he can turn around and use to make certain sections of the city prettier for tourists. Miller does it better than any before him. And he doesn't even seem to get sore.
The same thing's going on on the north side of Bloor West across from High Park. Admittedly, the houses don't look as old or as nice as this one, but the entire south end of a block is boarded up (I think one house is still occupied) and it's clear what's going to happen there.
The City does have an expropriation process in place, specifically around "abandoned" properties that have the potential to become affordable housing. 1495 Queen St W., a former bachelorette slum palace that was left to rot after a fire, attracted the attention of the City after numerous OCAP protests, PARC demands, and the concerted efforts of Parkdale non-profit org's in concert with the Parkdale BIA and Parkdale Residents' Association. It took years. Years. Committee meetings. Multiple City department convergences, legal briefs, and taking the landlord to court, before the property was expropriated. It required the imprimateur of then Councillor Sylvia Watson - in language from The Wire, she was the "rabbi" for the process.
There is a process, basically, on the books. There is precedent. What needs to happen, if it isn't already, is for the public to cajole/shame/threaten the local Councillor to act on the file. It might already be happening - understandably, the City tends to keep this kind of thing as low-profile as it gets, and has consultation from everybody. Private property getting taken over, not bought, by government can cause any number of normally affordable housing-friendly people to suddenly become frothing-at-the-mouth libertarians.
I'd like to the city implement a by-law stating that if you're property is very obviously abandoned for a certain number of years (how many would be appropriate), with no activity and no development applications submitted for the site, the city gets the property to turn it into affordable housing or community services, full stop.
Why should perfectly good housing sites lay to rot for years? It's shameful.
Adding insult to injury will be if the developer builds another fugly condo. I like condos in principle, but Toronto developers have a knack for the uninspired.
Solid, medium-density condos of about 6 floors, with respect for the surroundings and heritage just might serve to improve St. James Town a little. Skip the $600 monthly maintenance fee by skipping all the expensive amenities like pools, gyms etc. Not all tenants want to subsidize the others.
I am curious if any of you have seen, and do you like, the condo conversions at 212 St. George Street that added about 30 units to the back of the property, fronted by 2 Victorians. Is that a good compromise?
Cheers,
Tuds
It's weird that people are calling for an immediate overhaul and/or USSR-style government takeover of this abandoned building. Why, because it's an eyesore? There are no windows?
The building, as a relic, looks fine as it is; it's the stupid graffiti that turns it into an eyesore.
The developers are probably holding onto the property for a reason. The surrounding area isn't exactly "hot." Maybe they think it'll be more viable once the neighbourhood cleans up a little. Until then, enjoy the buildings while they last.
Its obvious that the developer is just waiting for the building to collapse itself. Because the houses are deemed heritage sites, their structure can't be changed unless they are completely unsafe to be inhabited. A nearby home on Howard St. which was literally behind these houses collapsed two years ago and nothing has been done to the lot since then. Its obvious they're waiting for the surrounding ones to collapse.
I'm pretty sure that I have read about these houses before. They have been referred to as but one example of ongoing efforts by some landowners at "demolition by neglect".
The new Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to pass by-laws requiring that heritage properties be maintained. The City of Toronto is taking its time getting such a by-law enacted. There already is a by-law on the books, enacted pursuant to the property standards provisions of the Building Code Act, requiring that the structural integrity of buildings be maintained. But the City rarely enforces it, except in response to complaints.
To skippy the whatever you are ...
I think people living in cities don't like to see neglected houses like this for a number of reasons.
For one thing, they attract squatters, drug-dealers and all sorts of illicit activity-doers. We have heard stories of fires in abandoned buildings in Toronto - who do you think starts these fires? There is a danger to the buildings around these abanonded structures as they start to crumble - or if a fire does break out.
There is also a homeless problem in our city and seeing houses just sitting there unused really gets a person thinking about how these buildings could be put to a more effective use.
I'm not sure where the USSR comes into play with any of the comments that have been left on this thread. Seems like a stupid thing to say, if you ask me.
Skippy: USSR-style my proposal is not. I'm not suggesting the government snatch up all abandoned properties immediately, but rather, if the owner is clearly performing "demolition by neglect" and the property has been abandoned for years, the city should be able to step in and turn the building into affordable housing. I don't give a fuck what the building looks like, whether it's an "eyesore" or an architectural wonder. I just don't want buildings in my city sitting empty and neglected when so many people are living on the streets.
If you think the messages written on the boarded up doors is the problem, you have no idea what's being discussed.
Rek et al,
No, I'm familiar with the discussion at hand. Torontoist wrote about the "Abandonment Issues" lobby group a while back, how they want to institute a "use it or lose it" policy like they have in some cities. House-huggers posting on this blog would be well advised to look them up.
Personally, I simply don't think we should be so quick to invade on someone's property rights just because something is an eyesore, or because it could potentially be turned into subsidized housing. This particular building could be converted, at great expense, into housing for maybe a couple low-income families. But if a developer has bigger plans for the area, they could create market-value housing for hundreds or thousands of individuals, earn the city a ton in taxes, and add some much-needed revitalization to this area.
Cheap housing is definitely badly needed in Toronto, but it doesn't mean every abandoned building can or should be converted into a project or a homeless shelter. It's just not feasible.