Quote:
Originally Posted by urbandreamer
Basically what happened is between WW1&2, the WASPY English elite, my great grandparents included, sold their large homes to an influx of "foreign investors" from Hungary, Poland and Germany - many Jewish - who in the 1950s either redeveloped them into apartment buildings (St George especially) or more commonly, subdivided into rooming houses. The English left for Rosedale, North Toronto, Etobicoke, what eventually became Mississauga and Oakville. The Annex never finished the Anglican Cathedral, now part of St Georges Boys school, probably because WW1 was a more pressing concern and also depleted stock of stone masons, congregants etc.
Today, the nouveau riche are tearing down these gorgeous red brick homes and building the ugliest stone mcmansions money can buy. A similar phenomenon is happening in Roncesvalles/High Park. As mayor, I'd ban this senseless destruction.
Sounds familiar? Yes this is what's happening everywhere: homes being turned into 2/3/4/6plexes. I've noticed those in favor of redeveloping the so-called Yellow Belt have the least "Old Stock" ties to the area. Imagine 1000 new Canadians tearing down Old St John's NFLD and putting up the cheapest grey 6plexes and mcmansions.
|
You're conflating a few entirely different things here: upzoning and/or ending SFH-only zoning has little do with heritage preservation - or lack thereof (as evidenced by all the heritage SFHs being demo'ed and replaced by new SFHs within the yellow belt).
When it comes to the general lack of reverence for built heritage in Toronto, I do think you may be on to something in as much as that's at least in part a side effect of being a city where most people are from elsewhere and don't have much of investment in or connection to the city's history. This is of course in contrast to places like Europe or the older parts of North America where the majority do have deep roots in their area; and heritage preservation is subsequently taken more seriously. That said, the "Old Stock/WASP" vs. "New Canadians" thing seems more like some weird cultural-superiority trope than any meaningful observation. At this point, many of the city's various immigrant communities also have multi-generational roots in the city, and many more people are of mixed heritage; meanwhile, much of the well-to-do WASP population is actually only from post-WWII British immigration.
The yellow belt is something else entirely - its (now former) existence was entirely a post-war suburban phenomenon, and only persisted for so long due to the wealth & influence wielded by its residents. Rather than being an "old stock/new stock" thing,
this one largely comes down to being a "landed gentry/renter class" conflict. Aside from affordability though, a big part of the idea of upzoning it is also about being able to return to building the kinds of pre-war communities we celebrate here, with their mix of multi-family housing typologies & uses. Fewer McMansions, more multiplexes. This will inevitably result in more development pressure on older residential neighbourhoods; but at the same time, reduce some of the pressure on older commercial areas which are currently where the bulk of new development (and subsequent heritage destruction) is happening.
Prev
Linear Mode
