Return to Background Index Background Remarks of Catherine Nasmith, Architect and past chair, Toronto Preservation Board Save Union Station Meeting September 30, 2002 I have been asked to speak about the state of heritage preservation in the amalgamated city. I believe heritage preservation is in trouble. I was the first chair of the Toronto Preservation Board. When Council gave us the opportunity to re-apply for our positions mid-term I chose not to re-apply in order to be able to pursue more effective heritage advocacy. What I am about to describe is general, and may not be as much of a threat to Union Station as it is to other heritage buildings in the city. Heritage Easement Agreement Union Station is unique in that it has been protected by the federal government, not the City of Toronto. When the building was sold to the city a Heritage Easement Agreement was drawn up between the City and the Federal Government which gives a greater level of protection to Union Station than is available under the Ontario Heritage Act. City as first approval authority However, as the City will be reviewing applications for alterations on a day to day basis, and only then forwarding their decisions for review by the Approval Authority, the Canadian Minister of Heritage, -- some of the difficulties affecting heritage administration in the City of Toronto may affect decision making on Union Station. In the presentation that follows I will endeavour to do a few things. First I will set out a brief overview of the Ontario heritage system and, how that system has developed a culture of compromise around heritage buildings. I will also give an overview of changes to the heritage administration system in Toronto following amalgamation and how those changes may affect Union Station. The Ontario Heritage System There is nowhere in Ontario where heritage preservation reaches internationally accepted practice. Even though Canada is signatory to a number of international heritage charters, on a day to day basis we fall far short of those standards. In the last ten years we have lost 25% of the designated buildings in Ontario. There are a number of reasons: 1. In Ontario we cannot prevent demolition of heritage buildings, only delay. However as long as a designated building is standing we can protect it from inappropriate additions and alterations. 2. We have next to no funding available to assist owners of heritage buildings. I am encouraged by recent efforts of the province and the federal government to create tax incentives, however at the moment these are not available in Toronto. 3. In Ontario, the legislation gives the responsibility for protecting heritage buildings to municipalities, without provincial standards, hence heritage practice varies widely across the province. Much of the responsibility for heritage preservation is on the shoulders of citizen volunteers with little support. 4. Heritage administration is not well integrated with the planning system. Often heritage buildings are located in areas where the zoning creates financial incentives to demolish buildings. The Ontario Municipal Board has little expertise in heritage matters How does all this play out in Toronto, before and after amalgamation? The Heritage Preservation System in the new City has significantly reduced the role and responsibility of citizens for heritage protection. There is not enough staff to replace work formerly done by volunteers. At the same time volunteers willing to put in the time. find it much more difficult to get things done. Systems in the former municipalities Prior to amalgamation the heritage systems in the six former municipalities varied widely. In the former City of Toronto heritage preservation was managed by The Toronto Historical Board, (later called Heritage Toronto), an arms length agency with staff directed by a council appointed citizen board. Advice went pretty much directly from the Board to Council. The Toronto Historical Board was established prior to the Ontario Heritage Act and played a much stronger role than Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees (LACAC) in other parts of the province. To a large degree the strength of this independent agency compensated for the relatively weak heritage legislation in Ontario and initiated a number of innovative policies. Toronto built up a relatively large inventory of heritage buildings. North York et al In North York, heritage staff were part of the civil service, answering to a commissioner and seeking comment from the LACAC. In Scarborough, East York, York and Etobicoke heritage administration was done primarily through LACAC’s citizen volunteers who researched heritage and gave advice directly to their councils Post Amalgamation Following amalgamation there was two years of debate about what type of administration was best for heritage—and to make a long story short, even with strong interest in maintaining citizen control over heritage administration from citizens of the former City of Toronto, it proved impossible. The new model The model now in place is similar to the that of the former North York, heritage staff are in Heritage Preservation Services, part of the Culture Division, which is in turn part of Economic Development Culture and Tourism. Staff report to the Commissioner, in this case former North York commissioner, Joe Halstead. Toronto Preservation Board There is also a LACAC of citizen appointees, called the Toronto Preservation Board, which hears some heritage preservation matters. The Toronto Preservation Board can not direct staff to attend to particular priorities, but can make recommendations. Staff undertake extensive negotiations and on completion make their recommendations to the Toronto Preservation Board. Preservation Board meetings are public, but not advertised on the City’s web-site. Committee of adjustment applications for severance are much more widely circulated than applications to alter or demolish heritage buildings. Disagreements In cases where the Board and staff disagree both recommendations go forward to Council for discussion. Toronto Preservation Board and Union Station Because Union Station is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, it is unlikely that changes to Union Station would be discussed with the Toronto Preservation Board, unless of course, Council were to direct staff to do so. Public scrutiny by the Preservation Board would give citizens a point of contact in the process. (Since September 30, in response to a letter from me, Mayor’s office has committed to consultation with the Toronto Preservation Board, as if the building were designated under the Ontario Heritage Act) Preservation Panels In addition to the Toronto Preservation Board, there are also six Community Preservation Panels of citizens appointed to work directly with their respective Community Councils on local matters such as recommending buildings for listing on the inventory and advocacy for heritage properties. Members of the Preservation Panels are often frustrated in their efforts as their work is brought forward and then sits stuck in the system, unable to be processed because of conflicts for staff time. Staff resources-number Essentially, the number of staff that existed in Toronto and East York are now expected to cover the whole city. Staff can barely keep ahead of buildings threatened with demolition. Burnout and turnover is high. Loss of expertise and institutional memory There has been a significant loss of former heritage staff and institutional memory since the creation of Heritage Preservation Services. Departing heritage specialists have been replaced by architects, urban designers and planners with more general skills. Important institutional memory has been lost. Amazing results considering Given the development pressures in the City of Toronto and the poor tools available to work with, the City of Toronto has done remarkably well in protecting heritage resources through negotiations, and strategic use of the tools available. However preservation through negotiation is often a cat and mouse game between the developer and the city with plenty of confrontation and treachery thrown in for good measure. Anthony Tung-GET A LAW In his recent visit to Toronto Anthony Tung, author of Preserving the World’s Great Cities commented that the uncertainty around heritage preservation guarantees that the battles are never won. He recommended that our first priority should be, as he put it, to GET A LAW. By that he meant the law must be strengthened to be able to stop demolition of important buildings. Heritage Purist Recently I have heard the phrase, "heritage purist" bandied about by councillors and journalists, as if only a fool would hope that preservation in Toronto would approach internationally accepted standards. Culture of Compromise, Concourse What has evolved in the city is what I call the culture of compromise—those negotiating for heritage assume that the development industry must be accommodated and that of course heritage protection will have to suffer. The most dramatic recent example was the fragmenting of the Concourse Building, perhaps the best we could get given the current legislation but sadly below international standards. Even when they don’t have to What has surprised me is that even in cases where the building has sufficient protection to prevent an inappropriate alteration Preservation Services staff and Council often operate as if they are handicapped. A culture of compromise and accommodation for developers dominates even when the tools are available to ensure heritage protection. Stock Exchange and Garden Court Two recent examples of this were the agreement of Council to a large picture window in the former Stock Exchange Building. In that case there was a heritage easement agreement that gave the City the power to say no. In the case of the windows of the Garden Court apartment, under the Ontario Heritage Act staff inappropriate alterations can be prevented. Instead staff chose to recommend replacement windows in spite of the objections of the Toronto Preservation Board. Instead of focussing on the heritage preservation aspects alone, heritage staff felt their role was to also to deal with other constraints the property owner was facing. (Council subsequently agreed to allow the windows to bereplaced) Some of the other compromises are more benign and have given some interesting results. The Hard Rock café had its exterior beautifully restored, paid for with massive signs on the roof. The National Ballet school has huge towers to pay for the restoration of some of the heritage buildings. Will this Culture of compromise and accommodation be applied to Union Station It is this culture of compromise and accommodation that worries me when the subject of Union Station arises. I have reviewed the Heritage Guidelines, the Heritage Easement Agreement and the Commemorative Integrity Statement. The Heritage Easement agreement has strong language about protecting the setting of the station including the areas above it as well as the Heritage Elements of the building itself. Some of the language on signage in the guidelines seems soft to me, but it is quite strong in the Great Hall. All of these documents give peace of mind, but will there be sufficient resources to ensure that the standards are strong enough? Will they be enforced? How will they be enforced? These are the kind of questions that need to be answered as part of a more public process on Union Station.

Contact Us: info@saveunionstation.ca