Many Hamilton heritage properties at risk
City process needs to change to put responsibility back with councillors, not staff
Councillor Lloyd Ferguson recently said he knew nothing about the Brandon House demolition beforehand, and did not understand the demolition system as it applies to heritage buildings, saying it has been a “learning experience.” How can we explain this? Coun. Ferguson has served in this position for many years, yet he was unaware how the demolition system works for heritage buildings?
As it stands, the demolition bylaw delegates the power to issue “routine” demolition permits away from council to city staff via the chief building officer. Further, it gives staff discretion to determine what is a “routine” demolition. The only important exception is when a building is classified under the Ontario Heritage Act as “registered” heritage, which provides for a 60-day delay before demolition; or “designated” heritage, which means the building is fully protected from demolition or significant alteration. Being provincial legislation, the Heritage Act removes demolition decisions for “designated” and “registered” properties from the hands of both city staff and council, rendering them more secure.
But the decision whether to “designate” or “register” a property remains with city council. The Brandon House, being listed only in the lowest category, i.e., as an “inventoried” heritage building, had no protection whatsoever under the provincial Heritage Act, and was dealt with as a “routine” demolition by staff. There lies the crux of the problem.
The removal of council from the issuance of demolition permits explains why at least one long-standing councillor does not understand the demolition system. And particularly, how it works for heritage buildings. By intent, the bylaw disengages councillors. Meanwhile, staff determine whether any demolition application is “routine.”
This explains why Coun. Ferguson moved quickly to upgrade 40 “inventoried” heritage buildings in Ancaster to “registered” status, which gives them 60 days of protection from demolition. They remain unprotected after 60 days, but as Jason Thorne, general manager of planning and economic development said, “registered” buildings will hopefully trigger consideration by council for possible upgrading to “designated” status inside the 60-day window.
But therein lies another critical problem, which is much bigger than heritage alone. In their approach to determining what is a “routine” demolition, the first priority of city staff is not preserving neighbourhoods or communities; it is rather encouraging development.
This is expressed by the statement in the original staff proposal (Initiative CI-09-G) for Bylaw 09208 — that it is intended to delegate the decision power of council to staff in order “to substantially reduce the number of applications having to be considered by the (publicly accountable) economic development and planning committee and council and expedite the issuance of residential demolition permits”…. and further, “Delegated authority will help limit delays and provide improved customer service.”
The intent of the bylaw is therefore to “streamline” the demolition permitting system to serve “customers,” who are implicitly defined as developers. Empowered staff provide developers with “customer service” without council oversight or public scrutiny. There is no mandate or means to serve the public interest, or even to register the concerns of the neighbourhood in which the demolition is planned. In Ancaster this has led to extensive vacant dirt lots on the main street of our Heritage Village, with no plans in place to replace the lost buildings. Developers can hold the community to ransom to change zoning laws and get the most lucrative development deal. Since it is a matter of city policy that council does not directly oversee the demolition system, there is no public accountability.
Our Ancaster Village Heritage Community will be seeking changes to Bylaw 09-208, in order to better protect heritage buildings, neighbourhoods, and communities who want stability and relief from the destructive encroachments of developers on their living space. We invite others interested in protecting their neighbourhoods to join with us.
Neighbourhoods in Ancaster, Dundas, Waterdown and Binbrook are at varying stages of destruction under the bylaw, and this is particularly galling when other, more people-minded municipalities are putting effort into keeping theirs intact. Toronto’s Strong Neighbourhood Strategy is just one example. Ottawa is doing the same thing. Waterloo ties demolition permits to a plan for replacement of the building to be demolished, which is both transparent and publicly accountable. If you have a neighbourhood that is not choked and squeezed by towering, alienating structures; that is walkable; that attracts tourists in a productive way; that offers green space as well as heritage, why destroy it? The claustrophobic Toronto towers that we often see from the highway don’t work as living space. Who wins by emulating that?