On Ossington Avenue yesterday, I saw front-end loaders turning an old warehouse into rubble and crumbs. If you’ve been following the news you may ask: Already? A public meeting last week for 109 Oz, a proposed six-storey building by RAW Design and developers Reserve Properties, generated a loud and articulate outcry from some neighbours. But this was another project, down the block – Motif, a five story complex by the same developers, approved a year ago.
In other words: The battle to prevent large developments here, on Toronto’s hottest block, is already over.
So what are we talking about when we talk about Ossington? Two things.
One: midrise. The city has made a commitment to push for more buildings of four to twelve stories. There are problems; stillm new midrise buildings are now going up. RAW is leading the way, and their projects look very attractive and likely to improve their neighbourhoods. Good for them and their clients. We need more buildings of this scale to enhance central Toronto’s underdeveloped major streets. They bring new housing, at a level of density that is comfortable, without badly disrupting the fabric of the city. *
Number two, we are are talking about the character of neighbourhoods. The Ossington residents’ group, led by two philosophers and an actor, is very articulate. (I hope they win in getting the building’s large retail space carved up into smaller ones.) Their planning critique, along with the usual mix of unrealistic complaints and pseudo-techincal arguments, makes this interesting point:
Ossington’s status as a destination is tightly bound with its existing vernacular built form: the tight retail rhythm not only does not detract but strengthens its desirability as a destination, and the main street character of the massing and scale of buildings is an inextricable ingredient of the “charm” that goes into making it a destination. We contend that it is the lowrise character of the strip, and the attendant sense of the relaxation of urban pressure, that makes possible Ossington’s status as a destination, as a place of mystery and possibility, as a safe-place for creative expression, an escape from quotidian banality.
I understand the desire to preserve this scene. (And also the desire for a walkable grocery store, though not a quotidian banal one, of course.)
However: This completely misses the point about this specific development. Have a look at the site of 109 Ossington (via Google Earth, around 2011):
See the charm?
There’s a reason it is being developed: Like the other development site, at 41 Ossington, it is a large parcel of land, partly occupied by a small, low-value building. It is an inevitable target for development. It is also unusual in the area. It may set a precedent for the consolidation and development of other properties on the street, but not an easy one; other sites will have to be assembled, an expensive and protracted process.
But that garage and used car lot also puts the lie to this critique:
The residents of our neighbourhood paid to experience a neighbourhood-type lifestyle.
“Neighbourhood,” in Toronto planning jargon, means a principally residential area, largely houses, with “neighbourhood-serving” retail. Lower Ossington Avenue has always had some of that, but a self-storage facility and a car lot and garage – the former uses of those condo sites – are not part of it.
More importantly, this entire argument is the NIMBYism of new arrivals: ostensibly progressive, but sentimental and selfish. These professionals, gentrifiers of the area, are complaining about the change in their neighbourhood that will admit large numbers of aspiring downtowners. What drew them here, five or ten years ago? The Vietnamese karaoke bars? The Portuguese fishmonger? No. It was the allure of Victorian houses, scruffy but cheap – especially if there was a used car lot behind your house! – and the tequila bars, galleries, edgy restaurants. In short, the presence of Hipness.
Hipness moves on. It always has, and it always will. It cannot be regulated and it cannot be zoned. And it brings money behind it. Already the city’s working visual artists, indie musicians and young architects have moved on to Parkdale. Gallery TPW is moving. In another decade the remaining vintage clothing stores will be gone; most of the galleries probably will too. Ossington will either get busier and attract high-street retail (a la Yorkville of the 1970s and 80s) or become arty and upscale. Greenwich Village, the Marais, Shoreditch, Prenzlauer Berg.
Name one area in a prosperous city that has become creative in character and then stayed that way, impervious to financial and cultural upheaval. There isn’t one. Ossington will not be the first.
This is not a short argument (and you should see how much the neighbours have to say). But here is a simpler one: Cities change. Aside from the problems with Toronto’s very ad hoc planning process, there is a cultural problem when people can’t accept the reality that they are living in the middle of a vital city. Vital cities always have wrecking balls, and often people’s feelings get hurt, too.
* There is another alternative, still unexplored: cheaper, smaller-scale walkups. But that’s another story.
Michelle
on Jul 12, 2012
at 10:59 am
Thank you for writing this. I think you’ve summed up perfectly how I feel about this development and others that are getting grief right now (I used to live near 109OZ and now am a property owner who lives 50 feet from a new planned development NW of there).
It is NIMBYism, yes, and it’s eliteism too. To prevent a development because it’s going to “ruin” the neighbourhood says to me that you believe you deserve to live in or own a significant portion of land in an area that others shouldn’t be allowed to. Not many people can afford a single family home in this neighbourhood and their only option is a condo if they want to enjoy it, too. But God forbid their condo prevents as much sunlight from entering the land you live on.
We live in a city with MILLIONS of other people. Literally. To think that you should be able to own a chunk of this city and not be affected by anyone else is absurd. There’s a reason no one in Chicago or New York have single family homes with yards. We need to start adapting and that starts by either reducing our footprint or sucking it up when we need to make room for more people. Transit and jobs are downtown. It makes sense that people should be too.
Scot Blythe
on Jul 13, 2012
at 4:22 am
As a working journalist, you should know better than to criticize without actually talking to the people affected. I’m a working journalist too. (Hell, I’ve even done work for the G&M) That’s rule rule #1. If you had followed rule rule#1, you would have learned that there are lots of tenants in the neighbourhood. You would also have learned that many of us were here before the neighbourhood became hip, in my case, 20 or 30 years.
Bu you have this grand Mies van der Rohe viewpoint, in other words, what the architects say is always good. That’s not actually how cities work. And you would know that from all your reporting. If you don’t, may I suggest that you talk to the people you are writing about before you condemn them.
So why are you taking on two philosophy professors and an actor. I have been known to teach sociology classes too. I’m not innocent of higher education. I’ve also been know to say hello to my Portuguese landlord. We co-exist. Why is this an issue about hipsters?
What actually is your point? That you love edgy architecture? Sorry, most of it is junk, and will be levelled long before the Victorians succumb. (Granted, an aesthetic argument — or perhaps not..)
Have you actually looked at the Ossington streetscape? Most of it is unchanged since the 1920s. Business names have changed, yes, but not the buildings. Granted, Westside Lofts isn’t the most lovely building on the street, but at least it conformed to the historic height envelope.
So again, what is your point? Architecture for architecture’s sake, despite the overwhelming presence it would have on Ossington? A fear of yuppies (anyone who writes an architecture blog is already a yuppie, so that can’t be true)?
Do you even know about the neighbourhoods uprising of the 1960s and 1970s? Stop Spadina? The fights against the developers? About which alderman (as they were called at the time) was in which developer’s pocket? About the plans to raze Old City Hall and Union Station.
Sure, change happens. But I don’t see developers blowing up Greenwich Village townhouses to build mkdrise. Are they bulldozing the Mietskaserne in Prenzlauer Berg for condos and removing the heritage designations? Has Shoreditch somehow escaped London planning guidelines?
If I’m wrong, please let me know.
And finally, again, you think eight-storey buildings on a three-storey street are a sign of progress? In what possible sense?
Cheers,
Scot
Alex
on Jul 13, 2012
at 11:11 am
Toronto’s heritage protection and planning processes are weak and lack transparency.
We will see which of those small, historic, and now extremely valuable buildings get levelled. I’m not holding my breath; they are not economical as development sites.
Also, this should not need to be said, development does not equal corruption and destruction. (Not always.) Jane Jacobs certainly did not think so. See further comments here:
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2012/07/12/no-mean-city-ossington-avenue-condofication-and-the-changing-city/#comments
Scot Blythe
on Jul 13, 2012
at 8:09 pm
Thanks for your generous response on the other site.
Your Sunday Reading
on Jul 15, 2012
at 5:45 pm
[...] at her blog No Mean City (and cross-posted at Spacing) Alex Bozikovic looks at the arguments surrounding the intense [...]