48 Abell Bites the Dust?

Kat: 29th Sep 2006 - 21:49 GMT

A rousing applause for you, for actually making a move instead of sitting at a bar being indignant.

jeeff: 30th Sep 2006 - 13:16 GMT

ps. on rereading my letter, i think i didn't explain myself well at the end. it probably seems counterintuitive that i'm arguing against condos as destroying the residential flavour of our neighbourhood. in this case, the condo developers have only been attracted to the neighbourhood by the success of the new clubs here. the condos are marketing themselves in the same terms as the clubs - bright candy-coloured lights, oversized motifs. by displacing people who have helped turn this neighbourhood around, and replacing them with transient condo-dwellers looking to live in a clubbing "hot-spot", i think the residential character will be damaged. many nights i've had to wade through the loud, inconsiderate, overwhelming crowds outside these clubs, and those are the same people being wooed by the condo developers. the two - condos & clubs - reinforce each other.

Biff: 30th Sep 2006 - 16:17 GMT

This is what I e-mailed my councillor and the mayor:
Please consider making 48 Abell Street an heritage building. I think the city should stick to it's official plan.There have been too many exemptions . It seems that the artisan class neighbourhoods are being destroyed condo by condo. Don't get me wrong, I live on the 18th floor of a 30 story condo on Homewood Avenue. I often wonder what they destroyed to make room for my home. I was born in this city in 1943 and have seen many progressive changes, but sometimes restraint is needed.

Sue: 2nd Oct 2006 - 13:18 GMT

Are you aware that the "developer" at Abell Street has owned the building since the early 80's? The building is illegal, and will be replaced by 200 legal affordable housing units?

Peter: 2nd Oct 2006 - 13:57 GMT

kudos, jeeff. this took some thought, and i appreciate it when people stand up to make their opinions known.

anonymous: 2nd Oct 2006 - 14:15 GMT

Hey Sue, what sort of developer lets a so-called "illegal" building stand for over 20 years, then... and then coincidentally decides to suddenly cash in on a local housing boom?

incidentally, id really like to know more about why you call this building illegal. you cant just make such an argumentative point without at least explaining your facts. nothing in this post seems to indicate that the legality of the building in question is dubious.

answers, anyone?

Get out of your car, buddy: 2nd Oct 2006 - 16:43 GMT

We have subsidized housing (not enough, but let's not go there right now), so what why don't we have subsidized retail and studio space? There are co-ops and collectives (not many of these actually own their space), but nothing organized at a municipal level. This makes great sense, and would allow artistic communities to continue to flourish as the rents around them explode.

kevin bracken: 3rd Oct 2006 - 05:04 GMT

as a resident of 1153 queen st. w (woolfitt's art supplies, the building directly in front of 48 abell) I am sad to see the building go. I was going to live there but the waiting list was too long. there are great units and great people in there, and it really is quite a place.

however, i do not agree about the "club district" thing. i like our little west end alternative to richmond street and i am in favor of permanently extending last call at the Drake and Gladstone to 4 AM at least, if not later. I would like to see more nightlife in the area and more 24 hour shops and services. This area is just starting to heat up, let's not stop it now!

I do agree that crossing the street around here is a pain in the ass, though. We could use a light (or at least one of those crossing lights) at Beaconsfield.

S: 15th Oct 2006 - 01:06 GMT

I'm all for saving historical buildings and do love history, but I really don't see whats so special about this place. Aside from being old, what does this building have that makes it worth saving?. There's so many "run down" places like this all across the City and unfortunately it gets to a point that it costs a fortune to fix them up. Sometimes it's cheaper to tear them down.

Michelle: 16th Oct 2006 - 21:20 GMT

I am happy to have stumbled upon this chat. I live at 48 abell st. and am part of a newly formed residence group called Model48 that is fighting alongside Active 18 to keep our building standing. We believe what is happening right now is exciting and are hoping the outcome to be positive and could be a model for the City of Toronto. As an person working in architecture, I am very passionate about this and the liveability of responsible architecture and healthy cities.
The legality of the building is such that the studios have always been rented as commercial spaces, but it is an open secret that over time, artists and the like have moved in to offset the cost of a residential unit on top of a studio to work from. This is the most ideal situation in terms of Live/ Work for those who do so in the building. High ceilings, generous spaces, big windows, exposed brick walls and heavy timber columns. The re-zoning application has been with the city for a long time which has made the living situation quasi-legal ever since its been contention. Last year our landlord (with whom we all continue to hold commercial leases) revealed that instead of changing the zoning, he along with Verdiroc (developers) were planning a condo complex to replace our 110 year old warehouse. The neighbourhood was up in arms about this and the other developments in the area, including the West Side Lofts as well as the Bohemian Embassy, all of which are rather irresponsible developments as far as the intensification of the neighborhood goes and exceed the recommended zoning astronomically. Each application was turned down by the City due to neighborhood response at Community Council back in November and each developer has appealed to the OMB (Ontario Municipal Board = court for buildings). Councillor Giambrone in the mean time has attempted to have our building designated by Heritage Perservation to no avail. To our disappointment, it being an election year, this process has proved to be difficult and political rather than based on merits. The CEO of Artscape was quoted in the Now as saying it takes ten years for them to work up to something that 48 Abell already has, to tear this down is such a shame. The OMB hearing started in early September and has been going on ever since. The partys involved are the three developers, Active 18 and the City. It is a good thing that these applications are being heard all in one hearing since there is no cohesiveness in the current applications nor in the zoning made by the City. Participants to the case include ourselves Model48, Artscape, St. Clare's Multi-faith housing, and a few others related to the case. Partys have lawyers, participants don't. They are hoping to come to a decision by the end of November, but we'll have to see what happens. In the mean time we are hoping to do some publicity stunts to get the media's attention. On November 11th we are planning a funeral for 48 Abell at the building. If you support us, please stay tuned!

Sincerely,
Michelle

Margaret Zeidler: 26th Oct 2006 - 02:59 GMT

It is very rarely more cost effective to tear down an old building and replace it with a new one. That is an old wives tale - but one which, unfortunately, is often cited as some kind of universal truth. If in the odd case it is more "cost" effective (i.e. cash) - it is at a great cost to the environment and the character of city. (40% of the contents of our landfill sites are the debris from demolished buildings. To demolish a building the size of 48 Abell is to throw away enough “embodied energy” to drive a car around the world 500 times! None of that is wasted if the building is retained.)
Another important point: 48 Abell currently has approximately 80 affordable housing units. These units will be demolished (the tenants dislocated) and then the units will be replaced in the new building. But $5.4 M of public money will be spent in subsidies to recreate those 80 units ($70,000 per unit). No net gain of affordable housing in the City at a cost of $5,400,000 – hmmm – that doesn’t sound like a really wise use of public funds. Wouldn't it be better to spend $5.4 M and get 80 MORE units?
Why else should we keep an old run-down building like this? Go back and read Chapter 10 of Jane Jacobs’ "Death and Life of Great American Cities" entitled "The Need for Aged Buildings". She says a "district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones" later in the chapter she comments that "Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings." I could say more but - please - go and read it – the argument is so beautifully stated and the reasoning more subtle and complex than I could say here in just a few words.
Finally, just in case you need one more reason: there are a few odd souls in this City that rather appreciate the patina and all that comes with an old building. I suspect many of the residents of 48 Abell are such people. Shouldn't there be places in this City for all of us?

Att Change: 29th Oct 2006 - 00:11 GMT

Let's face it, 48 Abell was a great rental deal. Where else in the city are you going to replace it with? If it's deemed Historical, can we stay at the same rates???

Christine: 30th Oct 2006 - 15:32 GMT

The building was not designated historical. If it was, everyone would have to leave anyway, because it would not make the building legal.

Att. Change: 30th Oct 2006 - 16:27 GMT

Thanks. I guess I'll look for a cheaper place to do my thing. I could always come back to sell my stuff in the area.

jeeff: 30th Oct 2006 - 20:05 GMT

well make sure you don't sell your stuff in your own area, because if you're successful then you'll end up getting kicked out by the yuppie hordes and real estate speculators again.

Att Change: 31st Oct 2006 - 00:37 GMT

I'm in the same building and area you may be in. I appreciate the rental deal I got here. I understand things don't last forever. People and places change.It would have been nice. But I could see Toronto changing every where. I don't see why they would give us a deal just because we're artist.

jeeff: 31st Oct 2006 - 03:33 GMT

on a personal level, i agree. but on a larger scale, the gathering pace of gentrification downtown worries me. it's not just the artists being gradually pushed out of the downtown core, it's an entire class of people. 48 abell is just one example, and a particularly unfortunate one considering the potential of the building being demolished. but more generally, social injustice based on class is a real issue in toronto, and gentrification is one of its agents. consider other "left-wing" cities like new york and san francisco. both made the US national homeless coalition's top 10 "meanest city" list, a measure of social injustice. other cities have gone further down the road of class segregation, and the results don't look pretty. all the more reason to carefully consider our moves now.

Att Change: 31st Oct 2006 - 05:17 GMT

We have choices. I've chosen mine. Toronto has been very good to me. One day I plan to own my own place. My goal is to be free from political agendas. I hope my art will continue to make people happy. I wish you the best.

Nancy @ Aristocrat: 1st Nov 2006 - 01:54 GMT

To all the tenants who read this post, please contact me for up to date information.

Back in Town: 13th Nov 2006 - 22:46 GMT

What happened on Saturday? Did we link hands around the building?

Brad Doner: 18th Nov 2006 - 18:43 GMT

Presently there is no guarantee for the affordable housing aspect of the 48 Abell proposal, and it is a slippery slope argument for anyone to say they're against affordable housing because they are against this proposal. There are only so many hundred units per year to dole out to the whole city - and it is unlikely that one developer would get the lion's share. The density proposed on this site is massive, and the possibility exists that only one tower will be allowed to be built - and it's no brainer which type that will be.

Aaron J Ban: 21st Nov 2006 - 19:28 GMT

As a resident of the neighbourhood, and an artist, and as a person that recently purchased a home at West Side Lofts I can't say enough how rediculous your argument is to make 48 Abell a heritage site. When I first moved to the West end from the East end I looked at several lofts to rent in 48 Abell. I found the building to be falling apart, dark, dirty as hell, and way overpriced for what they wanted. I fail to see how this could ever be construed as "affordable housing". I ended up in a much nicer loft just under the bridge on Noble, for a much better price.

As for the idea of it being a heritage site. That's just clutching at straws. I would hazard to guess that if you stopped 10000 Torontonians on the street and asked them who John Abell was they wouldn't have a clue. I would also hazard to guess that if you asked, say, 80% of the residents currently in the building what that factory originally produced they wouldn't know.

See, in order for a building to have significance as a heritage site people have to actually know, or care, what went on there before. If not, then it's just another factory that's old and falling down.

I also find the argument that the current building offers affordable housing absurd. Exactly how are 600sq ft loft spaces with no amenities at 1100/month affordbale?

I'm all for the idea of mixed-income housing and a certain number of units being set aside for the art community at a more affordable rate, but currently I fail to see how the Aristocrat lost meet that at all.

On a higher level I just can't really believe how resistant to change you all are. Considering you call yourselves artist's you certainly do have a very high resistance to progress. Think about it this way: you live downtown in the largest city in the country, did you really think that it would never expand above two stories, ever? Population grows, that's inevitable, get used to it. Or would you rather we just keep mowing down land and building out and out and out and out until there's no farmland left?

John Day: 25th Nov 2006 - 23:51 GMT

I don't think artist should get preferential treatment because they believe the universe is centered around them. What about all the other talented people in Toronto who go on with their daily lives and contribute to the well being of the city? You don't hear them crying and whining for subsidies or trying to design a neighbourhood without taking a finacial risk of their own. If you want to influence the area, buy property in the area and develop the place how you want it. Stop whining. The area is changing for the better. If you don't like it, move on. The most successful artists will probably end up staying in the area anyway.

jeeff: 26th Nov 2006 - 01:31 GMT

artists are only an example in this case because the neighbourhood became an art destination. i would be equally concerned if the neighbourhood had been turned around by portuguese bakers, who were then priced out by hordes of pastry-seekers. incidentally, it looks like there will now be a fair bit of competition for real estate in the south end of little portugal.

John Day: 27th Nov 2006 - 01:19 GMT

There are a lot of other varibales involved for the successful "turn around" of a neighbourhood than a handful of artist saying their work single handedly turned it around. "Protectionism" is not one of them.

anon (localhost): 14th Dec 2006 - 18:37 GMT

Hi jeeff,
Are you the photograher of the 48 Abell pic? I'd like to get your permission to use it for something. Please give a shout as soon as you can. Cheers,
Liz S
416.364.3333 x3072

Rosie: 19th Jan 2007 - 02:13 GMT

Glad to see all those affordable units coming here. The OMB made the right decision.

mattyg: 27th Jun 2007 - 05:25 GMT

So what has happened? Also, are the other developments listed earlier in this thread going forward or have they been canceled? eg. the west side lofts and the bohemian embassy?

CE: 4th Aug 2007 - 23:28 GMT

According to an article in The Star "...eviction notices were sent to tenants at 48 Abell St., an old three-storey warehouse occupied by artists, designers and the like. The building, whose fate has been the focus of much anger, will be demolished to make way for an undistinguished complex ill-suited to the area."

www.thestar.com/News/article/242334

jeeff: 5th Aug 2007 - 16:46 GMT

the whole thing has evolved into a huge OMB-city clusterfuck nightmare. the city missed a deadline to challenge one of the designs, and has resorted to desperate lawsuits. most recently, the toronto fashion incubator (launching pad for many of canada's young fashion talent) was evicted to make way for more... condos!