Buildings before people

Imagine you wake up one day and by the end of the day, you end up paralyzed.  Talk about a tragedy.  That is exactly what happened to Melissa Teehan who was stricken with transverse myelitis.  (Ya, I had to look it up too.) Essentially it is a neurological disorder that leaves you paralyzed, or dead.

The problem is that Melissa and her family would like to create a wheel-chair friendly house but to do that they need to raze the house that is currently on their property.  That is where the issues begin.  It seems their busy-body neighbors have started a campaign to save the house, never mind actually helping the Teehan’s.

The best part, Kirstin Campbell (the busiest-body), who created a blog to save the house doesn’t even live in the Beaches!  She doesn’t even live in the fucking country! She lives in Germany.  I would encourage Kirstin to ask her German neighbors if a 90 year old house constitutes a “heritage building”.  I highly doubt it.

It seems that Kirstin has a bee in her bonnet because 204 Beech avenue is her childhood home.  Well Kirstin, you know what they say about going home again.

The other best part is that Sandra Bussin, the city counselor for the beach has decided rather than help one of her constituents, she would rather save a bunch of bricks and wood.  Which shouldn’t be too surprising as Ms. Bussin has a history of supporting some but not all the people who live in her area.  Perhaps the house at 204 beech also supported her election campaign?

Anyway, according to Ms. Campbell’s blog, the criteria for a house to be considered  “heritage” is:

1. (1) The criteria set out in subsection (2) are prescribed for the purposes of clause 29 (1) (a) of the Act. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (1).

(2) A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest:

1. The property has design value or physical value because it,

i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,

ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or

iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,

i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,

ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or

iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

3. The property has contextual value because it,

i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,

ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or

iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).

This building does not meet any of these criteria, any more than any other building in the area.   Which by Ms. Campbell’s reasoning should mean that no development should ever occur anywhere because it is “heritage”.  If Ms. Campbell and the other “concerned neighbors” give that big a shit about the house, then let them collect some money and buy it from the Teehan’s.

My house is as old as this one and I would love the opportunity raze it and build up something architecturally interesting, elegant, green and efficient.  But the building is besides the point.  The point is that someone needs help.  A family is attempting to make their lives as comfortable as they can given some horrendous circumstances and some jerks with more time than compassion want to interfere.

A shame when buildings come before people.