Last week's news that the RCMI was on the way to having its planned redevelopment of its site approved, raised the question of why was the building - originally built in 1907, a symbol of early University Avenue and listed on the City's inventory - not better protected?

After hearing that neither Heritage Toronto Board member Councillor Adam Vaughan, councillor for the ward, and Bill Greer, former Heritage Toronto Board member and well-respected heritage architect, were opposed to the plans, it was obvious that this was not a straightforward issue.

Arguments made for the development

• The building itself is crumbling, and little remains of the original building. In the mid 20th century, the façade underwent an unsympathetic alteration, and additions to the back of the building replaced the original houses on Simcoe Street.
• The heritage of the RCMI is greater than the building itself. This development will allow the RCMI to continue to operate at its historical location.
• The important parts of the building are being restored: the library will be recreated within the new tower, and the 1907 façade is being recreated.

Opposing views

• The building was listed because of its architectural and contextual value. University Avenue was Toronto's grand avenue and the building is an important, and now lone, example of what used to be within this cultural landscape defined as University Avenue.
• Since the façade was greatly altered in the mid-20th century, restoration may be difficult, and if the new façade is a replica rather than a restoration, it would be not acceptable according to commonly agreed upon heritage principles (replication is playing with time and context, providing a false representation of a heritage resource).

Other perspectives

• The Official Plan notes the importance of building high-density close to public transit. This also should help to protect neighbourhoods from inappropriate densification.
• Although heritage conservation matters are not supposed to be weighted by economics, it is a reality. This land is generally perceived as too valuable to sustain only a low-rise building. Property values often outweigh the heritage value of a property and in those cases it should be the community or society in general who make the final call. If the community, through its elected officials, have not spoken loud and clear, then it isn't going to happen.
• University Avenue is now a completely changed landscape, and it is too late to save as it once was.

Some questions for consideration by the heritage community:

• At what point is a building or its façade too deteriorated to consider restoration worthwhile?
• Has the context and significance of the property been compromised to lessen its importance?
• Shouldn't a building's inclusion in the city's heritage inventory protect it from demolition?
• When does a property move from being "listed" to being "designated" and thereby formally recognized?
• Is context enough to protect a heritage resource?