NEW COMMENT February 22, 2010

Is the stage being set for the National Hotel being reduced to a two wall facade structure? It would appear yes if you examine the documents in detail, specifically City's Councils decision of Nov. 30th, 2009 in conjunction with City of Toronto's Planning Division Direction Report. To start with lets review City Councils amendments of November 30th, 2009 and I quote from page 1,

a) require the submission of a revised Heritage Impact Statement to address the potential
for rehabilitation and retention in-situ of the heritage structure at 251 King Street East;

b) request the Manager, Preservation Services to have a peer review of the revised
Heritage Impact Statement carried out;

c) if, following the peer review of the revised Heritage Impact Statement, the Manager,
Preservation Services agrees that rehabilitation and retention in-situ of the heritage structure
within a proposed development is not possible then rehabilitation and retention in–situ of the
north and west elevations will be required; and

d) reduce parking to the minimum number of spaces acceptable to the Manager of
Development Engineering and/or provide parking off-site in order to facilitate the retention of
the heritage structure at 251 King Street East."

If we understand this clearly City Council is asking the Manager of Preservation Services to conduct a peer review (now remember, the Preservation Board recommended to City Council that the developer be allowed to demolish the National Hotel). Secondly, City Council has left the decision as to whether the National Hotel can be used within a proposed development or not up to Preservation Services. Anyone with half a brain will know that "rehabilitation and retention in-situ" of a structure like the National Hotel into a high density condo proposal that recommends 17 storeys above with 6 parking levels below is virtually impossible in its current proposed format and sense the developer has refused to scale back their proposal to reflect the retention in-situ of the National Hotel it is safe to assume "rehabilitation and retention in-situ" is impossible. In short, who does the city think they are fooling?

To rub further salt in the wounds of the common citizen the the planning department puts forward a development strategy on page 27 of their report recommending

a) A 15-storey (plus mechanical) mixed use building with improved stepbacks and relationship to the heritage building and adjacent building.

b) Rehabilitation, and retention in-situ of north and west elevations.

c) Commencing on the 5th floor with 5.0 metres on King Street East and 3.0 metres on Sherbourne Street elevations.

In short, how is the National Hotel going to support a 15 storey's plus mechanical room with only a 5 meter stepback on King St East and a 3 meter stepback on Sherbourne St? Does Michael Hynes and the rest of the planning staff think we are all completely stupid?

The reality is Pam McConell, the City Planning Department, Preservation Services and City Council must think that through clever wording and the support of the SLNA they can manipulate the public into thinking they are truly doing their best to preserve the heritage of our neighbourhood.

We mention the SLNA because it is clear via their posted letter to the OMB that their position of November 16th, 2009 mirrors City Councils position of November 30, 2009. The SLNA is quick to state in their letter that they "strongly supports the retention of the existing historical building at 251 King Street East in its entirety (not merely its façade)" but follow-up their support further in the letter by saying "If following a peer review of the revised heritage Impact Statement, city staff agree that rehabilitation and retention in-situ of the heritage structure is not possible then rehabilitation and retention in-situ of the north and west elevations will be required." What does the SLNA mean by stating if "city staff agree that rehabilitation and retention in-situ of the heritage structure is not possible then rehabilitation and retention in-situ of the north and west elevations will be required?"

Why is rehabilitation and retention of the heritage building only a city staff decision especially given that the city staff has already written the building off before and condemned it to the rubble heap. Clearly Susan Kavanagh must know that there are a few people in the community that are not fooled by the SLNA's flip flop on this issue. A flip flop that has its very roots in the original meeting the developer held at their office with the SLNA prior to the community consultation meeting of Nov. 6, 2008. It is our understanding that the majority of the members of the SLNA development committee voice no objection to the developer removing the National Hotel to make way for their condo and this was further demonstrated by Susan Kavanaghs presence at the Nov. 6th, 2008 community consultation meeting when her only concern was "what was in it for the community, how much of a financial contribution under Section 37 was the developer prepared to make in exchange for being allowed to proceed with their development?" In short, it is the position of BPFA that the SLNA does not speak for the entire community or even most of the community and given that their existence is in part predicated on the financial assistance of the City of Toronto their views and position on development in our opinion is questionable at best.

In closing BPFA would like to draw everyone's attention to an article published in the New York Times regarding development in Miami, Florida, please click on the link to the right.