Another Demolition By Neglect

The empty lot at right, 514-520 South Street,  is the former site of an 1853 cottage. The once-adorable home listed on the city's Register of Cultural Heritage Resources was demolished in November 2024 after years of deterioration. See here for pictures of its advanced decay and subsequent demolition. 

The cottage may have been in poor shape when Anmoor Homes purchased it in 2022, but the company didn't make a heroic effort to save it. Damaged by fire in April 2024, the house was removed from the city register in July and knocked down in the autumn. 

Anmoor later requested a rezoning of the property to allow the building of about 25 stacked townhouses. Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) recommended this be done, and London City Council agreed at their August 26 meeting. 

Whenever a demolition by neglect (DBN) happens - and it happens frequently - the same thoughts come to my mind. One is that London needs a powerful property standards bylaw that charges hefty fines to the owners of deteriorating and/or vacant buildings. The current system is complaint-based and clearly doesn't prevent DBN. A mandatory inspection regime with escalating penalties could deter neglect, though enforcement costs and owner pushback would pose challenges. 

Another observation is that, in an age with lots of homeless people and a lack of affordable housing, we also have vacant buildings.  Little wonder that unfortunate individuals break into an empty structure to take shelter. And if they start a fire to keep warm in winter, who can blame them?

Some might argue that single-family homes on large lots should be replaced with densely packed townhome developments more often. We need lots of infill to house our increasing population, right? After all, we can't expand the city forever, using up more and more valuable farmland (although the city seems to be doing just that.) I would argue, though, that densification is ruining our historic neighbourhoods by replacing traditional architecture with newer buildings that don't blend in. Hence, new construction should be limited in such areas as South Street in Soho.

I'd rather see larger buildings in the core renovated into affordable housing. We already have older buildings that have been reused for this purpose, like Youth Opportunities Unlimited in the former Grigg House. Or the former Honest Lawyer bar, now converted to apartments. And Bluevale is converting a newish office building at 376 Richmond Street into one-bedroom and studio apartments; see here for details.  

Still, we're going to need more of these conversions if we're going to a) increase our stock of affordable housing, and b) prevent historic neighbourhoods from losing their charm. I'd argue that the buildings below would have made excellent housing units if only the city, a non-profit organisation, or even another corporation had wrestled them away from their current owners:

But I suspect demolition by neglect and inappropriate infill are here to stay. The cottage’s loss is only part of a larger debate, that of "progress" versus preservation. And progress means densification in older residential neighbourhoods unless public pressure shifts the narrative. 

On Stacked Townhouses

I was away from London for a few days and surprised to find these posters scattered about my neighbourhood when I returned. It was a little late to "act" by the stated deadline. Still, I did try to find out as much as possible about the City of London's new "stacked townhouses" plan. It's not easy. Not a lot of information out there. 

But I've found out a few things. The poster refers to a change to the London Plan allowing "stacked townhouses" on "neighbourhood connectors." If you don't understand the latest urban planning jargon (and most of us don't) "stacked townhouses" are four-storey attached dwellings stacked on top of each other vertically. As for "neighbourhood connectors," they're streets like Village Green in Westmount, Ambleside Drive in the northwest, Wavell Street in the east end, or my very own Colborne Street in Old North. 

These townhouses will be wonderful (says the city) because a) we need housing density, b) we need to stop suburban sprawl and farmland destruction, and c) these townhouses are easy to build and more affordable than detached homes. 

But I'm a cynical, suspicious person. Does this policy not seem rushed? Why did the city give the public so little notice, so little time to comment? Is it really because we need to act fast to avert a housing crisis? Or is that just an excuse to skip public consultation? 

My neighbourhood is called Old North for a reason. I'm surrounded by Victorian and Edwardian buildings, most of which are attractive and structurally sound. I chose to live here because I wanted to be surrounded by London's history. Will I see it demolished and replaced? Or will the townhouses be built on empty lots? How many of those do we have?

Gosh, I have so many questions and so few answers. If these townhouses are built quickly to forestall a housing crisis, does that mean they'll be architectural crap that will crumble in a few years? Are these townhouses really affordable? Or expensive shoeboxes? Has this policy worked in other cities? Are the mayor and councilors doing what's best for the city or shilling for their developer buddies? I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but I fear the latter.

Now I look forward to being called an elitist, a snob, and a NIMBY.

Update: July 4, 2025: Now the city's wording could change. See here for the proposed "draft" definition of Stacked Townhouses. Note August 12 public meeting. I would suggest folks in Old North should pay close attention.