Spadina Gardens from Charlotte's Castle Part 2
HV: Well,one of the biggest reactions was about this. Some of the people that we had the film discussion with are younger. So they really identified with Rachel. It seems like the other tenants, or at least how it’s depicted, it seems that most of them are people with means. When the housing problem is so difficult in the Canadian context, some people find it very difficult to appreciate your situation. Not that it’s not a bad situation. But comparatively.
C: What I would say is that it’s complicated. So if they were to demolish the building and put up, in this area, a high rise building, you’d have much more expensive, smaller units. In fact, the owners are now planning to build over our building. The units will likely be condos, costly and much smaller because construction costs and land values are so high right now. There’s a filter theory that says if you do build these pricey units, it’s still a good thing because rich people will move in and things will open up in other places. But Toronto is so underserved by apartment buildings already because of a whole history of anti-apartment sentiment and legislation, that it’s going to take a very long time for that to work itself out. I think there’s going to be a huge traffic jam. And remember, they’re demolishing mid-century apartment buildings in Toronto as well. So a lot of people are going to be on the street soon and I’m working with those tenants.
Then, the other thing about the filter theory is you’ll create these apartments and rich people will move in and people who aren’t rich will move to other parts of the city where it’s more affordable. And effectively, you’re getting rid of mixed income neighbourhoods.
So, at least with this building, as I said, we’re now getting to the point where rents at the legacy apartments are slightly under market value because of the combination of rent control and rising land value. And it’s now looking to me like this place could very soon be an option for mid-income people, a pretty viable option for families. And that’s what should happen. This is the thing about old buildings. This is not a reason for official heritage designations I guess, but old buildings provide naturally occurring affordable housing. They also create communities. When developers come in and decide, oh, that’s not so great. I mean, maybe it’s not hygienic, maybe it’s not safe, we can build a lot more units, they never think about the people that are living there and how they feel about living there. There’s always another agenda. I mean, somebody’s going to be making some money and whether they’re actually going to be helping lower income people, that’s questionable. If you look at these older buildings, which are naturally occurring forms of affordable housing, instead of thinking, how can we displace people and make money, you should think: what could we do to make this a little bit better? Maybe just improve the environmental footprint and do some decent maintenance? Assuming we think there’s anything wrong at all? Or should we just leave it alone and preserve this form of housing? That doesn’t seem to come into play here. I think we should be honoring older housing that provides affordability. And I actually think that in this building, even in the above grade units, the unrenovated ones, we’re on the cusp of providing affordability.
HV: For a family?
Charlotte: Yes. You’re not going to get a lot of places where you have three-four bedrooms. I think most of the residents in the legacy apartments are paying about $4500. $4500 is a lot but it’s now not insanely high end for three, possibly four bedrooms depending on how you arrange things. Until now it’s been a place for, I would say, upper middle-class people to live (again, in density, not single family homes) and it’s becoming increasingly difficult for even upper middle-class people to find housing in Toronto. Now it may actually be becoming a place for mid-middle class people too.
I understand why your young constituents would be concerned. That brings me to something else. I remember all too vividly being young as well and frankly, being lucky: not making much money but not struggling for housing because that wasn’t an issue in downtown Montreal when I was young. Because downtown wasn’t desirable then. It was pretty easy to find often older housing that was affordable and if you loved old buildings, it was heaven.
I get it that this is really daunting for young people now. But I do have a lot of sympathy for older people too, not just in our building but also in these mid century modern buildings I was just discussing. Some are living in studio apartments for 1200$/month–where will they find that again? And they have to:. once you are older, you’re on a fixed income. In some of these buildings you have people who have been there for 50 years, since the 1960s when the buildings were put up. And they don’t know where they’re going to move. If you’re 80 years old, it’s an extraordinary disruption. And any changes that happen are going to mean a reduction in your standard of living. And in some cases, I’m thinking of the tenants that I work with, I would say that reduction gets to the point where it’s humiliating.
HV: Can you talk a little bit about what you’re doing with these tenants in these mid-century apartments?
Charlotte: I work with a group called No Demovictions. We’re monitoring, and fighting for better deals for tenants, but also bigger policy issues as well. There are, I can’t remember right now, how many buildings are slated for demolition in Toronto, but the building that I’m closest to, I think it’s going to affect 200 tenants. Many of them are seniors. They’re so terrified of the future. There is a city program called the Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan where they get to move out and move back in again. But moving twice, when you’re in your 80s is no joke. And what they’re going to move back to is not like where they are now. They’re going to go from wide apartments with big windows and balconies to narrow bowling alleys. Some tenants have already moved into assisted living because they just can’t bear the uncertainty of the future. And some tenants are talking about medically assisted suicide.
There is the concept of the NORC, the naturally occurring retirement community. In a lot of these affordable buildings, as many as 30% of the tenants can be seniors, and they form groups, they hang out together, they make friends with young people in the building and they get help from them. They’re effectively, non-subsidized seniors’ homes in a way, better even because of the interaction with young people, and they work really really well. It’s a real value to the community and nobody who’s developing is thinking about that loss in my view.
HV: I think a lot of people were curious about what happens after the documentary.
Charlotte: They do want to put a building above our building. It would be hovering over a building. It would be on concrete stilts. And the concrete stilts would go right into the courtyard and the side yard, so light and air in the bedrooms and through that dining room window we were discussing will be cut off in the side yard wing. In the courtyard apartments, light to most of the bedrooms and probably the kitchen will be lost.
I just wanted to say, thinking back to your previous question, I hear everything. I know there’s some real intergenerational tension over this, and I think that’s tragic. I don’t want young people not to have housing. That really disturbs me. But I don’t want old vulnerable people to be losing their homes either. And I do think that with youth there is some flexibility that old people…they just don’t have the resilience and the forward opportunities that young people have.
HV: What is the make up of the building now?
Charlotte:
The basement apartments are more affordable of course and many of the tenants are younger, as Rachel was. Without giving away too much personal info on tenants, above grade there are two apartments housing groups of super nice young people (4 in one, 3 in another) in sharing arrangements, two apartments housing families with kids, four housing middle-aged people and five housing seniors. As I said before, things are changing: the building even above grade is more diverse economically and in terms of living arrangements than what was reflected in the documentary. Those two apartments where you’ve got groups of young people – that’s a very cool new thing. That wasn’t in the movie. But that’s an option for this building.
One other note, the renovated apartments are at full market value–possibly above market value, almost twice as expensive as the unrenovated units and my impression is that it’s difficult for the owners to find tenants at that level.
TAMARA JOINS THE INTERVIEW
HV: Tamara, I want to ask you if you think the significance of this building is well understood and appreciated by the wider public?
Tamara: I would just say generally heritage is not just about the very sliver or the narrow audience of heritage designation versus some of the broader acceptance and understanding of what we say is cultural heritage. And I think mediums like film have actually helped us to share the significance to a broader audience and in part, not just because you can see behind the walls and get to know the building and in this case, the story of the tenants themselves. I think the world of heritage preservation is probably, I would say, very narrow. Our advice is to government, it is to the council itself. Last week, I took my team to the city archives and they do an exhibition about things that are in their collection. But we don’t do an exhibition about the extraordinary places in this city. But when I see, like last weekend was our Doors Open, which are sites that are not open to the public, the incredible turnout for those places. I belong to an old downtown club called “The Arts and Letters” we had over a thousand visitors through the door. Charlotte, you probably would have 5 000 people lining up. Just to say that I think that interviews like what you’re doing today, other sort of broader audience engagement, it’s always very helpful for us.
Spadina Gardens was included on the Heritage register in 1979. Just to say that something that is denoted as being heritage, which is on a register but not having that legal protection, I think the whole story of Spadina and some of the threat to Spadina Road in particular with the expressway was really heightened. So, if anything, I think this designation 40 years later retold the story of the original, sort of effort to preserve it and the street. And I think that was a really important piece. People probably know it by walking along and seeing it as a corner building, but I do think that designation gives us an opportunity to once again explain it. Also, this whole concept of adding new types of housing into neighborhoods. It’s interesting that this is a story we told from the inception of this building in 1905. And this tension or push and pull of having different types of housing other than single detached houses is relevant and is current today as it was over a hundred years ago. Our primary purpose for heritage, in this case, we’d say the general umbrella of conservation, is the identification of the cultural heritage and the other is the actual legal protection. Finally, it is the recognition and celebration and promotion of it.
Charlotte: I just wanted to add that I am aware of this issue of access, as are the other tenants. I think at least Bobby and myself are making, this is obviously ad hoc and not something where consistency might be possible, but we’ve made every effort to invite people in. Two young men living nearby have stopped me in the street because they saw and loved the movie and I told them they were welcome–I think they were too shy. I invited a lady I met in the grocery store, also a fan of the film. We’ve had architects, designers, architectural historians and artists in.
Tamara: I introduced Charlotte to Brigitte Shim. She was reintroducing a housing module that she did at U oF T architecture 20 years ago. She was very interested in seeing the film that she would like to have her students, 90 students or something [visit the building].
Charlotte: Well maybe more like 60. I think it was 60.
HV: Tamara can you talk about some of the wider reactions you’ve heard, from those who have seen the film? Has anyone talked to you about it?
Tamara I think the compliment to the director, Jamie Kastner, has been that this is a story that is inclusive and that it is not just about heritage advocates. I think from the perspective of a tenant, the ecosystem of that building – including the owner, I have only had positive responses, that it wasn’t just a history story about Sir Henry Pellatt lived in this building. I think it enriches the story and understanding of a place and my team when we were doing the evaluation of the building, it was not really about the tenants themselves, but it was about how the building has been resilient as a form. I found it interesting how the layouts had remained the same, they hadn’t been chopped up. It wasn’t about restoration, as in recreating a space as you can sometimes see, like in New York, The Tenement House Museum or things like that…
This is an endearing building that has for 115 years stayed as it is, to the point of the novelty of the elevator. But I think what was more interesting was the basement level or the lower level and the connection of the two buildings and having daylight in the lower level units – a variety of things. I think people react to how brave the tenants were. Both Bobby and Charlotte, as well as the other tenants shared their life and especially Charlotte, advocating to City Hall that there was something that was important about this building. It was about tenants rights but it went beyond that…
I actually had it as a teaching moment, because this project happened in the height of COVID, and we did not really have the same ability or the time to talk about these things very much. Three people were dedicated to this project – just to say that I did it as a training and learning opportunity with my current team of 15 staff and showed the film. Bobby and Charlotte came in and I was amazed, and yes of course my team was interested in the architecture, but I think they were interested in what Charlotte and Bobby did and applauded them for being so brave.
HV: I guess that draws to the first question I had for you: what do you think the film represents? Is it a heritage issue? Is it a housing issue?
Tamara I would say rarely is heritage ever a singular issue and what is interesting is that in this circumstance there are a lot of apartment buildings and walk up buildings in this city that we have not yet had the opportunity to look at them as in, what is the heritage of those apartment buildings versus something like Spadina Gardens – which I think is a very grand building, it lends itself to being architecture in the essence of what is historic architecture. But what happens when it is an apartment building that is not as grand, and we have focused in the city of Toronto on grand buildings – grand apartment buildings. I think cultural heritage value, the issue of sustainability, why tear down old buildings that are functioning well, affordability of housing – there is a whole nexus that I see as another chapter in the story. And I think that one of the things I did like about the story was the perspective of Rachel, about housing security and how it is not just about these grand apartments that people perceive as being luxury apartments. Although the definition of luxury is quite a different term now – you would have an indoor swimming pool right now if you were in a luxury apartment.
So we are looking at what the city of Los Angeles has done – what they call these historic context statements – and we are looking at trying to see what we can do for our own apartment buildings in the city of Toronto. Pre WWII and a Post War, because it is so different from the planning policy framework of housing after WWII. We haven’t got there yet, but it is something that will happen. It’s almost like– not that I am saying apartments are like places of worship but, there are so many associative values with a place of worship, that when that building is lost and that community value is lost, [we lose much more than the building]. We cannot save every place of worship, our society has changed significantly, in not going to religious facilities or places of worship (1:04:17). Is that corner lot or prominent piece of property something that could be used for a different purpose? – would be the future. And so the frequency or volume – the number of apartment buildings, the number of places of worship, we have to at some point do a comparative and ask which ones are of significance and which ones become something different in the future.
In heritage we are often about evolving with the times and places shouldn’t be cast in amber. I do think that in the case of apartment buildings that something is lost when it would be converted to not being a rental in the sense of housing. If you convert them to office or for not for profit space etc., the intangible will be lost. It’s a typology, we see it with industrial buildings too. With industrial, in the same way with tenancy of apartment buildings, I think that there is something that I am not sure about how appropriate adaptive re-use is, and I would love to see some continuity in housing in particular, that it continues to be something that can evolve in a way that you can accommodate existing use. Essentially if you have a live-work building previously, this building should allow for that.
Charlotte: As mentioned, we now have 3 or 4 young people in one of the units, and we have 3 young women living together on the second floor so it has changed here too in terms of shared living arrangements and younger people coming in and I think it is a very positive sign. So the community that is formed, the urban ecology in the building, it shifts and changes a bit all the time. It is a living vibrant thing and there is a lot of warmth and connection and value that comes from that. That would be hard to replicate, if you come in and renovate every single apartment, it’s not going to be the same thing.
Tamara: Well that’s a tribute to you and your tenants right? No legislation can impose a community.
HV: Something that is often said in housing debates is “Why do you think that your type of older building has community but newer buildings don’t have community?” What do you think of that?
Charlotte: But I didn’t say that. I think newer buildings can have a community. Why not? I suppose it goes back to the word “livable’–I know that’s become a bit of a NIMBY word. Anyway if places are livable, maybe people are tempted to be in the building more and not out so much, so they tend to bump into each other more and see each other and especially in some of those mid-century buildings where you got a big lobby, it’s a natural place for people to gather. Maybe if you are living in a condo where the units are very narrow and tiny, you would be out of the building more, mingling less with other tenants? So community might be easier in an older building because it’s more inviting for you to be there longer and see your neighbors more. But otherwise, I don’t see any reason why not? Maybe it could be groups of five floors getting together. The point is these communities exist and when you disrupt them radically, like you evict everyone and demolish the building, even if you say tenants can come back, are you going to be able to recreate that ecology? And particularly if you have different economic classes of tenants, will that work out well? Here, we now effectively have three different classes of tenants. It’s an interesting experiment– so far, so good actually!
Tamara: I think, certainly, the scale of a building would matter. At one point I lived in an amazing complex called the Manulife Centre, the floors I lived on, the elevators were divided for the lower and upper floors, we were fortunate to be on the upper floor elevator. And everyone knew each other because the ride was so long in the elevator, and you could say “good evening” or “hello” but I think also, being evocative of today’s society, especially even here in hybrid working, you are not seeing your colleagues in the same way as having morning coffee or bumping into them, whatever it might be. I think that it is great credit to a mature group who know how to be good neighbours and they are engaging with others in this other apartment building and welcoming young people into the building. I think that sense of community is engrained in a generation, or several generations and I don’t know if that’s the same now. Community is quite different now for university students or young people.
My dad had an antique boat, which was called a dippy, for 40 years. Beautiful little wooden boat, from the 1920s up in Muskoka, always broke down and there’s a man – a physicist who would repair all these boats – and he’d said the greatest thing about the dippy is that it always breaks down and everyone gets to see each other when the thing breaks down. And sometimes in old buildings, the water doesn’t work or the elevator doesn’t work, sometimes these quirky things bring a community together. And if everything ran perfectly and seamlessly you probably won’t see your neighbor.
Unfortunately I think the whole renovation of Spadina Gardens was beyond quirky. And it was a coalescence that you wouldn’t have done otherwise. We did a fun thing and we did a film night. From someone who was very hesitant to participate in this film, somehow I ended up being wooed by the exceptional person Charlotte. So I suggested a film night, not just to have Charlotte, Bobby and the director but why don’t we bring everyone from the film to this film night and it was like a family reunion. All of them hadn’t seen each other. It was very sweet to see them all come out.
I didn’t go to the premiere, but I went for a screening in the first month. And what was so wonderful was that the cinema that showed the film, was in the neighborhood and so everyone who was coming to the cinema – and it has gotten viewed online and has gotten streamed – but what was so wonderful was people talking and reacting after the film, because it was a building in their neighborhood. It was very special. Highly recommend something like that in Vancouver.