Skip to content

LETTERS: Heritage policy has problems

We support heritage conservation. Signs with this slogan have appeared in the Queen’s Park neighbourhood recently, and while this sentiment is easy to support at a glance, the actual policy under development has big implications for homeowners.

We support heritage conservation. 

Signs with this slogan have appeared in the Queen’s Park neighbourhood recently, and while this sentiment is easy to support at a glance, the actual policy under development has big implications for homeowners. Heritage activists have the city on the verge of limiting even minor modifications to our homes, ultimately driving property values down.

Our family has lived in Queen’s Park since 2001. We love the neighbourhood and value its heritage character. However, we cannot support the policy that is currently being considered by city council.

Many of our neighbours have gorgeous heritage homes whose heritage nature increases their value.  That’s not the case with our home, or many others in the area.

Our home was built in 1891 and has undergone many alternations to both its interior and exterior.  While some heritage features remain, we believe the heritage value of our home is low. On the market our home will bring the most value as a “tear down.”

The new policy would classify any home built before 1930 in the Advanced Protection category – based on age alone.  No consideration of heritage value would be made and of the 702 homes in Queens Park, 60 per cent (418) of them would be automatically placed in this category.  Advanced Protection means that strict restrictions would govern what changes could be made to the home.

Once a home is placed in Advanced Protection, homeowners face an uphill battle to reverse the decision with no compensation offered to homeowners who could see the value of their homes plummet hundreds of thousands of dollars.

An application to have the protection level reduced may cost the homeowner as much as $2,000. Any such requests can be denied by a heritage advisory committee, largely filled with heritage activists, on a number of subjective criteria including “cultural, spiritual, social, scientific or historical value.” 

We’re proud to call Queen’s Park home and it’s easy to get sentimental about the heritage of the area, but this sentiment may outweigh the practical considerations related to specific homes and their value. 

The future of our families is at stake.

Let’s make sure we make the right choice about this policy. Share your story with us at [email protected].

Lorne Hill, resident of Queen’s Park.