During one of those late night stream-of-consciousness internet searches, I recently ran across the story of Colborne Street in downtown Brantford. It's a fascinating and complex cautionary tale that may hold some lessons for Milton.
At first glance, the situation is every heritage lover's nightmare: the expropriation and demolition of
41 commercial buildings along the south side of Colborne Street. Many pre-dated Confederation, including one that once housed the offices of Alexander Graham Bell.
Oddly, it seemed that many people were happy to see these old buildings reduced to rubble. They had apparently become so dilapidated that they were considered an eyesore that deterred from the otherwise healthy commercial, residential, and public space development that had been going on just across the street for the past decade.
I found it hard to believe that things were really that bad, but a quick check of Google Street View seems to bear this out. The images, taken before the buildings were finally abandoned and boarded up last winter, show that most of the storefronts were either empty or had been converted to ground floor apartments. The few businesses that did survive were typical of a downtown in its death throes: cheap diners, barber shops, thrift shops and cheque cashing joints.
I can understand the sentiments of those who won't shed a tear to see these buildings vanish. However, the real problem wasn't the buildings themselves, whatever their condition - it was the uses to which they had been allowed to be put.
This
Expositor article sheds considerable light on how things got to this point:
The current state of affairs on the south side of Colborne has its origins in the 1990s, when the deterioration of the old downtown had reached the point when the commercial element that was its main driver had so many empty storefronts it had lost its critical mass. Property values had plummeted and investors had fled the area.
In 1997, following a report entitled Downtown: A Time for Action, prepared by by the mayor's task force on downtown revitalization, zoning regulations for the downtown were changed in an interim control bylaw to allow commercial property owners to change their street level storefront space to residential.
The rationale was that the inability of the private sector to attract commercial investment had reached the point that any kind of development would be better to ensure some kind of use and occupation of the property rather than to leave it vacant and boarded up.
... In late 2004, though, as downtown revitalization gathered steam and property values began to rise, council and the Downtown BIA became concerned when landlords began to convert isolated individual storefronts to less desirable residential units not in keeping with its plan.
"The continuing trend of street-level residential uses has the potential to further negatively impact prospective development in the downtown core area," says the resulting staff report in June 2005.
"This includes the loss of BIA levies, as funds can only be used toward commercial properties and uses. The disjointed addition of street-level residential units takes away from potential commercial cluster areas.
"This is key, as it is important to maintain the interest of pedestrian traffic through continual and consistent storefront businesses. When there is a break in store-frontages, there is a potential loss of interest and pedestrian traffic."
In October 2005, council began moving, with the BIA's full support, to amend its zoning bylaw to prevent future conversions at street level.
That month, however, a report from the building department revealed that [property owner Steve] Kun had taken out building permits on 20 properties on the south side of the street, from 49 to 149 Colborne, to convert street-level commercial space to apartments and renovate upper floors.
...The majority of Kun's requested renovations had not yet been carried out but, because the permits had been issued, they were grandfathered when the the zoning bylaw amendment received final approval in November of that year.
The renovations were carried out gradually during 2006 and this year, so that most of the units were done and occupied by the time G.K. York's civic square private development and the public square reached completion. The two radically different forms of development are now fully apparent.
That one seemingly reasonable decision to allow ground floor apartments, made over a decade ago, resulted in a cascade of unintended consequences that ended in the commercial death of that stretch of downtown Brantford.
And it was a decision they were stuck with. The City couldn't force the property owners to re-convert the storefronts back to retail, and they couldn't justify expropriating them unless they planned to do something as radical as demolition.
The last of the buildings was demolished in August. The City of Brantford has no immediate plans for the land.
I'm not suggesting that downtown Milton is in any immediate danger of hitting the skids and being demolished. But there are elements of Brantford's story that do apply to Milton, particularly regarding non-conforming uses and issues around heritage planning.
One example: our current zoning doesn't allow for offices on the main floors of commercial buildings in the BIA area, for precisely the same reasons Brantford had disallowed apartments: they disrupt the flow and interest of pedestrian shoppers. And yet, historic downtown Milton has many storefront offices which have snuck through various loopholes. At least one third of the storefronts on the north side of Main are occupied by what most would describe as 'offices', but somehow these are permissible. One small loophole was closed recently by more strictly defining the term 'bank', but others still exist.
In terms of heritage, it might be useful to start with the suggestions in
this post on the Ontario Heritage Connection website. Remember, the only designated heritage property currently on Main Street is the old Town Hall where the Chamber of Commerce offices are now.
No other buildings on Main Street are protected as Heritage properties. If their owners suddenly decided they wanted to tear them down they would be required to undergo a Heritage Assessment, but there is nothing currently to prevent them from conducting 'demolition by neglect', as was the fate of the original Milton Bible Church building.
We are fortunate that so many of our downtown property owners are not only respectful of the heritage value of their buildings but are actively working to enhance them. But as Brantford has shown, it only takes a couple of negligent or unscrupulous owners to drag an entire downtown core down with them.
This is why, instead of taking a reactive and piecemeal approach to heritage designation, our town needs to create a Heritage Conservation District for downtown Milton.
905-299-5551
jsmithward2@gmail.com
