Sadly, yet another link to our proud and illustrious past is about to be defiled and sullied in the name of urban development and intensification.

185 and 197 Woodbridge Avenue, fondly known to area residents as the Thomas Wallace House (c. 1875) and the Dr. Peter McLean House (c.1893), respectively, will be gutted, lobotomized and put on display as FCF Old Market Lane 2013, Inc. (Cityzen Group) plans to erect a 119 unit behemoth of a condominium on these lands.

Although the developer is certainly within their rights to develop these lands, the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan only allows for a 4 storey structure and 1.0 floor space index. Even though this site is well under half a hectare in area, the builder plans on erecting 119 units in a 7 storey building, which is 3 times the allowable floor space.

As for the fate of our two heritage houses, they will have their additions removed, they will be gutted, “repurposed” and moved to the front of the subject property. The builder believes the design aesthetic of the new structure will complement the older buildings. In reality, a new design that surrounds and dwarfs the heritage structures pays them homage in the same way that an aluminum tree embodies the true spirit of Christmas. What the builder is selling as reverent will only come off as pathetic.

Now, here’s the kicker. The builder submitted an application that was far in excess of the Official Plan, so what have they done? They’ve submitted an offer to settle their appeal to amend the City of Vaughan Official Plan for the designation of this particular land on this particular sight that is in support of the density they’re after. AND the City of Vaughan, in turn, is in support of their appeal and, in essence, has paved the way for the builder to steamroll into the centre of the old Village of Woodbridge and disparage the dwindling ties to the area’s historical and cultural past.

To be fair, a development on these lands is and was inevitable. But how long must we continue to allow overreaching, overbearing and overly ambitious projects to negate the continuity and community of our established neighbourhoods? A four storey development may allow a modicum of chance that the historical ambience of the area can survive but a seven storey brick and glass edifice will unequivocally kill it.

Of the building’s design, on October 21, 2015 the Vaughan Heritage Committee stated that it was “institutional” and entirely “unsympathetic to the neighbourhood”.

I am opposed to allowing overdevelopment in historically significant areas.