What happened with the Trend House at 48 Rathburn--a property of national architectural and historical significance--is, in its way, a bigger catastrophe than the Inn On The Park. Or (pending) the Bata Building. Maybe even than anything else, heritage-loss-wise, in post-amalgamation.
                It is more than a tragedy--it is a scandal. One has to reach for the depths of "preventable" personal tragedy--dead welfare babies, spousal abuse, tainted water supplies etc--for the proper metaphor. And like many such scandals, it may be just the straw to break the camel's back; that is, something to lead to the reform of Toronto's existing historical and heritage infrastructure. Even something as regrettable as the Inn On The Park demolition seems a potboiler red herring by comparison. This could be "the one".

A little background--first, on the house: http://www.mkurtz.com/trendhouse/history/globemail2004.html

It was important--but it was not "recognized". It's safe to say that pre-amalgamation Etobicoke totally lacked the heritage infrastructure capable of even acknowledging the house and its significance, or with the avenues by which such acknowledgment could ultimately "trickle up", so to speak. Not to over-implicate Etobicoke--after all, the concept of "modern heritage" was even more of a novelty at large pre-Y2K than today. But from experience, it's safe to say that, by and large, the usual historical-boardish cast of history buffs and community stalwarts that "represented" history and heritage in Etobicoke would have been, in and of itself, completely out of its depth and oblivious re the "historical" significance of the Trend House. Or if there would have been any inkling of its significance "from within", it would have been trapped within a Catch-22 of typical Etobicoke caution, don't upset the apple cart, best to stick with "century buildings" or owner-approval/solicitation, etc. And those who might have informed them otherwise would have been viewed with suspicion--as interlopers, not "of Etobicoke", so to speak. (Which might not always reflect well on the interlopers' persuasion techniques, either.) So, in this Potemkin-front heritage authority circumstance, the ethos ranged from well-meaning but neglected easy-mark amateurism, to a devil-may-care Etobicoke-knows-best "McMichael" reactionism (best expressed in the destructive kitschification of the Old Mill, which reflected an out-of-depthness re current acceptable heritage practice as well). Oh, it tried--but it never lived up to its competent potential; and whatever "positive" happened came almost in spite of the modus operandi.
                But that was then. After Y2K, and after a halting start (which saw nobody from the old Etobicoke Historical Board carry on into the newly-amalgamated Toronto Preservation Board, which is telling you something), things changed for the better--or at least, the "more promising". Trouble was, the "then" kept getting in the way, i.e. poorly-conceived existing building listings and empty files, an existing political and planning and bureaucratic structure still fatally overconditioned by the "old system", etc. Perhaps with a smattering of "now" in the form of post-amalgamation Toronto Preservation Board travails; but Etobicoke is definitely a case where heritage-body amalgamation was--or should have been--for the better, rather than for the worse.
                It was in this "more promising" atmosphere that the 48 Rathburn Trend House "came out of the closet", so to speak--and not just as an inside talking point. Indeed, buoyed by a 1995 SSAC Bulletin article, I made the initial approach to the owner in 2003--and what I found out, interestingly enough, is that, nobody had approached him about the house before I did. No architectural buffs. No heritage buffs. Nobody. It's like nobody knew...or if they did know (largely by being "of a certain age"), it was too wrapped up in one's personal anecdotes, or an overwrought "respect for the community", or the usual entrenched notions, to convey itself as of "historical importance". And 1952 wasn't 1852 (or 1752, or 1652...), y'know.
                It was a house of genuine, national significance. And from all apparent evidence, Etobicoke did not know. But miraculously, within a year, people knew--first through the Dave LeBlanc article linked above, and thence to its becoming a star attraction of Doors Open Toronto 2004. At long last, it was "recognized"--it seemed.
                But with a glitch. The owner loved the house and wanted it kept, but did not desire listing or designation. Recognizing the difficulty of tilting against Etobicoke's history of political heritage-unfriendliness (especially when it meant crossing the wishes of a property owner), and perhaps as a bow to the owner's advanced age, the Toronto Preservation Board aquiesced--but with an asterisk; that is, come the time when ownership's passed along, the TPB would be notified.
                It didn't happen. To everybody's surprise, the property was quietly sold in the spring of 2005--apparently for redevelopment. And it was almost as if Doors Open was a mirage--it had no effect whatsoever. Even the whereabouts of the owner and his family, the furniture, the documents, etc was unknown (as it turned out, he died this past February, subsequent to the move). It's like nobody in any authority made the effort to pick up and pursue the threads left by Doors Open--and even after all of that, "the community", or even the owner's family and offspring, had failed to grasp the gravity of it all. It might as well have been any old open house or "garden tour" type of event, for all anybody cared--it was over, life goes on.
                And then a shuddering silence--in the middle of which the Etobicoke-York Community Preservation Panel pursued the property in earnest, requesting that the TPB put it on the agenda ASAP due to the critical situation, or at least that Preservation staff monitor the property's status relative to current ownership, severance/demolition permits, etc, esp. given the property's evident importance and promises made with the previous owner.
                It never happened. Part of it may have been the TPB's current generalized reluctance (due to reasons of avoiding litigation and political quagmires) to list or designate for-sale or slated-for-redevelopment properties. But mainly, it was a consequence of the depleted/overworked state of the TPB, a victim of Toronto's continuing post-amalgamation financial crisis as well as the sheer scale of "heritage issues" at hand within the amalgamated city. Despite repeated demands, *no* work was done, 48 Rathburn got completely squeezed off all successive TPB agendas--and in the end, it was too late. It was found out that the demolition permit was issued at the end of January; and legally, the TPB was hogtied. And after a whole series of eleventh-hour false-start negotiations, including a designation request to be tabled at the current Etobicoke-York Community Council meeting--it was gone.
                A decade ago, this would have been a "catastrophe" born out of infrastructural naivety (and it would have been the proverbial tree falling in the forest which nobody hears). Now that the naivety no longer exists, it's a catastrophe born out of infrastructural depletion. Abject depletion. The threadbare neglect and inadequate structure of the City's municipal heritage body. It's like a patient dying, under the most apallingly stupid circumstances, as a result of an overworked health care system.
                But the Trend House's brief turn in the spotlight in 2004 has had one beneficial (albeit Pyrrhic) effect--it has elevated its loss into something much, much, more resonant, even iconic in its sheer and utter avoidable tragedy and stupidity, than it might otherwise have been.
                That's why I feel it's even "bigger" than the Inn On The Park--especially for what it could mean for the future, the positive future, of Toronto's municipal heritage infrastructure. It's the truest, most poignant martyr to the cause.

e-mail: adma(at)rogers.com

Toronto Architectural Conservancy