--- author: TVO Today date: '2026-09-22' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O4IkUR-c6I speaker: TVO Today tags: - heritage-conservation - urban-planning - housing-policy - municipal-bylaw - environmental-protection title: 保护老树与历史建筑：安大略省住房开发与城市遗产保护的博弈 summary: 本期节目探讨了多伦多市更新私有树木保护附例以加大对老树保护与违规伐树处罚，以及安大略省通过《加快建设更多住房法案》修订《安大略遗产法》对未正式指定的“登记”历史建筑设立强制移出期限所引发的城市风貌保护与住房开发冲突，专家指出政策调整面临的执法与行政资源困境。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: politics-society area: society-thinking project: [] people: [] companies_orgs: [] products_models: [] media_books: [] status: evergreen --- ### 砍树新规与违规代价 **杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 假设你想在后院建一个漂亮的超大露台，但眼前摆着一个难题——正中间立着一棵大树。你能直接把它砍掉吗？嗯，这得视情况而定。砍树可是一件严肃的大事。在**多伦多**，随着该市对相关**附例**（bylaw）的最新修订，这件事变得更加严肃了。所以，赶紧拿出你的卷尺量一量吧。如果那棵树的**直径超过 61 厘米**，那么一旦你打算自己私下“解决”掉它，你将面临更加严苛的审批流程和更为严重的法律后果。而如果你选择不砍树，市政府甚至可能会出钱补贴你来帮助保护它。我们稍后会深入探讨这一切，以及这些政策调整将如何落地推行。 然而，这仅仅是保护历史风貌与推进城市开发之间紧张关系的一个缩影。另一个典型例子是什么呢？那就是**历史建筑遗产**（heritage properties）。随着安大略省对**《安大略遗产法》**（Ontario Heritage Act）的修改，部分历史建筑将在 2027 年失去法律保护。目前政策的目标是降低建房门槛、加快建设更多住房，但在这个过程中，我们又可能会失去什么？我是**杰伊·杰甘纳森**（Jay Jagan），欢迎收看《概要》（The Rundown）。 好了，让我们先回到树木的话题。多伦多市最近强化了其城市附例，并出台了全新的激励措施。那么，对于生长在你自己物业上的树木，你究竟拥有怎样的处置权？一座城市为了保护一棵在产权上“属于你”的树木，究竟能把管辖权延伸到什么程度？**托德·欧文**（Todd Irvine），你是一位**树艺师**（arborist），而且据我了解，在 2004 年多伦多制定**私有树木附例**（private tree bylaw）时，你起到了非常重要的推动作用。因此，由你来和我们聊聊这项法规的最新修订再合适不过了。为什么现在正是进行更新的节点呢？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Okay, let's say you want to build a nice big deck in your backyard. There's just one problem. There's a tree in the way. Can you cut it down? Well, it depends. Cutting down a tree is serious business. And in Toronto, and it just got more serious with some updates to the city's bylaw. So, get out your tape measure. And if that tree is more than 61 cmters in diameter, you're looking at a tougher process and more serious consequences if you decide to well take care of it yourself. And if you don't want to cut it down, the city may actually pay you to help protect it. We get into all of that and how these changes are playing out. And this is just one example of the tension between preservation and development. What's another heritage properties? Changes to the province's Heritage Act means some will lose protection as of 2027. Now, the goal is to make it easier to build more housing, but what could we lose in the process? I'm Jay Jagen. Welcome to the rundown. Okay, let's get back to the trees. Toronto recently beefed up its bylaws and introduced new incentives. So, what exactly can you do with a tree on your property? And how far should a city be able to go to protect a tree you technically own? Todd Irvin, you're an arborist and as I understand, influential in the creation of the private tree bylaws in Toronto back in 2004. So, it only makes sense that we talk to you about sort of the recent updates to this. Why was it time for an update?
**托德·欧文**: 是的，正如你所说，多伦多的私有树木附例最初是在 2004 年完成整合协调的。多伦多实际上有三项树木相关的附例。这项私有树木附例之所以在 2004 年生效，是因为当时市内保护树木的需求极为迫切，而多伦多在这一领域一直走在前列。我们是全北美最早推行此类法规的城市之一，随后这种做法被整个大多伦多地区（GTA）乃至北美各地的城市广泛借鉴。然而，我们自己的附例却多年没有进行大的更新。虽然中途经历过一些微调，但大家普遍觉得现在是时候进行一次全面升级了，毕竟这项附例已经实施了整整 22 年。所以他们启动了这项修订。
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Yeah, as you said, the bylaw was first harmonized in 2004, the private tree bylaw. There's actually three bylaws in Toronto. Uh the private tree bylaw was brought into effect um in 2004 because there was a need to protect trees in the city and Toronto was at the forefront. Like we were one of the first cities to do it and then it's been replicated all over North America and all over the GTA, but ours has not been updated. There have been small revisions, but they felt like this was the time when they needed to do an update just to meet the fact that it's been around for 22 years. So that's what they did.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 当我们提到“私有”这个词时，为了向观众明确概念，我们指的是生长在市民私有物业上的树木，比如前院或后院里的树。好的，让我们来看一下这次附例的三项核心更新：第一，树桩的测量数据现在可以作为非法砍伐树木的法律证据；第二，新栽种的替代树木将立即受到附例保护；第三，市政府工作人员拥有更大的自由裁量权，可以拒绝批准砍伐直径超过 61 厘米的健康树木。看来 61 厘米是这次讨论的核心数字。这些调整是如何让这项附例变得更有约束力的呢？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: When we mention uh private, just to clarify, we're talking about trees on people's private properties, in their backyards, and their front yards. All right. Um let's have a look at uh three updates to the bylaw. Uh one of them is stump measurements can be used as evidence in illegal tree removal. New replacement trees are immediately protected and city staff have greater authority to deny permits to remove healthy trees over 61 cm in diameter. It seems like that's the number that we're focusing on here. How do these changes uh make the bylaw stronger?
**托德·欧文**: 嗯，前两项调整主要是为了解决有人钻附例空子的问题。这并不是针对那些守法的市民——绝大多数人都懂得树木的重要性并且自觉遵守规则。但是，确实有一些人未经许可就砍树，往往是建筑商或者出于自身利益想除掉树木的人。以前他们擅自把树砍了，市政府根本没有有效的取证手段来进行执法。等执法人员赶到现场时，地上只剩下一个光秃秃的树桩。因此市政府现在规定：我们将直接测量那个树桩，如果树桩达到一定尺寸（比如 40 厘米，因为附例保护的是胸径 30 厘米的树木），我们就可以据此判定该树木属于非法砍伐。这正是为了堵死这种先斩后奏的行为。
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Well, again, this the first two especially are just about addressing the fact that people were taking advantage of the bylaw. So, it's not for the people that were doing what they were supposed to do, which is and most people do. They recognize the importance of it and they follow the rules. Um, but there were people that were cutting down trees, often builders or people that wanted to cut a tree down for reasons that serve their purpose. Uh, and they would cut down without a permit. And so, the city didn't had a way to enforce that. and then they would go and show up and all they'd have left was the stump. So, they're saying, you know, we're going to use that stump and we're going to measure that and if that stump is a certain size, 40 centimeters, because the bylaw protects 30 cm trees, uh we're going to say that tree was cut down illegally and so that's to stop that from happening.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 也就是说，如果以前市府人员进入某个物业现场，看到的只有一个残余的树桩，当时是没有任何追责手段的吗？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: So, if uh someone from the city went into the property, saw that stump, was there any recourse there?
**托德·欧文**: 以前确实毫无追责办法。所以他们现在正在做的，就是补齐这些监管漏洞。在 22 年前起草附例时，大家根本没有预料到会有这种漏洞，后来意识到这是一个严重问题，因此现在正在着手予以解决。
Original English **Todd Irvine**: There wasn't previously. So, that so this is what they're doing. They're trying to fill those. They didn't foresee that when they started the bylaw 22 years ago, and they recognized that was a problem. So, they're trying to address that.
### 树木年龄与补偿植树 **杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 好的。常言道永远不要打听一棵树的年龄，但我们现在要调出一张图表。这张图表清晰地展示了一棵树的直径能告诉我们关于树龄的哪些信息。当然需要说明的是，根据树种的不同，具体的计算方式也会有所差异。这里我们重点关注**红橡树**（red oak tree），这是安大略省自然景观中极为常见的一种树，比如在多伦多的**高地公园**（High Park）里随处可见。
Original English **Jay Jagen**: All right. They say you should never ask a tree its age, but uh we're going to pull up a graph. This graph shows what a tree's diameter can actually tell us. Now, we should mention that uh depending on the species, um the math varies. Uh so, we are here focusing on the red oak tree. Uh this is one that is quite common in Ontario's landscapes. If you look in High Park, for example, here in Toronto.
**托德·欧文**: 没错，确实如此。
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Yeah. Yeah.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 它们就在那里，非常优美壮观。正如大家在这张图表顶部所看到的，一棵胸径 60 厘米的红橡树，树龄大约在 **100 岁**左右；如果顺着图表往回看，一棵胸径 30 厘米的树，树龄大约处于中间的 45 到 50 岁。如果有人私有物业上的这种百年大树被允许砍伐，官方要求补种的 **5 棵替代树苗**真的能等同于失去这棵大树的价值吗？毕竟这可是一百年的生态与历史积淀，而我们仅仅用五棵幼苗来替代。
Original English **Jay Jagen**: They're there. Beautiful. As you can see at the top of this graph here, a 60 cm and we're talking diameter. Verettto can be roughly a 100red years old. And if we scale back on that graph, you can see 30 cm in diameter. We're looking at about midway 45 50 uh years old here. If a removal of a tree like this on someone's property is allowed, um do they say the the five replacement saplings that uh people are required to plant equal the value of that? because this is a hundred years of history here and we're replacing a five samples.
**托德·欧文**: 对，这也是本次修订的核心要点之一。这里涉及你提到的两件事：第一件是你刚才指出的，直径超过 60 厘米的树木现在在附例中享有更高层级的保护。以往所有的树木都是一视同仁的。我们必须明白，附例并不是一刀切地禁止砍伐所有树木。市民需要提交申请，并且十有八九是能拿到许可的——如果树木已经不健康、结构存在安全隐患，或者你要进行合规施工，通常都会获批。但也有一些申请会被断然拒绝，因为这些树木非常健康，或者体量极为庞大。 正因你刚才所说的理由，60 厘米被认定为一个分水岭：一棵树长到这个尺寸需要整整一百年，其生态价值无可估量。因此现在的附例进行了修订，对这些树木给予更强有力的保护。这意味着，如果你打算给房屋扩建加盖，以前只要符合规划分区法规（zoning）你想怎么建就怎么建；但现在市政府会说：在某些涉及这些百岁老树的情况下，我们要极力保全它们，你或许需要微调地基的轮廓来避开树根。以前我做树艺师时就经常这么干，我们会采用打桩架空（piers）等非常巧妙的技术手段来保住这些老树。 这项附例调整的另一大变化在于违规成本的计算。以前如果有人擅自无证砍伐树木——现实中最头疼的就是违规偷砍——市政府唯一的硬性追责手段就是强制要求他们补种 5 棵树作为生态补偿。虽然后续也可以罚款（我们稍后会细谈），但基本的补偿规则就是“损一赔五”。无论是砍伐一棵 30 厘米的树，还是砍伐一棵直径达 150 厘米、堪称全城最古老的参天古树，居然都是赔 5 棵树苗！这显然是荒谬的，5 棵小树苗绝不可能替代一棵百岁参天大树。大树带来的生态效益极其巨大，而且需要上百年才能重新长成。 因此，市政府彻底重构了补偿规则，现在**完全根据树木直径来计算补偿数量**。例如，如果砍伐一棵直径 150 厘米的古树，当事人可能需要补种多达 **23 棵替代树木**！显然，普通的私有庭院根本容纳不下这么多树木，所以法规允许采用“以金钱代补偿”（cash in lieu）的方式，目前标准为**每棵 583 加元**。市政府会将这笔资金专门用于在城市公园或急需绿化的地方植树，从而充实和改善整个城市森林。
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Yeah. And this is one of the revisions is that well there's two things you mentioned one already is that trees over 60 cm now have a different level of protection under the bylaw. Before all trees were protected the same. And we have to recognize that bylaws don't just stop all trees from being cut down. You have to apply and you often get a permit. And often nine times out of 10 you will be allowed if the tree is unhealthy, if it's structurally unsound, if you're building something. But um there are times where those trees are denied a permit because they're healthy or they're very large. So 60 cm though has been determined as a tree that's of more value for the reasons you just said. They takes 100 years to get that size. And so the bylaw has now changed to protect those trees in a greater way. So what that means is if you're going to put an addition on your house, before you could as long as you were allowed to through the zoning, but now the city is saying, well maybe in some instances where those big old trees, we're going to try to protect them and maybe you can slightly revise the footprint of your foundation to protect that. And I used to do that as an arborist, we would find these fun ways to put them on peers and stuff to to save those trees. And another part of that bylaw change is that previously if you say cut down a tree without permission, that's the issue is that people would cut down a tree without permission. They would the only recourse the city had was to charge them make them plant five trees as compensation. They could find them and we can talk about that but the main thing was five trees for one tree lost and that was for a tree that was 30 cmters they would do that but for a tree that was 150 the oldest tree potentially in the city had the same recourse and absolutely not five trees does not replace a 100-y old tree. The benefits that that tree provides is immense but also it takes 100 years to replace it. So now the city's revised that and it's now based on diameter. So if the tree is 150 centimeters for instance, there could be as much as 23 trees replacement. Wow. Which they can't necessarily fit all those on the property, but they can do what's called cash in loo, which is $583. And what that city does will take that money and use that money to plant trees in city parks or or where it can benefit the urban forest.
### 执法梯度与高额罚款 **杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 好的，既然你提到了钱，那我们就来聊聊具体的行政处罚。从最低档的罚款到最高档的处罚，处罚力度大概是怎样分布的？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Okay. Well, you brought up money. So let's talk about some of the penalties there. So for we're looking on on the low end of a penalty to the high end, where are we looking?
**托德·欧文**: 据我了解，市政府通常采取“三步走”的处置阶梯。第一步是**普法教育**（education）。因为保护树木不仅仅是不去砍掉它，还包括在施工期间给予妥善防护——最常见的措施就是设立围栏，保护树木的根系免遭机械碾压和破坏。如果你把树根铲断了，整棵树都可能倒塌。假设某人只是无意中忘了立防护围栏，或者围栏被风吹倒了，市府巡查人员通常只是上前善意提醒：“请把围栏立好，没问题吧？”这就是第一步。 但第二步就更具约束力了。如果市府人员不得不跑来三次警告你，他们就会说：“听着，我们每次派人来现场检查都是有成本的，这笔执法检查费将由你承担。”他们会直接将这笔高达 **900 加元**的巡查费附加到你的**地税账单**（property tax bill）上，因为市府花费了人力工时来纠正你的违规。此外，如果他们发现你已经严重切断了树根，导致该树存在倒塌伤人的结构性危险，市府还会勒令你自掏腰包把树彻底移除，并强制要求你补种新的树木。 第三步则是针对最恶劣情形的司法罚款：罚金起步通常为 500 加元，**最高可达 10 万加元**。而在最极端的情况下，如果当事人通过违法伐树获得了直接的经济利益——比如砍掉大树以便腾出空间建造原本无法获批的建筑结构——法院还可以追加裁决**额外 10 万加元的特别罚款**！但大家必须清楚，市政府自身并没有直接开出顶格巨额罚单的权力。市府必须向法院提起诉讼，由法官根据案件的具体情节最终裁定罚款数额。市府通常不会直接寻求顶格的 10 万加元处罚，而是综合考量：这棵树有多大、生态后果有多严重、之前是否警告过三次、当事人是否有多次违规前科等。不过现实数据往往显示……
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Well, the the one thing is that the understanding is the city my understanding is that they have kind of three steps. One is education. Maybe you because one of the issues with tree protection is not just not cutting them down. It's protecting them during construction which often putting up a fence which protects the roots of the trees so they don't get disturbed. You cut the roots tree can fall over. So say someone just forgot to put the fence up or they didn't it fell down. The city might just go and say listen put the fence up. We're good. Right? The second one though they can go in and say okay this is three times we've told you you know what we're going to now charge you for the cost of us coming doing the inspection. They'll put that right on their tax bill. $900. It can be as high as because they're saying, "We're spending the time to come and try to fix this." Um, but they can also say, "Well, you know what? You cut all the roots of this tree. It's now dangerous. It could fall down. So, we want you to you're now going to have to cut that tree down at your expense and you're going to have to plant new trees." So, that's another part of it. But then the third thing they can do in the worst case scenarios is they can issue a fine anywhere from 500 up to a h 100,000. And in worst case scenarios, an extra hundred if thousand if they were benefiting in some financial way like they were cutting a tree down so they could build something that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to. But you have to understand that that process they have to actually the city can't just issue the fine. They have to then go to court. They have to make a recommendation to the the court and then the justice will then determine what they will set that fine at. And the city won't go straight to the 100,000. They rarely do that. They will set it based on okay this tree was this size. It had this consequence. We warned them three times. They've done this before. So the fines can move from but the reality is I looked it up in like
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 我查阅过数据，在 2021 年到 2024 年之间，多伦多市平均每年开出的此类司法罚单也就 **30 起**左右，对吧？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: they're they're averaging in the last like between 2021 and 2024 like 30 such fines a year. Okay?
**托德·欧文**: 是的，因为对簿公堂是万不得已的“终极手段”。只有针对那些肆无忌惮、屡教不改的真正违法狂徒，市府才会走到司法起诉这一步。毕竟走完整的法庭程序对市政府来说耗时极其漫长、成本十分高昂，所以他们更倾向于通过前述的其他执法手段来解决问题。
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Because that's like the last straw. And so those are the real scoff laws that are breaking the rules all the time. They will go that route because it's a lot of time for the city to go through that. So they try to do it in these other ways.
### 私有树木与城市遮阴 **杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 对很多市民来说，记忆犹新的是此前有一场罕见的严重风暴袭击了安省部分地区，尤其是多伦多。当时我们看到许多私人物业上的树木轰然倒塌，砸毁汽车、瘫痪道路交通。在这样的大背景下，为什么针对私有土地上的树木砍伐规则，在这座城市会引起如此高度的重视？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Well, for a lot of people, you know, there was a major storm that that hit parts of this province, um, Toronto especially. We saw many privately owned trees topple crushing cars, uh, blocking traffic. Why do rules around tree removal on private property matter so much in this city?
**托德·欧文**: 是的。首先许多人可能没有意识到，在多伦多，整整 **55% 的树木都生长在私有土地上**。城市中私有土地的面积远多于公共土地。大家总是下意识地抱怨：“市政府为什么不对树木做更多保护工作？”但事实是，很多树木根本不在市府直接管辖的公有土地上。 我对这个问题的理解是：城市树冠是一项**全民共享的公共资源**（shared resource）。这层绿荫覆盖了整座城市，在气候变化日益严峻的今天，它为我们带来了不可思议的生态效益，尤其是缓解城市热岛效应。它给整座城市降温，为我们的住宅阻挡烈日，保护孩子们免受强烈紫外线照射而患上皮肤癌。大树就像天然的巨型空调，一整天都在持续不断地从地下抽取水分蒸腾降温。这是一件极其非凡的自然奇迹。因此，我们每一个人都负有共同保护它的责任。 打个比方：如果所有居民的后院都背靠着同一条河流，任何一个邻居都不能因为河流流经自己家后院，就随意往河里倾倒油漆和化学废料，因为这会污染所有人共享的水质。城市树冠同理，它是一项共享资源，人人都有义务去维护它。这就是这项附例的核心宗旨——为共享资源提供制度保护。 而且必须特别澄清：附例绝非强制要求市民保留一棵已经枯死、腐朽或存在结构性危险的危树。附例针对的是那些健康状况良好、具有巨大生态价值的宝贵树木。在你不假思索地挥动电锯把它砍倒之前，我们希望通过法定程序引入专业的“第二意见”，共同评估这棵树是否真的非砍不可；如果确实需要砍除，市府会按规程向你核发许可证。
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Yeah. Well, I mean, the first thing is we don't realize this, but, um, 55% of trees are on private property. So, there's a lot of land that's private. More land is private than public. So, we always assume like, why is the SA not doing more for the trees? Well, none of many of them are not their own. And the way I think of it is it's a shared resource. This tree canopy covers our whole city. It has this incredible benefit to us in times of climate change primarily because of the heat. It keeps our cities cool. It keeps our houses cool. It protects our kids from getting skin cancer. It's like this the pulling water up from the ground all day and keeping us cool. It's a remarkable thing. So, we all have a responsibility. kind of the way I think about it is if we all have a river that our house backs onto, one neighbor can't pour paint and chemicals into that river because it pollutes it for all of us. So the idea is that it's a shared resource. We all should protect it. And so the bylaw's goal is to provide that for protection. And it should be very clear that it's not saying that you must keep a dangerous tree or a structurally unsound tree. What it's saying is these trees, if they're good health and they're an incredible valuable resource. So before you just cut it down without much thought, let's first take a second opinion here and decide whether it really needs to come down and if so we'll give you that permit.
### 树木寿命与执法瓶颈 **杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 我一直很好奇——这听起来可能像个外行傻问题，但我觉得面对一位树艺师，你是最适合回答这个问题的人：树木究竟有没有天然的寿命极限？难道活到 120 岁就自然走向生命终点了吗，还是说更多取决于外部因素？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: I am curious uh may sound like a dumb question but I feel like asking an arborist is the person I should be asking this. Um do trees have a a lifespan do they just you know at 120 is it end of life or is it other factors?
**托德·欧文**: 问得非常好！虽然表面看起来有点简单，毕竟树是有生命的有机体，生命自然会有尽头；但树木极其奇妙的地方在于，它们是**地球上体型最大、寿命最长的生物**。世界上最古老的树木寿命长达数千年——真的是几千年之久！树木能够活非常漫长的岁月。现实中，有些树种能活一百年，有些树种可能五十年就是极限；但核心规律是：生长环境越优越、受到的照料越细致，树木活得就越久。 例如在亚洲很多古刹寺庙前，有许多被悉心呵护了一两千年的古树依然生机勃勃；还有一些生长在悬崖峭壁石缝中的耐寒树木，树龄甚至长达 4,000 年。它们确实能存活极长时间。 但在城市环境中，情况截然不同。城市里的树虽然也有机会得到悉心照料而长寿，但它们同时承受着大量极为残酷的负面冲击：铺设新庭院露台时树根被野蛮斩断、严重的空气污染、地表大面积硬化导致土壤极其干旱缺水等。在某些层面上，城市树木的生存境遇比野外残酷得多，但如果有人精心照料，也可以生长得很好。 这项附例的初衷正是为了确认这些树木不可替代的生态价值，构筑起制度屏障，以免我们永久丧失这些资源。因为很多时候，树木被砍伐的理由荒谬而草率：比如有人仅仅抱怨“哎呀，到了秋天落叶掉得到处都是真烦人”，于是找了个伐木工人随手就给砍了。天哪，那可是一棵历经上百年风雨才长成的大树！让我们先慢下来、冷静思考一下我们在做什么，或许完全可以通过修剪或调整设计等其他方式把树保下来。
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Yeah, I mean it's a great question and it seems silly because it's a living thing so of course as lifesimmit but what's amazing about trees is they're the largest and longest living thing on earth. Like the oldest trees are in the thousands of years like thousands. Um and so they can live a very long time. And the reality is is that it's just they they other trees can live 100 years. Some trees live 50 years. But the reality is they the long the the better the growing conditions, the better the care, the longer they can live. So like trees, there's trees in in front of temples in in parts of Asia that are, you know, thousand 2,000 years old and they've been cared for. There's other trees that are growing on the sides of a crag of rock that are 4,000 years old. So they can live a very long time. But in an urban setting, it's a little different. So yes, they can be very well cared for and live a very long time, but they can also be under a lot of negative impacts. Roots being cut to put in a new patio, um you know, pollute air pollution, um not being properly watered because it's really droughty because there's lots of hard surfaces. So, in some ways, it can be a much harder for a tree in the city, but it can also be much better. Uh, and the bylaw is just about recognizing the value these trees provide and providing those protections so we don't lose this resource because often trees are cut down for reasons that aren't necessarily well thought out. Someone just like, oh, there was some leaves falling and it really bothered me, so this guy said he cut it down and it's gone. Well, this thing is potentially a hundred years old. Let's just take our time and think about what we're doing here and maybe this tree could be saved in another way.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 关于这项附例，外界普遍担忧的一个核心痛点在于它是否真的有“威慑獠牙”，也就是我们一直在讨论的**现场执法效能**。面对多伦多如此庞大的树木体量，加之市政府还制定了宏伟的城市树冠扩张和日常维护目标，这些新规将对市府的执法履职能力带来怎样的挑战？据我所知，身边很多居民在发现自家树木健康出问题时，都曾向市府求助，希望派人前来进行健康评估，但往往遭遇漫长的推诿和延误。在这种行政资源瓶颈下，严厉的执法究竟如何落地？未来是否会出现严重的监管跟不上的问题？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Uh, one concern um about this bylaw is whether it has teeth um and is the enforcement part that we were talking about. How might these new updates challenge the city's uh capacity uh to make sure that these rules are being followed? As we talked about the mass amount of trees that we have, the city is trying to grow that canopy as well, the maintenance of this. Uh I know lots of people anecdotally who have, you know, had some trees. They're like, I I would love the city to come in and check on its health. uh met with delays uh and time. How where does the enforcement come in this? Is there going to be some issues with it?
**托德·欧文**: 坦白讲，在纯粹的执法机制层面，附例目前并未发生翻天覆地的重组，主要是对特定体量（61 厘米以上）的树木增加了更高的保护权重。市民过去常常抱怨市府派员响应迟缓，这种现象在其他各类市政服务中也屡见不鲜。 客观来说，有时候责任在于**市议会**（City Council）和市议员们自己：他们一方面在选区对居民高呼“我们要保护每一棵树！我们要加强监管！社区居民对毁树很愤怒！”，但另一方面为了迎合选民，他们又坚决要求“维持低税率、绝不给行政部门增加预算拨款”。这导致一线部门陷入巧妇难为无米之炊的困境。 不过，市府内部对这个问题是有清晰认知的，过去几年也做出了很多改进努力。市府此前的**内部审计**（audit）显示，过去的监管执法确实存在严重盲区：守法市民辛辛苦苦走审批、花钱围护树木，而隔壁邻居违规偷砍却无人问津。因此，市府近年来专门成立并强化了专职执法队伍。 我们刚才讨论的大幅提高补偿植树数量，本身就是一种极具分量的经济激励机制，迫使违规者三思而后行。不仅如此，市府还在研判明年可能推出的后续修订方案：比如建立公开的“黑名单”记录制度，将违规砍树并被法院定罪裁决的个人或商业承包公司予以**公开曝光**（public records），让广大业主在请人时明确知道“这家公司有严重违规劣迹，我绝不雇佣他们”。 此外，市府还在考虑修改司法罚款的设定逻辑——虽然顶格罚款依然是 10 万加元，但在实际定罪量刑中，要大幅提升实际判罚的基准金额。因为过去我们遗漏了一个关键经济驱动：你仅仅根据树木的尺寸和健康状况来评估生态损失，但如果某个屋主把老树砍掉是为了腾出地方加建一个**私家停车位**（parking pad），而在多伦多房产交易中，带车位的独立屋售价可能直接暴涨 **10 万加元**！如果违法收益如此巨大，几千块钱的小打小闹罚款根本无法起到任何遏制作用。 因此，派遣人员挨家挨户跟踪核查全城数百万棵树木确实极其耗时耗资，是一项无比艰巨的任务。但多伦多认识到了树木的无可替代性，这项工作绝对物有所值。市府正是希望通过大幅抬高违法成本、打痛经济收益，形成强大的源头威慑，从而减少事后繁重的执法奔波。从源头上让人们不敢擅自下斧，这才是最终目标。
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Yeah, I mean the bylaw hasn't changed so much as far as enforcement presently because there are these additional protection for the one type of tree. Um but there's always been that complaint that sometimes it takes a while for the city to get out there just like other any city service. Um and sometimes this is a fault of the the council and the council councilors themselves, city council because they will say we want these trees protected. We want more protection. my ne my my um um um people in my neighborhood are upset. So they instead say, "Well, we want more protection, but they also want to keep taxes low." So they say, "No more money." So it makes it hard for the city sometimes. But there's a recognition there. And there has been many efforts to improve that. The city in in because of a previous audit of looking at the bylaw found that they weren't properly enforcing. So people that were following all the rules, their trees, they were they were doing all the rules, paying the money, then right next door, someone was doing something wrong. So now the city has an enforcement component. Um and part of this and they've been doing that for several years and part of the bylaw revisions is to as we discussed increase the amount of trees they need to provide compensation which is an increased incentive to do better. Uh but there's also looking at further revisions coming in the new year potentially where they're going to make like public records of people that um or you know corporations that cut down trees and and had uh decisions against them so that people will know I'm not going to hire that company. They did something wrong. Uh there's also look at potentially changing the fees um those those um fines that are potentially possible up to 100,000. Not making necessarily more, but making the ones that they do issue higher because there one of the things we hadn't considered is that you look at the size of the tree, the health of the tree, and you determine a the cost that tree provides. But what if that person's cutting the tree down which then allows them to put in a parking pad that can make them $100,000 if they sell that house? Well, no fine's going to cover that. So there's those considerations as well. So yes, it's a hard thing to do to send people out and tracking all these trees and it does take the city some time and it costs some money, but I think it's worth it and uh the city recognizes that and they are trying these other techniques such as higher fines so they don't have to do as much enforcement because people don't cut the trees down in the first place. That's the goal,
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 说得太对了！托德，这次对话非常深刻、干货满满。非常感谢你的专业分享，受益匪浅。
Original English **Jay Jagen**: right? Fair enough, Todd. This was very insightful. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
**托德·欧文**: 非常感谢你的邀请，聊得很愉快！
Original English **Todd Irvine**: Thanks so much for having me. It's great.
### 历史建筑：登记与指定 **杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 好的，让我们从城市古树转向历史建筑，以及现行制度如何对它们进行保护。早在 2022 年，安大略省通过了**《加快建设更多住房法案》**（More Homes Built Faster Act，即第 23 号法案），对《安大略遗产法》进行了一系列重大修订，其核心目标很直白——那就是“以更快的速度建设更多住宅”。现在时间正在一分一秒流逝，全省各市镇必须在 **2027 年 1 月 1 日**之前完成合规整改，但并非清单上的每一处历史物业都能继续享有保护地位。 **迈克尔·麦克莱兰**（Michael McClelland），非常高兴能邀请你来到《概要》节目！你是 **ERA 建筑师事务所**（ERA Architects）的主任建筑师，该事务所长期深耕于建筑遗产保护领域；而你本人不仅在城市规划领域拥有长达 30 年的深厚积淀，在城市设计方面同样造诣颇深。请帮我们理清思路，你绝对是剖析这个议题的最佳人选：各市镇最初究竟是如何跟踪和管理那些具有文化遗产价值的建筑资产的？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Okay, let's move from old trees to old properties and what's in place to protect them. Back in 2022, the More Homes Built Faster Act made some changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, aiming to well, get more homes built faster. Time is ticking. Municipalities have until January 1st, 2027 to get in line, but not every property will stay on that list. Michael Mlen, great to have you here on the rundown. You are the principal architect at Erra Architects, a firm which focuses on heritage conservation. But you yourself have 30 years of experience not only in planning but also urban design. Help me understand. It feels like you are the person to help break this down. How do municipalities keep track of properties with cultural heritage value?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 嗯，安省政府最初建议各市镇建立文化遗产清单或名录，通过对有潜在价值的建筑进行简单的“**标记**”（flagging）。对于省内大量中小型市镇来说，这确实是行之有效的方法——尤其是当你此前一无所有、试图从零开始梳理本地资产时。 你可以先建立一个候选基础库，把那些可能具有历史价值的建筑先行纳入清单；随后，再对其中真正被证实具有卓越价值的建筑启动法定的正式“**指定**”（designation）程序。这种两步走的机制最初被推广到安省的绝大多数市镇。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Well, um, originally the the province suggested that they set up inventories and they could sort of simply flag buildings, which is, I think, for a lot of smaller municipalities, that's the way to do it. Just if you're trying to create a list if you don't have one. Um, uh, and then you can go about designating those that you really find are important, but you you start with a kind of base of the buildings you think might be important and and maybe they're not, but you can you could list them at that point. That was the idea that was proposed for most municipalities in Ontario.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 评估标准是什么？是否存在硬性指标，比如必须达到特定的建筑年限，还是取决于它对本地社区的历史情感意义？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: What's the Is there a criteria? Is there something that is like has to be a certain amount of years? Is it what it meant to the community?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 各市镇的操作模式存在很大差异。在缺乏专业编制人员的小城镇，这项工作往往完全依赖社区志愿者推动，由志愿者提出一些值得保护的建筑线索。 而多伦多市的操作则严谨得多：市府团队在对待列入清单时几乎是以准“指定”的严肃态度来处理的，必须撰写正式的专业评估报告，详细陈述为什么要把这座建筑列入名录。这套严密的运作机制在多伦多已经平稳运行了大约二十年。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Well, I think I think different municipalities work at it differently. Smaller municipalities, they may not have a lot of staff to do this sort of thing. So, it could be quite it could be volunteer driven. You know, volunteers could suggest some names. Um, the city of Toronto tries to be pretty rigorous with it. And so, they they treat it as almost as if it's designated. they write a report saying this is why we're listing this building. Um, and uh, that's been the system that has been going for last 20 years or so.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 能否给我们举几个不同类型的具体建筑案例，说明什么才算具有历史遗产价值？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Give me an example of a couple of varying properties that would uh, be considered heritage value.
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 有趣的是，在多伦多，一座建筑并不一定非要非常古老才能具备遗产价值。比如多伦多的**新市政厅**（New City Hall），在它落成仅仅大约 **10 年**左右的时候，就被正式收录进了历史建筑保护名录。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Well, um, it's interesting in the city of Toronto, you don't necessarily have to be an old building. So, for example, new city hall was put on the inventory of heritage buildings when it was like 10 years old.
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 这体现出官方在理念上的共识：关键在于它是否具有重大意义。历史悠久固然是重要维度的体现，但像新市政厅这样杰出的现代主义建筑瑰宝，同样具备非凡的历史与文化意义。因此，只要具备标志性价值，几乎任何时期的杰作都可以被列入。 但关于“**登记**”（listed）与“**指定**”（designated）的差异，现实中多伦多并没有把清单上的所有建筑都正式指定。因为正式指定需要耗费大量的公共预算，背后涉及繁重的调研论证工作，所以许多资产长期处于登记状态。比如一个典型例子：位于多伦多群岛的灯塔。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Okay. So there's a recognition that is it significant and maybe being old is one point of being significant but being fantastic new city hall is another point of of significance. So you can have almost anything but but um the question about what's listed designated um the city hasn't really designated um uh everything because it costs them money to designate build and there's work that's involved in doing that. So leaving them listed. And so for example, the the interesting one we've got is the uh the lighthouse that's out on the Toronto Islands
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 就在**汉兰角**（Hanlan's Point）附近的**直布罗陀角灯塔**（Gibraltar Point Lighthouse），对吧？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: on Hanlands. Yeah.
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 没错，那是全多伦多现存最古老的建筑构筑物之一。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: It's kind of the oldest building in the city,
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 始建于 **1808 年**！但它在法律上目前只是“登记”（listed）建筑，而非正式“指定”（designated）建筑。
Original English **Jay Jagen**: 1808. Uh it's listed. It's not designated.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 好的，针对电视机前并非城市规划或历史建筑专家的观众朋友们，我想深入梳理一下我们一直在使用的这套专业术语。
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Okay. There's a couple things that I want to dig into the language that we've been using here for our expert for our viewers at home who aren't experts on urban planning and heritage.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: “**指定建筑**”（designated property）与“**登记建筑**”（listed property），这两者之间的本质法律区别究竟是什么？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Designated property versus listed property. What are we talking about here?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 最初按照《安大略遗产法》的设想，市镇可以通过市议会决议直接“指定”历史建筑。但多伦多在实践中发现，每指定一栋建筑都面临非常繁琐冗长的法定流程。于是多伦多探索出了一套名为“登记”（listing）的缓冲机制，对有价值的建筑先做行政标记。省政府后来也认可了这种做法，认为这是极具智慧的城市规划前置步骤：先广撒网摸清家底，再按轻重缓急逐个启动正式指定。 两者的核心法律效力有着天壤之别：“指定”意味着建筑受到《安大略遗产法》的**全方位刚性保护**，业主如果要拆除或大幅改造，将面临极其严苛的法定拆迁管制审批。而“登记”所施加的法律管控要轻得多，它主要是一个预警机制——当业主前来申请改造许可、建筑施工许可或规划审批时，市府系统会立即弹出警告：“注意，这是一栋登记历史建筑！请先转交遗产保护部门协同研判。”
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Well, uh, originally the the idea with the Ontario Heritage Act was you could designate properties. The city of Toronto found that that was a slightly cumbersome process. And so they started to develop a system called listing and they simply flag buildings. Uh, the province took that over and said that's that was actually a really good idea because it's a it's a initial step. It's a good planning move to kind of identify what you can and then and then you go about designating the ones that you want. The designation means they're covered under the Interior Heritage Act. Uh and that means there are certain demolition controls and things like that. With the listing, not so heavy a control. Uh but it allows if you go in for an alteration or a building permit or a planning approval, it would the city would flag, oh, it's a listed building. Let's talk to Heritage about it.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 听到你说“标记”，我开个玩笑，这有点像我们工作时给重要电子邮件打上红旗标记——但往往打了标记之后，我们就再也没工夫去处理它了。
Original English **Jay Jagen**: When you say flag, I I say this uh sort of as a joke. It reminds me of emails. You know, I flag an important email. Sometimes I don't get to it.
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 哈哈，确实如此！
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Yeah.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 我很好奇这些建筑本身的处境。当一个市镇把一栋物业标记为登记建筑后，它们通常会在那个清单上“沉睡”多久？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: And I'm curious with these properties themselves. When you're flagging or municipalities flagging property, how long are some of these properties sitting in that list?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 它们能在清单上一直躺到地老天荒！多伦多的这份登记名录始于上世纪 70 年代，名单上的一些建筑从那时候一直登记到了今天。因为这完全取决于行政部门何时能腾出手来处理。 如果你要推进正式的“指定”程序，规划师必须撰写极其详尽的遗产价值阐述报告和建筑学档案，完成一栋建筑的指定流程往往需要耗费好几个星期。面对清单上数以千计的庞大基数，想要把所有登记建筑全部转为正式指定，其工作量简直是浩瀚的天文数字。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: They can be there for forever. I think the list started in the 1970s and there are listed buildings in that that list that are still listed today because uh it's really a question of getting around to it. And I think, you know, if if if you have to go through designation process, you have to write detailed designation descriptions and things like that, it could take um a couple weeks to do one. And so with the number of buildings we've got, it's it's a heck of a lot of work to sort of say, let's get all our listed buildings designated.
### 23号法案与五年移出期 **杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 好的，这正是省政府出台《加快建设更多住房法案》的初衷——旨在通过制度改革打破建房阻碍、加快建设更多住宅。该法案直接修订了《安大略遗产法》的关键条款。省政府在这里试图达到怎样的政策目标？我们在《安大略遗产法》中又将看到哪些具体的制度颠覆？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: All right. Well, that's why the province introduced uh the More Homes Built Faster Act as as a way to build homes more faster. And what that did was it changed um uh parts of the Ontario Heritage Act. How what is the province trying to do and trying to achieve here and what are the changes that we're going to see with the Ontario Heritage Act?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 关于“登记”条款的修改耐人寻味，因为我看不出这能带来多大的实际效益。省府的立法逻辑是把这当成市政厅官僚主义的“**繁文缛节**”（red tape）来砍掉，以便更快地建房。但我非常怀疑这是否真的是那道阻碍建房的繁文缛节，因为原本的登记机制其实赋予了极大的开发灵活性。 省府新规的核心要求是：各市镇目前登记在册的历史建筑，如果在法定截止日之前无法完成正式指定，就必须**无条件强制移出名录**！原定截止期是 2025 年……
Original English **Michael McClelland**: The one about listing is interesting because uh I don't know that much is much benefit is made by it. There is a sense that it it was along the lines of what red tape needs to be cut at city halls so that more buildings could be built quicker. Um I'm not particularly sure that this is a particular piece of red tape that needed to be cut. Um uh because it allowed a great deal of flexibility. What basically they've said is said if you have a building that's listed uh as of January 1st, 2027, it used to be 25 is
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 后来延长到了 2027 年 1 月 1 日。
Original English **Jay Jagen**: 2025 it got extended.
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 没错，延期到了 2027 年。如果在该期限前没能完成指定，它就必须被强制除名，不能再作为登记建筑存在。正如我们刚才所言，正式指定一栋建筑需要好几周时间，而多伦多现在有三四千处登记建筑，市政规划部门根本不可能在期限前把它们全部完成指定！ 这就意味着大批建筑将直接失去登记保护。更为致命的是新法规定：**一旦移出名单，在未来的 5 年之内，该市镇严禁将该物业重新纳入登记名录！**
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Um um it has to come off the list. It can no longer be just simply can't be identified as a listed building if you can't get it designated in time. Um and the um uh the the difficulty in designating if you say it takes a couple weeks to designate any building uh and if you have three to 4 thousand listed buildings they're not going to get them all designated. So they simply go off the list. They must stay off the list for 5 years.
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 换句话说，你在整整五年内都无法对它进行保护重新列管，而在这五年的监管真空期里，任何不可挽回的破坏甚至恶意强拆都可能趁虚而入！这是一个极其严峻的体制漏洞。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: So you could bring them back in five years time which means all kinds of nefarious things could potentially happen. Right. So it's a problem.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 但从省府的角度来看，客观上是否存在这样一种现实：全省有大量物业被长期打了标记，但市镇几十年里什么实质行动都没做；而眼前全省又面临极度紧迫的住房短缺危机。省府推行这项改革，是不是为了打通行政肠梗阻、填补供给缺口的一种必要手段？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Is it fair to say though that um the province is coming in here um there is a number of properties that have been flagged uh but nothing has really been done and you know there is a need to build more homes. Is this a way to to kind of bridge that gap here?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 省府确实是打着这种旗号推行改革的，但我坚信它在现实运作中根本起不到预期的效果。加快建设住房无疑是一个极其崇高而紧迫的目标，建造新住宅刻不容缓。社会上对全安省各市政厅在开发审批中制造大量繁文缛节的批评也是属实的。 然而，那些真正的繁文缛节主要存在于漫长而复杂的城市规划规划审批（planning process）链条中，那里有大量重床叠架、拖延时间的官僚程序。但对历史建筑的“登记”本身，绝对不是阻碍建房的症结所在。取消登记机制根本没有切中要害，完全搞错了靶子。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Um uh I think that's the way it's been been broached. I just don't know that it actually works that way. Uh I I think u building homes is a whole other strong objective. It's really important to be building uh new new housing. Uh and uh there's been a critique that the the way city halls in across Ontario handle this. They create a lot of red tape. Uh a lot of that red tape is through the planning process and there's a whole number of different things that are problematic and take time. Um, but the listing of buildings, uh, I'm not sure I'm not sure it's getting at the the what they're looking for.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 如果一处物业没有正式的遗产指定（即仅仅属于登记状态，或者未来被移出名录），业主在对建筑进行改造甚至翻新时，究竟拥有多大程度的自主权？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Without heritage designation, so if property is listed, how much freedom does a property owner have to alter a building?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 即使一座建筑被正式“指定”了，法律的核心逻辑也只是回到它最初被指定的根源：这座建筑到底哪里重要？只要你的改扩建提案不损害其核心遗产价值，你完全可以提出各种各样的改造方案——比如加盖一间房间、改造后门廊或添建前廊。只要与市府遗产官员充分沟通，合情合理的改动通常都能顺利获批。甚至在极端情况下，如果建筑结构彻底损坏、积重难返，法律还专门留有按规程申请彻底拆除的法定通道。 《安大略遗产法》本身的条文其实相当开明且富有弹性，关键取决于各市镇如何具体执行。如果在审批端遇到了死板教条、墨守成规的官僚，确实可能会演变成令人抓狂的审批障碍。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Well, if it's if it's designated, uh, it's simply a question of, uh, uh, sort of saying why was it designated? What's important about the building? If uh you can propose many kinds of alterations and additions and uh changes uh that don't really affect the reasons for which it was designated. You simply I want to add another room. I want to add a back porch. I want to add a front porch. I want I want to do things um as long as and so there should be heritage staff which basically sort of say that's an approvable that's a reasonable thing to be doing. There's a way to do that. There's even a, you know, if it's a desperate measure, there's even a way to apply under the Heritage Act to demolish you say, well, there's all kinds of things that are wrong with this building. Uh, I've just got to do that. And so, the the the rules are um pretty open under the act. It's really a question of how each municipality deals with it. If you get a real stickler there playing by the rules, definitely it can be it can be a problem.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 可以这么说，如果一栋物业没有任何遗产指定或登记，只要拿到常规的市政建筑许可，基本上就可以随心所欲、随意改动甚至拆除了吧？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Fair to say a property without any heritage designation outside of permits, uh, it's pretty much free-for-all.
### 拆除风险与行政规避 **迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 没错。如果你走进市政建筑审批部门，而你的建筑既没有被指定也没有被登记，你就能顺理成章拿到施工许可或**拆迁许可**（demolition permit）。但如果它被登记在册，系统就会亮起警示红灯，审批人员必须向遗产专家咨询；遗产专家有权介入并明确表态：“这是一栋极其珍贵的历史建筑，我们绝不同意拆毁。我们将正式提请市议会启动指定程序，以法律手段叫停拆除！”
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Yeah. If if you go into the building department and if your building is currently not listed or designated, you get your building permit to you get you get a demolition permit. Uh, if it's if it's listed, it's flagged. So, you have to actually they consult with the heritage staff and the heritage staff could sort of say, "Hey, that's a really important building. Um, we don't want you to demolish it. We could propose to designate it and and stop the demolition."
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 好的，迈克尔，让我们看一下这张统计图表。仅在多伦多市，目前就有 12,674 处在册历史物业，其中有多达 **3,551 处属于仅仅登记**、并未受到《安大略遗产法》正式法定保护的建筑。考虑到多伦多市有限的行政人力资源以及走完法定指定程序所需的漫长工时，你认为在 2027 年 1 月 1 日最终截止日之前，多伦多究竟能完成多少处建筑的正式指定？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: All right, Michael, let's take a look at this graph. In the city of Toronto alone, there are 12,674 registered properties and 3,551 of them are listed, so not protected under the OA. How many properties do you think can be designated by the January 1st deadline in Toronto given the resources the city has and the time it takes?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 现实中**只能完成极少数的几座**，屈指可数！我甚至不知道市府规划部门究竟要如何做出如此艰难的取舍与偏好抉择。事实上，在截止日期到来前，市议会大概也就只剩下最后一次全体会议了。那场面简直就像在荒谬地玩游戏：“请在清单里挑出你最喜欢的六栋建筑吧！”
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Really only a handful. Really only a handful. And I don't know how uh you make that selection or that preference. And actually, um, right now, uh, I think there's, um, maybe one more meeting of council. Um, so it's like pick your six favorite buildings.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 天哪，局势真的已经恶化到这种地步了吗？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Wow. Really coming to that.
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 情况就是这么糟糕。结果将是灾难性的：整座城市里将有海量极具历史趣味与重要价值的建筑，在被大家充分认识到其非凡意义之前，就随随便便地失去任何保护；它们可能在未来的城市大拆大建中灰飞烟灭。这批建筑将彻彻底底丧失任何历史遗产保护屏障！
Original English **Michael McClelland**: It's that it's that bad. And, and so there's going to be um a whole der of really interesting buildings that haven't been flagged as as potentially really significant buildings in the city. um and um randomly they might be quite important buildings. Um they're they're not going to have any heritage protection whatsoever.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 你对此感到深深的忧虑吗？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Are you worried about that?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 是的，非常令人担忧。我不认为多伦多市政府目前有成熟而完备的方案来应对这一烂摊子。即使他们找到了应对办法，最终也很可能会演变成一种不透明的“**行政通融与规避**”（workaround）。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Yeah, it's it's it's quite worrisome. I mean, it's not I'm not sure that the city has um a a good handle on how to address this. Um and if they do have a handle on it, the thing is going to be it's going to be a workaround.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 嗯。
Original English **Jay Jagen**: M
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 具体的变通操作可能会变成这样：官方在台面上承认“我们无法在法定框架下完成三千多座建筑的正规指定”，但私下里搞一套暗箱操作——把原本登记在册的建筑清单藏到“抽屉底下”变成内部秘密名录。一旦有开发商或业主走正常程序前来申请拆除，市府官员突然从桌子底下掏出清单说：“等等，我们现在宣布对这栋建筑启动紧急指定！” 这种灰色操作在多伦多极大概率会上演。但在缺乏透明度的混乱中，许多宝贵建筑的拆除将不可避免。 更让我牵肠挂肚的是安省广大的中小型城镇。多伦多尚且自顾不暇，小市镇根本没有专职的遗产规划师编制来应对这浩如烟海的审核工作。全安省被列入登记名录的建筑数量是多伦多的 **10 倍以上**，成千上万座建筑散布在各个小镇。很多小市镇根本没有正式指定的能力，全靠登记制度在维系。 这带来的不仅是迫在眉睫的强拆危机，更是一场灾难性的**规划确定性危机**（lack of clarity）。居民将彻底陷入无所适从的混乱境地：假设你花巨资买下一栋老房子，看到省府新规后发现它已经不在官方登记名录上了；你心想：“太棒了，我可以拆了它重建我心仪的新住宅。”结果当你兴冲冲去市政厅申请拆除许可时，官员却突然给你来个冷不防：“抱歉，我们内部有一份未公开的秘密清单，你被突袭指定了，不准拆！” 健康的城市规划与遗产保护必须建立在**公开、明确、高度透明的规则**之上，需要全社会开诚布公地讨论与凝聚共识。我最大的担忧是，随着合法合规的“登记”制度被强行抹杀，未来各地为了保住历史建筑将不得不采取各种台面下的行政博弈与变通手段；保住历史建筑固然正当，但这绝非一个健康、阳光的现代城市治理体系。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: it's going to be like we we can't do this formally, but we've got a workaround. Um and uh that workound might be something like um they'll take the inventoried buildings and just put them under the table and so if someone flashes by, they'll say, "Oh, it's under it's under the we going to designate this building." Now, that's uh likely to happen in the city. Something like that's likely to happen in the city of Toronto. There there may still be demolitions that are just un unavoidable. uh what happens I worry for the smaller municipalities they don't have a lot of staff to to work with these things and I think across the province there's there's 10 times as many as there are in the city of Toronto listed buildings u many municipalities just have listed buildings um I think the problem is going to be that there's the threat to demolition but there's also the threat to lack of clarity people aren't going to know now you're going to you got a house you bought you bought a house. It's It used to be listed, but it's not listed anymore. Uh, and you sort of say, "Great, I can I can I could demolish this house. I'm going to come in and demolish it. I want to build a sweet little something or other that I like better." Uh, you go to the city and they say, "Well, we've got this secret list that's now surprise, you're designated." Um, that's that leads to a lot of uh you need clarity in planning. You need clarity in in heritage conservation. you need pe people to talk about it and understand it. And I my biggest fear is with the disappearance of listing there's going to be um a lot of um uh maneuvering around to save buildings which is quite appropriate thing to do but it's it's not going to be um particularly an open clear system.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 请帮我理清财政逻辑：为了组建这些专门的评估委员会、逐一开展遗产价值再审核，这笔庞大的行政开支究竟是由谁来买单？是各个市镇财政自理，还是由安省省政府提供专项财政支持？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: help me understand a little bit who's footing uh the bill for all of this reviewing the designations uh when we're putting these committees together. Um is it is it the municipalities? Is it the province?
### 地方财政负担与未来变数 **迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 完全由**各市镇自行承担**！因为这属于本地规划审批体系的一部分，规划师的薪资、评估调研的费用全由地方财政支出，这是地方政府的基本职责。 对于市镇来说，守护自身的历史根脉与社区特色至关重要。如果一批具有重要历史记忆的建筑面临拆毁威胁，多伦多市民绝对会群情激愤——事实上，每当历史建筑面临推土机时，市民们都会自发站出来激烈抗议。这种公民参与非常重要，我们理应为社区中真正有价值的文化资产挺身而出。 但正如我一再强调的，看看那些小型市镇，比如**皮克顿**（Picton）等偏远社区，他们根本没有充裕的财政预算和专业人手来应对如此高压的法定审核要求。这项硬性规定将在全安大略省引发普遍而深刻的治理危机。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: It's the municipalities and so so um because it's part of a part of the planning process and who's paying for the planner all that sort of stuff. It's uh uh it's um part of being a what a municipality does, right? And uh I think it's really important for municipalities to conserve their identity and conserve them really important buildings and uh you the the I think Torononians would go crazy if a number of buildings and they as they do actually when building when buildings get threatened with demolition they go crazy and it's um it's important that we do that. It's important that we stand up for the things that we think are valuable in our community. Um uh but again uh go to smaller municipalities, go to Pikton or or and and uh they're they don't have the manpower, the staff, the people power, the staff to to address this kind of issue. And so it's going to be very problematic for for uh AC across Ontario.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 如果本地基层社区发现某处极具纪念意义的建筑仅仅处于登记状态，并且非常担心它无法在截止日期前完成正式指定，社区居民能够采取什么自救措施？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: If uh communities do see a property that's listed and they're worried that it's not going to become designated, what can they do?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 现实中**几乎无能为力**，能做的基本为零（zip）。因为他们唯一能做的就是跑到市政厅呼吁：“我们强烈希望把这栋建筑正式指定为遗产！”而市政厅只能两手一摊无奈地回答：“请到后面老老实实排队去吧！”
Original English **Michael McClelland**: zip because I think they'd have to go to the city and say we we we would like this building to be designated and the municipal is going to have to say stand in line
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 因为地方行政部门根本没有编制和能力在短期内消化这么庞大的业务量。这就是局势极其尴尬扭曲的地方。我个人真诚希望省政府能够审时度势：既然两年前省府提出这项改革后发现不可行而把截止期往后顺延了一次，为什么现在不能实事求是地再次叫停、彻底把这项脱离现实的条款撤回呢？
Original English **Michael McClelland**: uh because uh they just don't have the uh ability uh to handle this. And I think I think it's that's where this is a very awkward I I I would hope that the the the provincial government would sort of say we proposed this two years ago, we put it back. Why don't we do it again? Why don't we put it back?
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 你认为省府再次撤回或延期的可能性摆在议事日程上了吗？
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Do you think that's on the table?
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 我认为目前它并没有被摆在桌面上。至少据我了解，没有任何迹象表明省府有撤回的打算。我完全不知道各市镇最终要如何硬着头皮收拾这个烂摊子。我们极大概率将眼睁睁看着一批珍贵建筑惨遭拆毁。我真的无法预判结局，我们只能拭目以待了。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: I don't think it's on the table right now. Um but I I think at least I've heard nothing right that that's uh likely. Um but I don't know how municipalities are going to handle this. Um it's quite possible we are going to get demolitions. Um I I just don't know. It's we'll wait and see. Right.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 我们唯有静观其变。
Original English **Jay Jagen**: We'll wait.
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 确实只能走一步看一步。我们其实已经苦苦等待了很长时间，大家都在焦急地观察市镇当局到底要怎么办，但即便在多伦多市，官方至今也没有给出明确清晰的行动路线图。
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Let's wait and see. We've been we've been waiting for quite a while because we getting what's what's the municipality going to do and there's no clear message even from the city of Toronto what they're going to do.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 迈克尔，由于时间关系，我们的探讨只能先停在这里了。非常感谢你的精辟剖析。正如你所言，局势究竟如何演变，我们唯有拭目以待。非常感谢你！
Original English **Jay Jagen**: Michael, we're going to have to leave it there. I appreciate it. As you said, we will have to wait and see. Thank you so much.
**迈克尔·麦克莱兰**: 好的，再会！
Original English **Michael McClelland**: Okay. Cheers.
**杰伊·杰甘纳森**: 各位观众，你认为什么样的建筑构筑物才应当被认定为历史文化遗产？你认为安大略省目前在保护历史风貌建筑与加速建设新住宅之间，是否找到了恰当的平衡点？欢迎在下方评论区留言参与讨论，或者发送电子邮件至 **rundowntvo.org** 分享你的独到见解。感谢大家的收看，我们明天同一时间再会！
Original English **Jay Jagen**: What do you think should count as a heritage building? And do you think the province is striking the right balance between protecting older properties and building new ones? Let us know in the comments or send an email to rundowntvo.org. Until then, I'll see you tomorrow.