Home US Real Housewife Star Says Her Home’s Historic Designation Should Be Removed

Real Housewife Star Says Her Home’s Historic Designation Should Be Removed

0 comment
Fertility specialist Dr. Arnold Mahesan (right) and his wife, businesswoman and former Real Housewives of Toronto actress Roxanne Earle (left), purchased the home in 2022 for C$5 million (approximately US$3.7 ), supposedly without knowing it at the time of purchase. heritage designation

A Real Housewives star and her husband are pushing to have the historic designation removed from their $3.7 million home over the original owner’s “anti-immigration” views, after they were banned from restoring it due to its protected status.

Fertility specialist Dr. Arnold Mahesan and his wife, businesswoman and former Real Housewives of Toronto actress Roxanne Earle, purchased the home in 2022 for C$5 million (approximately US$3.7), without knowing in at that time its heritage designation.

Located at 64 Woodlawn Ave West in Toronto, Canada, the 6-bedroom house was built in 1906 for Stapleton Pitt Caldecott, a former president of the Toronto Board of Trade with anti-immigration views.

The couple claimed they only learned of the property’s heritage status last year when they attempted to alter its steep staircase and realized they needed city permission because of the designation.

Now, they’re asking the city to remove the heritage designation from their century-old home due to the original owner’s “racist beliefs,” according to CBC.

Fertility specialist Dr. Arnold Mahesan (right) and his wife, businesswoman and former Real Housewives of Toronto actress Roxanne Earle (left), purchased the home in 2022 for C$5 million (approximately US$3.7 ), supposedly without knowing it at the time of purchase. heritage designation

Fertility specialist Dr. Arnold Mahesan (right) and his wife, businesswoman and former Real Housewives of Toronto actress Roxanne Earle (left), purchased the home in 2022 for C$5 million (approximately US$3.7 ), supposedly without knowing it at the time of purchase. heritage designation

Located at 64 Woodlawn Ave West in Toronto, Canada, the 6-bedroom house was built in 1906 for Stapleton Pitt Caldecott, a former president of the Toronto Board of Trade with supposedly anti-immigration views.

Located at 64 Woodlawn Ave West in Toronto, Canada, the 6-bedroom house was built in 1906 for Stapleton Pitt Caldecott, a former president of the Toronto Board of Trade with supposedly anti-immigration views.

Located at 64 Woodlawn Ave West in Toronto, Canada, the 6-bedroom house was built in 1906 for Stapleton Pitt Caldecott, a former president of the Toronto Board of Trade with supposedly anti-immigration views.

1712452196 932 Real Housewife Star Says Her Homes Historic Designation Should Be

1712452196 932 Real Housewife Star Says Her Homes Historic Designation Should Be

Now, the couple is asking the city to remove the heritage designation from their century-old home due to the “racist beliefs” of the original owner, Stapleton Caldecott.

“Stapleton Caldecott would have been horrified if we lived in the house he commissioned,” Mahesan said at a March 28 Toronto Preservation Board meeting.

The two and a half story home is situated on a spacious 50×179 lot and features historic architectural features.

The city requires preservation board approval for alterations to historic homes.

The couple argued that the house should be exempt from preservation requirements due to the racist views of its original owner in 1906.

Despite the couple’s appeal, the board ultimately rejected their request. However, the final decision rests with the City Council.

Their lawyer, Michael Campbell, said they will not give up.

“We intend to take every opportunity we can to try to convince council to revoke the designation,” Campbell told CBC.

But a city report clarified that the house’s preservation designation was due to its architectural significance, not its ownership history.

The couple argued that the house should be exempt from preservation requirements due to the racist views of its original owner in 1906.

The couple argued that the house should be exempt from preservation requirements due to the racist views of its original owner in 1906.

The couple argued that the house should be exempt from preservation requirements due to the racist views of its original owner in 1906.

A city report clarified that the home's preservation designation was due to its architectural significance, not its ownership history (pictured: the home's newly renovated kitchen).

A city report clarified that the home's preservation designation was due to its architectural significance, not its ownership history (pictured: the home's newly renovated kitchen).

A city report clarified that the home’s preservation designation was due to its architectural significance, not its ownership history (pictured: the home’s recently renovated kitchen).

The report said the historical significance is due to the fact that the house was designed by architect Eden Smith, and not because it was made for Caldecott.

The report said the historical significance is due to the fact that the house was designed by architect Eden Smith, and not because it was made for Caldecott.

The report says the historical significance is due to the fact that the house was designed by architect Eden Smith, and not because it was made for Caldecott.

The report said the historical significance is due to the fact that the house was designed by architect Eden Smith, and not because it was made for Caldecott.

The report states: “Staff maintain that the property is valued as an excellent representative example of an early 20th century house-shaped building designed in the Renaissance Period style influenced by the Arts and Crafts Movement.”

“It is distinguished by its asymmetrical plan with projecting openings, the complicated gabled roof line and the distinctive sloping chimneys, as well as the decorative wooden slats,” he continues.

Although the city agreed to remove references to Caldecott from heritage documents, it maintained the designation.

The City Council’s decision is expected to be announced in May.

Earle criticized what he perceived as the board's endorsement of racism and vowed to continue his quest to remove the heritage designation.

Earle criticized what he perceived as the board's endorsement of racism and vowed to continue his quest to remove the heritage designation.

Earle criticized what he perceived as the board’s endorsement of racism and vowed to continue his quest to remove the heritage designation.

The couple clarified that they have no immediate plans to renovate or demolish the house, but said they are determined to address what they see as a celebration of racism within their living space.

The couple clarified that they have no immediate plans to renovate or demolish the house, but said they are determined to address what they see as a celebration of racism within their living space.

The couple clarified that they have no immediate plans to renovate or demolish the house, but said they are determined to address what they see as a celebration of racism within their living space.

Earle criticized what he perceived as the board’s endorsement of racism and vowed to continue his quest to remove the heritage designation.

Speaking to CBC, he called the decision a “slap in the face” and said he’s not fighting this as a “tactic.”

‘How would I know that a city like Toronto has a preservation society that purports to celebrate racism more than the people who live in their homes?’ he asked CBC. ‘How does the average homeowner possibly know that?’

The couple clarified that they have no immediate plans to renovate or demolish the house, but confirmed their determination to address what they see as a celebration of racism within their living space.

“I have no plans to develop this house or change it,” he told CBC Toronto.

“My problem is that I have done a great job in this city and yet I have to be racialized for living in a house that celebrates something as anti-everything as my husband and I are.”

You may also like