Miscellany Toronto Photographs: Then and Now

[Goldie]

The Colonial was in between the two historic banks across the street.

 

[brewster]

Thanks Goldie , looks like Yonge Street was one way south during subway construction.

 

[NomoreaTorontonian]

Thanks Goldie , looks like Yonge Street was one way south during subway construction.

Must have been the last time anyone found a parking space on Yonge anywhere!

 

[BeeRich]

Must have been the last time anyone found a parking space on Yonge anywhere!

Was it a one way at any point, or were parking rules relaxed by having cars park backwards on the opposite side?

 

[Mustapha]

Very nice, Mustapha! Christmas continues at Simpson's....

And here's that window behind a little signage:

You're welcome thecharioteer.

As a sideline to my own passion of looking at buildings and streets that have gone is seeing businesses that one once patronized - or wished one could have. My wife faithfully carried her Simpsons credit card for many years as The Bay still accepted it. She still can't get over the loss of B. Altman in New York..

 

[Mustapha]

Then and Now for Dec. 12



Then. 'The Department of Household Science Building, Toronto.' c1916. 125 Queens Park Crescent. Picture sourced by wwwebsteer.

Now. June 2011. A lot to be grateful for here.. I don't have the critical eye that comes through formal training but to me this is a gem of a building of perfect proportion. Its neighbour across the street - The Church of the Redeemer' - can be glimpsed in both pictures.

 

[Lone Primate]

Yet it seems that the common bridges got simpler and more boring in the 1950s. The arch bridge of the 1920s was graceful and eye-catching; what does the 1950s generic bridge offer?

Again, it's a matter of perspective. Bridges in the 19th century and earlier tended to be highly ornate, statements of nationhood and municipal pride. People of 100 years ago would almost certainly have seen the bowstring arch bridge you're praising now as cold, artless, and utilitarian itself. Let's be fair: a bowstring arch bridge may be eye-pleasing, but that's not why they built it that way. Its shape and form is dictated by physics into a shape that works very well for spans of that width and also happens to be eye-pleasing. Truss bridges date from the same period, but they're not quite as fun to look at. In truth, they can be uglier than the reasonably invisible bridges we build today.

One other thing that the artful, decorative bridges of the past were, as compared to today's, was rare. There were nowhere near as many bridges a century ago as now, nor the need for them. The handful designed to be permanent often could be made the subject of public pride. These days, where would the money come from? And let's not forget, too, that that vast majority of bridges in Ontario till early last century were simply wooden structures local people put together that vanished with the next flood. Not that much aesthetically pleasing in those, and I think they would have been quite pleased in the lines and symmetries and harmonies of the merely functional bridges we build today. A lot of it's relative and about differences from what you're used to.

 

[junctionist]

Truss bridges are fairly popular today and often listed as heritage structures. These bridges often have a certain composition of lines that's engaging and not neutral like the 1950s bridge. Like I said, some forms of ordinary bridges elicit appreciation even though the bridges aren't meant to prominent works of design. The people of 100 years ago could have seen the bowstring arch bridge as a modern progression in style that was both functional and attractive versus the modest bridges of past decades. One could suppose that they weren't seen necessarily as cold and generic, just different in design. When it comes to the appeal of ordinary bridges over time, form has a lot to do with it. In the 1950s, they needed to build a lot of new bridges to accommodate the modernity via car, and form no longer really mattered. The subsequent aesthetic is may nevertheless be worthy of lasting criticism.

 

[Mustapha]

Then and Now for Dec 13.


Then. 'Temple-Pattison Building.' 243 College. c1914. Picture sourced by wwwebster.

Now. July 2011.

 

[Red October]

What did they do to the roof??

 

[Mustapha]

What did they do to the roof??

An 'economy' job, that's what they did to the roof. Unfortunately, good mansards cost big money.

 

[Mustapha]

Has anyone been to the new Maple Leaf Gardens Loblaws yet? There's bits and pieces left over from the old Gardens incorporated into the new store. It's a very nice grocery store too.



Back in the day, when I actually followed sports:

Some left over 'Blues' seats arranged on the wall in the shape of a Maple Leaf. Note the evidence of the old structure left behind..

Like I said, it's a nice store, with very luxurious fittings.

In Aisle 25 the red spot marks the old Centre Ice. There's nothing to describe what you are looking at. You have to be 'in-the-know'. Now you are.

Over near the snack bar they have arranged a row of salvaged 'Gold' seats you can rest in. Very neat.

 

[HamiltonTransitHistory]

In Aisle 25 the red spot marks the old Centre Ice. There's nothing to describe what you are looking at. You have to be 'in-the-know'. Now you are.

I still think Loblaws should keep a couple of foam hockey sticks hanging from that wood post. Who wouldn't want to be photographed facing off at centre ice at the Gardens?

 

[Anna]

In Aisle 25 the red spot marks the old Centre Ice. There's nothing to describe what you are looking at. You have to be 'in-the-know'. Now you are.

Isn't that where Harold Ballard's buried?

 

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

Park Lawn.

Regards,
J T