alklay
Senior Member
That's a damn funny (and insightful) picture you just painted. And yes, it rarely works out for the best.
Toronto 2 St Thomas | 80.46m | 26s | KingSett Capital | Hariri Pontarini
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Faux Georgian is the style that just won't die, no matter what era spawns it. Johnny Boy has an interview in the Globe today with architect Gordon Ridgley - who is as horrified as any sane person would be by the inability of many fauxmongers to even get the basics of the style right - and even he's conflicted about his own work.
ganjavih
Senior Member
That restoration really makes the old apartment look like a new gem. So sad and pointless that its brother has to go.
Tewder
Senior Member
Agreed. Pretty buildings, "faux-schmo" or not.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Urban tragedy unfolding as highrise to erase history
Link to article
Mar 22, 2008 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Who wouldn't love to live on Charles St. between Bay St. and Queen's Park? Located on the north edge of the University of Toronto's downtown campus, one block south of Bloor St., it's in the heart of the city. At the same time, it's ever so slightly removed from the core, more institutional than commercial, retail or even residential, though that's starting to change.
Needless to say, these changes come at a heavy cost, perhaps too heavy. There's a row of 19th-century houses on the north side of Charles just west of St. Thomas St. that will soon be torn down to make way for yet another condominium tower, to be called the St. Thomas.
Given the outcry unleashed by the recent burning of a row of buildings on Queen St. W., you'd think that there'd be hell to pay for the deliberate destruction of five houses, all of them beautiful redbrick structures, for something as ordinary, as predictable, even mundane, as another condo. Besides, there are already condo towers to the north and east. Some are good, some bad, but all tall.
Of course, these are houses, not shops, and they're on Charles, not Queen, a main street. Although the architectural quality is much higher here, they'll go without a fuss. This shouldn't be allowed to happen. It is an urban tragedy. What's unfolding here is the disturbing spectacle of a city tearing itself apart, destroying itself, killing the very things that give it its character and constitute its identity.
When will we learn that enough is enough? When will we learn to say no? When will we learn that there are more important things than another condo?
No doubt the developer will tell us that the houses are in terrible shape. How convenient. But if they are, fix them up. Build the tower somewhere else.
It's time we understood that heritage represents a rare resource, a civic asset, not simply an obstacle on the way to a developer's bottom line. Our willingness to sacrifice our history at every opportunity reveals a worrisome lack of self-confidence and sophistication.
Regardless of what will replace these houses, the neighbourhood – and with it the city – will be diminished by their disappearance.
Link to article
Mar 22, 2008 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Who wouldn't love to live on Charles St. between Bay St. and Queen's Park? Located on the north edge of the University of Toronto's downtown campus, one block south of Bloor St., it's in the heart of the city. At the same time, it's ever so slightly removed from the core, more institutional than commercial, retail or even residential, though that's starting to change.
Needless to say, these changes come at a heavy cost, perhaps too heavy. There's a row of 19th-century houses on the north side of Charles just west of St. Thomas St. that will soon be torn down to make way for yet another condominium tower, to be called the St. Thomas.
Given the outcry unleashed by the recent burning of a row of buildings on Queen St. W., you'd think that there'd be hell to pay for the deliberate destruction of five houses, all of them beautiful redbrick structures, for something as ordinary, as predictable, even mundane, as another condo. Besides, there are already condo towers to the north and east. Some are good, some bad, but all tall.
Of course, these are houses, not shops, and they're on Charles, not Queen, a main street. Although the architectural quality is much higher here, they'll go without a fuss. This shouldn't be allowed to happen. It is an urban tragedy. What's unfolding here is the disturbing spectacle of a city tearing itself apart, destroying itself, killing the very things that give it its character and constitute its identity.
When will we learn that enough is enough? When will we learn to say no? When will we learn that there are more important things than another condo?
No doubt the developer will tell us that the houses are in terrible shape. How convenient. But if they are, fix them up. Build the tower somewhere else.
It's time we understood that heritage represents a rare resource, a civic asset, not simply an obstacle on the way to a developer's bottom line. Our willingness to sacrifice our history at every opportunity reveals a worrisome lack of self-confidence and sophistication.
Regardless of what will replace these houses, the neighbourhood – and with it the city – will be diminished by their disappearance.
Ramako
Moderator
I've walked past these houses a hundred times and though they could be pretty, I'm really not gonna miss them. You'd think Hume was talking about Old City Hall or the Royal York; not a couple of houses. That they are old does not inherently make them part of 'history' in any real substantive sense. Perhaps if it were an entire historic neighbourhood that was being sacrificed, the point would be valid, but without that kind of context these houses don't mean much on their own. Anyway, if these houses are such a critical part of our city's history, then we really don't have a history at all.
buildup
Senior Member
^ I agree, on their own they look sort of silly as they are, totally out of context surrounded by auditoriums, condos, lecture halls etc. At this late date they look as our of place as a condo tower would in the Beaches.
Anyway, someone on this thread indicated ealrier we have a huge inventory of these building in Toronto. If these townhouses were located at King & Bay they would hardly look more out of place.
Anyway, someone on this thread indicated ealrier we have a huge inventory of these building in Toronto. If these townhouses were located at King & Bay they would hardly look more out of place.
adma
Superstar
Other than being old townhouses on a street that's lost/losing them in toto, they're not *that* out of context; if you can imagine them in reasonable condition, they fit well with McKinsey next door, or with Vic's facilities across the street (and there's a line of similar, somewhat less exquisite examples on Sultan N of Stern's building, i.e. the Theatre Books block). A common low-rise scale, hardly sticking out like a sore thumb--they're no more "out of context" than Elmsley Place on the St. Mike's campus. It's only fate that explains why they're not being maintained/retained.
I agree Hume's overstating just a little; but let's not go too far the other direction, then you might as well be writing off to the dumpster various precious (and listed/designated) remnant clusters in whatever Church/Jarvis/Isabella zone, simply because everything around them's highrise...
I agree Hume's overstating just a little; but let's not go too far the other direction, then you might as well be writing off to the dumpster various precious (and listed/designated) remnant clusters in whatever Church/Jarvis/Isabella zone, simply because everything around them's highrise...
MisterF
Senior Member
More hysterics from Hume. Even when I agree with him I can't stomach his "writing".
Chuck
Senior Member
The homes being torn down are beautiful, however they are also part of Toronto's first cookie cutter boom, and are thus reproduced hundreds of times over in Little Italy, Chinatown, the Annex, and the south U of T student ghetto.
It would be an immeasurable loss if any of the above neighbourhoods were torn down, however detached houses don't belong at Yonge and Bloor, it only makes sense to tear them down and increase the density. That's natural, and it's how cities grow. The homes on Charles Street are inappropriate, completely out of place, and in my opinion it's neighbourhoods, not isolated homes, that should be preserved.
It would be an immeasurable loss if any of the above neighbourhoods were torn down, however detached houses don't belong at Yonge and Bloor, it only makes sense to tear them down and increase the density. That's natural, and it's how cities grow. The homes on Charles Street are inappropriate, completely out of place, and in my opinion it's neighbourhoods, not isolated homes, that should be preserved.
urbandreamer
recession proof
Detached homes don't belong at Y+B? Should we start tearing down those Rosedale mansions?
In a non-architecturally lazy city, these houses could easily be saved with a condo built on top. Wrap a glass box around the site, some carefully placed "stilts" and a gorgeous condo would be built. Take a lazy, cheap developer and an audience that doesn't give a damn: result, Toronto c.2008.
In a non-architecturally lazy city, these houses could easily be saved with a condo built on top. Wrap a glass box around the site, some carefully placed "stilts" and a gorgeous condo would be built. Take a lazy, cheap developer and an audience that doesn't give a damn: result, Toronto c.2008.
junctionist
Senior Member
It doesn't help the situation that the audience has to worry about so many other issues such roads and public transportation, the general appearance of even prominent downtown roads, bike lanes and so on. At these price points, the the lack of enthusiasm to innovate is discouraging, but then that can be expected if the goal is to make as much money as possible conveniently unhindered by any heritage or design law.
buildup
Senior Member
"Detached homes don't belong at Y+B? Should we start tearing down those Rosedale mansions?"
What does Rosedale have to do with Y&B?
What does Rosedale have to do with Y&B?
adma
Superstar
Between this, your praise of the Yonge line north of Eglinton, and your willingness to eliminate the Lansdowne/Jameson jog, I've come up with this conclusion: you're a Crombie-hating middle-aged square from the early 70s who was cryogencally frozen and thawed out in 2008.
And here's something that disproves your theory.
Ziggy
Active Member
It's statements like this that drive me up the wall with Hume. I wish he would just make his point without trying to psychoanalyze the city.