Toronto St Lawrence Market North | 25.3m | 5s | City of Toronto | Rogers Stirk Harbour

[Doppleganger]

Wouldn't it be great if we actually had a Museum of Toronto to exhibit and provide interpretation of any of the artifacts found at this site(and others). This is after all the original heart of old York/Toronto, and it amazes me that a city of this size doesn't even have a place to tell it's own story! Sure hope that Old City Hall can one day serve that function!

 

[alienhenny]

So excited for this project to be done!! It will look good tho.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Dev App site - Jan 27 update:

Sample Board:

Exterior Finish Legend Palette:

Hope we get terracotta instead of painted aluminum.

There is a new Heritage Interpretation Plan by ERA as well:

There are also some minor changes in this iteration of the Architectural Plans - the tension rods for roof overhang at the Front St. facade is shortened/simplified significantly, producing a cleaner look overall:

AoD

 

[ADRM]

For "before" photo purposes.

 

[Edward Skira]

Ruins of Carthage it certainly isn't Part of the crane for Dundas Square Gardens passing by on Jarvis.

 

[DSC]

The archaeology is supposed to wrap up by March 31, not sure if the real excavation contract has been awarded yet but .....

 

[freshcutgrass]

Other than documenting their findings, there is not really much that can be preserved, or maintained and/or kept to be shown in the new building is there? So what happens to cobblestone path, or the brick sewer, brick walls etc?

Landfill. Ay least it will do some good to expand the Spit.

Save our few shekels to spend on preserving something remotely worthwhile.

It's like the Stollery Stone all over.

Meanwhile, the SLAM is just a shadow of its former self down at the "tent".

 

[junctionist]

Landfill. Ay least it will do some good to expand the Spit.

Save our few shekels to spend on preserving something remotely worthwhile.

It's like the Stollery Stone all over.

Meanwhile, the SLAM is just a shadow of its former self down at the "tent".

Archeologists are studying the ruins unearthed to understand how the city developed in the 19th century. It's relevant history because we're dealing with a settlement that went from a colonial outpost to a big metropolis in less than two centuries. They've found interesting artefacts. In this case, it's not about finding ruins to preserve like the Coliseum or Acropolis. The ruins will probably be documented, analyzed and then dismantled. The artefacts will be preserved. Denigrating the efforts of archeologists won't prove your point.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Archeologists are studying the ruins unearthed to understand how the city developed in the 19th century.

Prior buildings on the site are well known. There's nothing remotely important to be be gleaned here. We are wasting what little funds we have chasing nothing, while holding up a multi-use building the city needs built ASAP. Meanwhile, real neglect/destruction with more significant historical impact goes on without the city's intervention.

 

[wolfewood]

Prior buildings on the site are well known. There's nothing remotely important to be be gleaned here. We are wasting what little funds we have chasing nothing, while holding up a multi-use building the city needs built ASAP. Meanwhile, real neglect/destruction with more significant historical impact goes on without the city's intervention.

That is an entirely subjective opinion on this and one I don't share. I think there's great value in this archaeological dig. This is the way we find rare items and evidence of the past that has often been lost to time. Just because this isn't Carthage or some other ancient site doesn't mean there is no value here.

Also, if you take issue with the neglect and destruction of other buildings (something I do agree is unfortunate), shitting on the work being done here isn't going to help. If anything, it only contributes to a sense that Toronto has no history worth saving or preserving. If you want adequate historical preservation, there needs to be an element of "all or nothing." Otherwise historical preservation comes down to endless, subjective debates that leave everyone unhappy.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That is an entirely subjective opinion on this and one I don't share. I think there's great value in this archaeological dig. This is the way we find rare items and evidence of the past that has often been lost to time. Just because this isn't Carthage or some other ancient site doesn't mean there is no value here.

Also, if you take issue with the neglect and destruction of other buildings (something I do agree is unfortunate), shitting on the work being done here isn't going to help. If anything, it only contributes to a sense that Toronto has no history worth saving or preserving. If you want adequate historical preservation, there needs to be an element of "all or nothing." Otherwise historical preservation comes down to endless, subjective debates that leave everyone unhappy.

I beg to differ a little on this - for the amount of money archaeological investigations into the foundations provided, how much heritage staff time can be hired to put tabs on existing buildings that are at redevelopment risk? The city has already gone through numerous cases where buildings were demolished because they couldn't be designated in time, and the argument always was that there aren't enough staff. Keep on doing that, and what we will be hiring all the time isn't heritage staff but basement archaeologists.

AoD

 

[junctionist]

I beg to differ a little on this - for the amount of money archaeological investigations into the foundations provided, how much heritage staff time can be hired to put tabs on existing buildings that are at redevelopment risk? The city has already gone through numerous cases where buildings were demolished because they couldn't be designated in time, and the argument always was that there aren't enough staff. Keep on doing that, and what we will be hiring all the time isn't heritage staff but basement archaeologists.

AoD

Archeological costs can be covered by the capital expenditure of a new building as opposed to the operational costs of the heritage department. To think that we wouldn't examine an important market site used continuously since the early 19th century at the very heart of the city this way would demonstrate that we don't value our history. No one would ever praise the city for that kind of decision making.

 

[wolfewood]

Archeological costs can be covered by the capital expenditure of a new building as opposed to the operational costs of the heritage department. To think that we wouldn't examine an important market site used continuously since the early 19th century at the very heart of the city this way would demonstrate that we don't value our history. No one would ever praise the city for that kind of decision making.

Exactly. Again, if people take issue with the limited resources being provided for heritage staff to do their work, we should be demanding they receive the funding necessary. Not complaining about "basement archaeologicalists."

 

[Automation Gallery]

Lets just hope they can deliver this bldg. on time and on budget

 

[freshcutgrass]

I think there's great value in this archaeological dig.

Really? Such as???

I'm all for archaeological digs just as I'm all for subways. I just don't think the possible results are worth the limited time and resources being put into it any more than I agree with spending $3 1/5 billion building a one-stop subway extension to a suburban shopping mall.