Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

[dt_toronto_geek]

It's in the heritage inventory as a listed property, though it's not designated. So it has a better chance of protection than Stollerys did, but I would guess it'll be demolished as well.

On another note, I talked to Kristyn Wong-Tam today, who noted that 'Historic Yonge Street' was being studied as a potential Heritage Conservation District. The boundaries of the district would have included 1 Bloor Street West, so although a designation wasn't yet in place, it likely would have been protected in some form down the road.

I asked her about the likelihood of a special meeting being called to save whatever is left of the building. She said even if a special meeting were approved, which would have been unlikely, the matter would still have to go to Heritage Preservation Services for study, which would have taken weeks if not months.

She also said many businesses in the area are upset that they weren't given any notice of demolition.

This is what the Church-Wellesley Neighbourhood Association is involved with now, not the entire 'Church Wellesley Village' as I stated earlier. I got that confirmed late this afternoon.

If this was so important, then why did the city wait until the store announced the closing. If the building was so important, it should of been designated years ago. This is just KWT trying to get free press.

Your drinking Mizrahi's Kool-Aid, many properties aren't listed because there was no threat to most of them less than a decade ago, now that the threat is present everywhere and an overworked, understaffed Heritage department can't keep up.
KWY stated that she's not running again, she is only a two-term Councillor so presuming that's true, free press to what end? She wanted to affect change, so she ran and won. She can move on in four years and make much more money elsewhere in real estate, art endeavours & such.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Thanks for posting that Marcanadian. I forgot to mention that in addition to the special Council meeting, the City would also have had to consult its heritage committee under Section 29(2) of the Heritage Act... so they would have needed Toronto Preservation Board to also call a special meeting, plus get staff to whip up all the required documents. That would be a lot of resources and political capital to burn for a building with potentially questionable heritage value.

 

[Logan]

I'm totally ok having this demolished. I would hate the have the 'facade' saved and attached awkwardly to a tower above it. Toronto is not very good at that sort of thing.
If it was so important, someone should have thought about saving it over the last 100 years!
But who is this Mizrahi? I looked at his website and he's only done small, low-rise non descript condos. Interesting to see him tackle such an iconic site.

 

[adma]

Honestly, re the bulk of those doing the "good riddance, and good thing they acted quickly; and Mizrahi's right, it's junk, nobody was interested in it until now, and most people don't care, anyway" judgment call--look, may I make this educated guess: even regarding the bigger picture of so-called *good* stuff in Toronto from the 1920s and 1930s, you likely haven't a clue. Like, to a lot of you, "John Lyle" might be that dewd nobody cares about but whose studio was facadectomied onto the base of 1 Bedford because a few hysterical preservationists raised a fuss. So, if you're that kind of bigger-picture ignorant re the overall context of Toronto's architectural history, you'd actually be *hurting* your cause by going "yay, Mizrahi".

*But*, that said, I'm also finding that a lot of the mewling over The Rape Of Stollery's is collapsing into the same old entropic whine over "Toronto doesn't care for its heritage, never has, woe is us". Look--this kind of stuff's happened in NYC as well. Owners and developers disfiguring old buildings once they sense "hysterical types" or the Landmarks Commission breathing down their necks, acting quickly in a "this is my building and I can do what I want with it, nyah" spirit (and sometimes with a "safety" alibi: those architectural details might faw down go boom on a pedestrian's head, etc). And just like Mizrahi, concluding that no loss, it was expendable junk, anyway

But just because it happens there too, doesn't make it any more excusable. And if *you* think that's a fine and proper way to go about things, I'd gladly take one of those crowbars or jackhammers they used on Stollery's and apply it to your peevish jerkwater skull. Okay?

 

[Marcanadian]

Thanks for posting that Marcanadian. I forgot to mention that in addition to the special Council meeting, the City would also have had to consult its heritage committee under Section 29(2) of the Heritage Act... so they would have needed Toronto Preservation Board to also call a special meeting, plus get staff to whip up all the required documents. That would be a lot of resources and political capital to burn for a building with potentially questionable heritage value.

So it's theoretically possible for an intention to designate to be decided within days rather than weeks or months? Not probable, but possible. I remember an intention to designate stopped the Empress Hotel demolition, though a request looking into the possibility of designation was submitted a couple months prior to when the actual intention to designate was approved.

 

[LNahid2000]

But just because it happens there too, doesn't make it any more excusable. And if *you* think that's a fine and proper way to go about things, I'd gladly take one of those crowbars or jackhammers they used on Stollery's and apply it to your peevish jerkwater skull. Okay?

Please don't compare demolishing a building to taking a person's life. Looks like you're the one who needs some sensitivity training.

 

[waterloowarrior]

So it's theoretically possible for an intention to designate to be decided within days rather than weeks or months? Not probable, but possible. I remember an intention to designate stopped the Empress Hotel demolition, though a request looking into the possibility of designation was submitted a couple months prior to when the actual intention to designate was approved.

Yes, the City of Hamilton did this last summer... motion at the Council meeting added to the agenda on a Wednesday night with intention to designate, Special meeting of heritage committee Thursday at 10AM, Notice in paper on Friday. The developer was furious and was kicked out of the Council meeting. http://joeycoleman.ca/2014/06/01/ci...tice-of-intent-to-designate-1-st-james-place/

 

[Bad Bear]

But just because it happens there too, doesn't make it any more excusable. And if *you* think that's a fine and proper way to go about things, I'd gladly take one of those crowbars or jackhammers they used on Stollery's and apply it to your peevish jerkwater skull. Okay?

If this is the way you deal with other people's opinions, you need help.

 

[Lenser]

And if *you* think that's a fine and proper way to go about things, I'd gladly take one of those crowbars or jackhammers they used on Stollery's and apply it to your peevish jerkwater skull. Okay?

Adma: any intellectual pretensions you might harbour go straight out the window when you use a phrase like "jerkwater skull." Come on man. You embarrass yourself.

 

[Automation Gallery]

The media, papers, and even KWT, are all saying that the bulding. is over 100 years old, thats not true
Also no one is saying anything on how the bldg. was mangaled throughout time


Demolition work begins on Stollerys before heritage designation decided
A part of Toronto’s history started to come down piece by piece this weekend, just days after Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam took steps to have the 114-year-old Stollerys building designated a heritage site.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...down-before-heritage-designation-decided.html

 

[torplanner]

Simply put, if this was a site that KWT and the city actually wanted to preserve, it had the tools available to do it. That it didn't speaks volumes.

 

[Edward Skira]

adma is now taking a break.

 

[freshcutgrass]

The media, papers, and even KWT, are all saying that the bulding. is over 100 years old, thats not true
Also no one is saying anything on how the bldg. was mangaled throughout time

The original edwardian style structure itself was never demolished...they just gave it a new generic facade when deco modern was in vogue. This happened to a ton of buildings.

One example a couple blocks west shows an example of when a "remodel" can actually be better than the original. Rother, Bland, Trudeau's 1956 Georg Jensen building (interior design by Finn Juhl) at 95A Bloor West. That started life as your garden variety Bloor St house (can't recall if it was a victorian or edwardian house). It's been a listed heritage building for over a decade...and rightly should be. The building in it's original form would never had made it on the list.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Your drinking Mizrahi's Kool-Aid, many properties aren't listed because there was no threat to most of them less than a decade ago, now that the threat is present everywhere and an overworked, understaffed Heritage department can't keep up.
.

There's only one sensible way for the city to deal with the whole heritage issue that doesn't waste limited resources....and that's to learn to pick their battles....wisely.

And it's the "wise" part that worries me.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Given what transpired, I am concerned about how the facade of Hue's Kitchen will be dealt with, and what the city is prepared to do about it.

AoD

Yes. I see that one as a tough call.

I am in favour of preserving Yonge's inventory of victorian buildings. There's enough of them to present a context, especially if we can manage to get most of them restored to their original condition. Stollery doesn't fit this program.

The Problem with the Hue's Kitchen building is that it's pretty much all by itself on the block. A block full (or nearly) of victorians looks good....one gap-toothed one on a block loses the effect. It's also got the entire original street level facade missing (as do most of them). Although it could be re-victorianized. Perhaps if it had stand-alone status, or especially handsome, like the Arts and Letters Club building or something.

But this one..as it is. eh