Toronto West Block Est. 1928, The LakeShore, and The LakeFront | 130.75m | 41s | Choice Properties | a—A

One additional point regarding heritage, and it's a personal point. Your mileage may vary.

I've mentioned that my interest in old buildings is part of my overall interest in history. Maurice has raised some questions about whether Toronto's old buildings reflect the heritage of all Torontonians, particularly immigrants.

I'm one of them. I was born in the US and came to Toronto in 1990. I have absolutely no family ties to anything old in Toronto. In fact, my people came up here and burnt the first Parliament buildings, so perhaps everyone can blame the first loss in Toronto's historical fabric on me and my ilk.

I just don't think it's wrong or elitist to value interesting old buildings and hope that they get re-used rather than sitting abandoned or being torn down because a developer would rather put up something cheap and quick.
 
Maurice, your attitude sounds quite similar to the mentality that's allowed the proliferation of suburbs and the "power centre" shopping malls. Though clearly you don't care for anything that serves a purpose beyond bottom line efficiency, that approach to city building and heritage preservation would be absolutely devastating. It'd create a city bleak beyond description, driven purely by the most basic functionality needed to merely survive. Regarding the old warehouse in question, the delay to the Loblaws is not causing a food crisis, but rather forces a select portion of the population to travel a little farther for groceries. And remember, this building pre-dates any of the residential in the area, so what right does anyone have to demand it be torn down and immediately turned into a grocery store for said select residents? What's most selfish is Loblaws holding onto this property while they are currently unable to revitalize it properly, instead of selling to or partnering with someone who can do something with the building. I smell another case of demolition by neglect.

Though, with that said, I still have a feeling that you're just trolling. Especially with regards to your fervent love for organic spinach, soy lattes, and reference to your driving habits. It's all too calculated.
 
Last edited:
egotrippin said:
Maurice, your attitude sounds quite similar to the mentality that's allowed the proliferation of suburbs and the "power centre" shopping malls. Though clearly you don't care for anything that serves a purpose beyond bottom line efficiency, that approach to city building and heritage preservation would be absolutely devastating. It'd create a city bleak beyond description, driven purely by the most basic functionality needed to merely survive.
Click to expand...

Suburbs and power centers are not efficient. Tower blocks are.
 
I didn't mean environmentally efficient. I meant economically and time efficient, in that they cost a bare minimum to build, and can herd mass amounts of people throughout a variety retail outlets, allowing for a maximum amount of spending. By bottom line, I'm referring to the general corporate bare minimum spending, maximum profit models that are being targeted with said developments.
 
Maurice said:
Who knew that a grocery store discussion can connect to themes of cultural elitism, heritage, culture, the immigrant experience etc. Thank goodness this ain't China or the Middle East!
Click to expand...

But, you know something--esp. if you're letting your heart bleed on behalf of the 50%-not-born-in-Canada bunch, let's reverse things. Let's place us Canuckistani "elitists" in the context of China or the Middle East, as visitors or even as prospective residents.

In which case--do you think that we, as an outsider/immigrant class *there*, would or should correspondingly sniff off their heritage/preservation issues? Y'know, like the wiping-out of Beijing's hutongs? After all, they don't "serve us Westerners" the way that something newfangled and ultra-modern and Loblaw-Superstore-fancy might.

And what about those "anti-progress" "elitist types" in Mecca who might decry this

bilde.jpg


If you think we should dismiss their concerns--you really think we're that idiotic? You really think that any so-called immigrant/outsider class is or ought to be?
 
Last edited:
Maurice said:
Your counter illustrates the point that I'm trying to make - that when normal folks hear the term "cultural value" in reference to a building made in the 1920s - the "stop the gravy train" part of the brain kicks in. For most people, it is just about the economic cost - the outside beauty of a given building is a fleeting lost memory the moment you go through the doors and enter into the building.

Furthermore, in a city that is 50% foreign born (and increasingly non-western foreign born) - the idea of the word "culture" being used to salvage the look of a building created when most of the city thought of themselves as British subjects is quite laughable and anachronistic.
Click to expand...

Lets tear down the Forbidden City, the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, the Shrines and Castles of Japan, the Collesium in Rome, the Pyramids in Egypt. Lets show our children how modern we can be by spending money to quickly throw out our past and create cheap utilitarian buildings. Sorry but heritage buildings are important. The argument that somehow the fact a foreign born population matters in historic preservation makes no sense. History is what it is. If countries can keep historic sites representing painful pasts surely you can live with a past where a white guy named Galen Weston built a grocery store. Heritage sites aren't selected based on ethnic background, they are selected due to age and architectural uniqueness. You can be certain the Swaminarayan Mandir, the Ismaili Centre, and many newer buildings of architectural significance will also get the designation with age. If all the buildings are new and built with only utilitarianism in minds using globally standardized architecture there is no point visiting a city because it will be just like every other place. Nobody wants to go visit a city where it is endless box stores, glass rectangular buildings, and Starbucks and McDonald's in the base. Tourists going to London want to see the old buildings, not the docklands. People going to Beijing want to see the old buildings, not the glass skyscrapers. Sense of place is in part defined by historic differences. As globalization turns cities everywhere into a bunch of highrises with global brands selling out of the bottom of them it is more important than ever to keep what makes this place different.
 
This discussion should be moved out of this thread and into a new one, appropriately titled ("Who cares about history?") so it can be easily ignored.

I keep looking at it here thinking there are news about the Loblaws building.
 
I just hope this building doesn't turn into another Walnut Hall. I'm still fuming about what was allowed to happen on Yonge Street.
 
Torontovibe said:
I just hope this building doesn't turn into another Walnut Hall. I'm still fuming about what was allowed to happen on Yonge Street.
Click to expand...

If there's any mitigating factor, it's that the brick is just a veneer, a skin, a "curtain wall" if you will, this being heavy-duty 1920s warehouse construction...
 
Maurice does have a point. Look at those "Italianized" Victorians between Bathurst and Dufferin for example. The mostly white English/European background folk buying these homes today are making a point of restoring them to their c.1910 charm, at least on the exterior facade. But honestly, I love it!

I always say to the 50% that insist they are the new majority--if it wasn't for us Brits, none of you would be here right now! Snobby.:D

Re: the topic at hand: While the brick warehouse would look incredible restored, contextually it no longer fits in with the neighbourhood. So perhaps three or four aA glass and red brick towers should punch up through the roof with the facade and part of the interior preserved; or maybe just pull it and replace it with something taller, and architecturally interesting?

If the Depression hadn't hit Toronto, who knows what the Weston's would've done with this property--build a 10s warehouse here?
 
Last edited:
urbandreamer said:
Re: the topic at hand: While the brick warehouse would look incredible restored, contextually it no longer fits in with the neighbourhood. So perhaps three or four aA glass and red brick towers should punch up through the roof with the facade and part of the interior preserved; or maybe just pull it and replace it with something taller, and architecturally interesting?
?
Click to expand...

It's almost right across the street from the Tip Top Lofts, another old warehouse transformed. It certainly doesn't fit contextually today as a warehouse, and I'll also agree this neighbourhood could use a supermarket; just not sure I agree that more of the building beyond a couple of facades couldn't be preserved in whatever goes there next.

Loblaws has a long history in Toronto--certainly the longest grocery under a single, consistent name in the city. It would be kind of cool, in my opinion, to use this location to recall some of that history while still building a modern store.
 
FAC33 said:
It's almost right across the street from the Tip Top Lofts, another old warehouse transformed. It certainly doesn't fit contextually today as a warehouse, and I'll also agree this neighbourhood could use a supermarket; just not sure I agree that more of the building beyond a couple of facades couldn't be preserved in whatever goes there next.
Click to expand...

Then again, the old Crosse & Blackwell (later itself taken over by Loblaws) across the street is also presently a contextual outlier--dunno whether that's an argument for contextual outliers, or for C&B's own ultimate redevelopment/reuse...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top