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

No heritage protection leads to mindlessly tearing down beautiful and historically significant structures in the city. This leads to a loss of character that those old buildings, which essentially define the city by it's history (see Distillery District) as the former industrial centre it was, gave to the city and its people. The loss of character turns a city like Toronto or Montreal or even London and Paris, into a mindless set of towers that make up a "skyline-without-a-city" like Dubai, or even Mississauga as is occurring right now.
What city do more people go to, and what city do more people love for it's character, London or Dubai?
I'd rather Toronto be seen as a city rather than a skyline, and a city with character rather than a utilitarian center that is dead once 5pm hits.
 
Last edited:
I agree completely, Architect, and well said. I'm afraid we're going to see Loblaw Companies Ltd try to use the redeveloped MLG as their compromise with the city: Well, we redeveloped *that* pile of junk due to public outcry; we should certainly be allowed to demolish this one... As a city, we should be demanding more from our corporate citizens. We deserve better.

I've sent a suitably colourful email to Loblaw's PR department (CCing relevant media outlets, Cllr Adam Vaughan and Mayor Ford), and I recommend you all do the same. There's a distinct lack of proactivity in this city w.r.t. maintaining our heritage properties, even among the passionate (i.e., us), but if you care to see this building still standing in five years it might take some action. Let's reflect that from the perspective of Loblaw Companies Ltd a Yonge/Gould type scenario (demolition by time; partial crumbling; case-closing fire) is a best-case scenario. That's the state of things here in the City of Toronto.

pr@loblaw.ca; mayor_ford@toronto.ca; councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca; city@thestar.ca

I have my fingers crossed.
 
Word from Cllr Vaughan:

My office is hosting a public meeting on the Loblaws building and another proposed development at the North-East corner of Bathurst and Front. Please feel free to attend if you are interested. The meeting takes place on Monday January 31, starting at 7:30pm, at the Harbourfront Community Centre at the corner of Queens Quay and Bathurst.
Click to expand...

Edit: What she said! :)
 
City planners say they’re baffled as to why the company is erecting construction hoarding along the west side of the Loblaw Groceteria Company warehouse on the intersection’s northeast corner.

“They haven’t contacted us for any permits. We just don’t know what they’re doing.†says city planner Jamaica Hewston. “We don’t know anything about (the hoarding).â€
Click to expand...

And yet, the ward's councillor knows enough of something to have a community meeting less than 3 weeks later. I love you, Toronto!
 
Not sure what you are getting at. Community meetings are often held with whatever information is available at the time for subjects of public interest. The goal is often to show community support for something or community resistance against something before the landowner has a chance to get everything set in stone.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

You'd be correct - I'm a professional satirist doing some research on a column. Thanks everyone for the interesting discussion though!
 
adma said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your point here - the current policy in most of the major cities in China is to build, only some very touristy historical places are being preserved. In terms of the Middle East - their thinking in all matters is less evolved and all their "heritage" relates to silly religious sites. One can hope we're at a higher-level plane of discourse in all matters than using the tired "what if we were in a hut in Africa/cave in the Middle East" metaphoric trick.
 
EnviroTO said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm against the silly Mandir and Ismaili Centre as well. The so-called Ismaili Centre is particularly offensive as a tenant of their faith is that non-believers are not allowed into the inner sanctum and basically all non-believers are sentenced to eternal damnation.
 
I noticed a truck with a small crane delivering some supplies to the front of the building this morning. Hopefully this is the start of something...
 
urbandreamer said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, and the "Brits" now have to pay the immigrant demographic dividend! They had a great ride in the 19th and most of the 20th century, but they focused too much on money and less on baby-making. Actually, the best satiric take I've seen on this phenomenon was on the Bill Maher show - he labeled it the "white p_nis problem". Basically, the thesis was that for a number of years, the white guy could go to work (whether those were steel mills or the office) and be very comfortable in a routine. Now, they have to go to work and report to someone with a heavy accent, who doesn't take their kids for hockey/baseball practice and who doesn't know anything about a cottage - but works twice as hard and is driving down wages for everyone. The issues are not so much racial, as they are cultural. The recent brouhaha about Chinese parenting is another example of this coming immigrant culture clash.
 
Maurice said:
I'm against the silly Mandir and Ismaili Centre as well. The so-called Ismaili Centre is particularly offensive as a tenant of their faith is that non-believers are not allowed into the inner sanctum and basically all non-believers are sentenced to eternal damnation.
Click to expand...

Tenants come and go, no big deal.

Tenets though, those can be sticky.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top