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

Rebecca - HT said:
All of what p5connex said, all of it. He also stated that it doesn't have to fit it's original purpose - but it actually is one of the more ideal spaces to suit future use, for a grocery store. It can become anything it wants to be, and at no point did I state that it should be left to rot because they can't use the original building - it can be used for ANYTHING if there is the want to do so.
Click to expand...

If you haven't bothered to read the Loblaws report, then how can you or p5connex presume to know if the building is suitable for a supermarket? That strikes me as just a little presumptuous. You make a rather empty claim that it can be used for anything. Because it is a purpose-built warehouse with an unusual floor layout, it is not suitable for anything as you assert. That's not an argument, it's an excuse. If the structure can never be altered to make the site useful, the building will not be used. Simple as that. No one will want to buy a now badly located warehouse structure that is stuck being a warehouse structure by virtue of its heritage designation.

Gristle we won't agree because while you feel the heritage community has to adapt and be less flexible, the heritage community feels that we are always making concessions, and quite frankly, has had enough.
Click to expand...

I did NOT say the heritage community has to be less flexible. Do not put words into my mouth. Adaptation is a part of the reuse of buildings like this. Sometimes adaptation requires a few changes, sometimes it requires radical changes. The quality of those changes, and how radical they are, do matter. At no point have I stated otherwise. Maybe you are missing that because I'm not presuming to speak on behalf of a "community."

Facadism is not what the heritage community wants. It's pretty much a pat on the head and saying "There there, heritage people" It's used a lot here, more than other cities, as an acceptable compromise. It's become acceptable. As the heritage community accepts more losses due to a broken system, why can't lie down and continue to believe it's acceptable because developers don't have the will or vision to do better.
Click to expand...

The owner of the property and the building did not originally want to keep the structure. They have now offered to retain the exterior architectural character and materials of the building and to clean, refurbish and reconstruct it. Your position is for no change whatsoever to any part of the structure. Keep it as is with no changes.

Honestly, who's really being the facadist here?
 
2 Cents:

This is a wonderful building that I would hate to see demolished and I would hate almost as much to see it only retain its facade while the rest is rebuilt and changed. I do, however, recognize the need for concessions to be made in order that it is able to be repurposed as something that this neighbourhood desperately needs. It would seem to me that leaving this building to sit and deteriorate further while fighting to keep it preserved 100% is only doing the building a disservice. I would rather have a less attractive and less historically significant structure that is in use and productive to the community than a preserved heritage structure that is boarded up and rotting.
 
How is it even possible to believe that a warehouse can't be made into a supermarket? Anyone who's ever been outside of North America has seen supermarkets in the most unlikely of buildings. Smith's in Beirut was carved out of the first three floors of an apartment building. Closer to home, Hartman's in Ottawa was cobbled together out of a series of additions to an old bank and a Victorian commercial building. Why, someone is even turning Maple Leaf Gardens into a supermarket. Wait a minute, isn't it the same company that "can't" turn this building into one? I guess they feel that having done their bit for architectural preservation on Carlton, they have no obligations on Lakeshore.
 
Either way lets get something going here, ten more years is way to long to wait ..hopefully we dont wake up one morning and its all gone the same way the Yonge & Gould, Reynolds Block went.:mad: Shit happens when certain people dont get there way.
 
CapitalSeven said:
How is it even possible to believe that a warehouse can't be made into a supermarket? Anyone who's ever been outside of North America has seen supermarkets in the most unlikely of buildings. Smith's in Beirut was carved out of the first three floors of an apartment building. Closer to home, Hartman's in Ottawa was cobbled together out of a series of additions to an old bank and a Victorian commercial building. Why, someone is even turning Maple Leaf Gardens into a supermarket. Wait a minute, isn't it the same company that "can't" turn this building into one? I guess they feel that having done their bit for architectural preservation on Carlton, they have no obligations on Lakeshore.
Click to expand...

Except that...Loblaw is spinning this as being in that spirit. And that the facade--the most "urbanistically critical" element--is their way of addressing their "obligations on Lakeshore".

And let me add something else, less as advocate than as disinterested third party...Loblaw may be presenting a valid case w/whatever credible heritage consultancy in tow, but--remember. When a heritage consultant, even the very best heritage consultant, is on the Loblaw payroll, (s)he is serving Loblaw, above all else. *Not* the heritage community in and of itself, except as a best-face mediator. The consultant is there to make Loblaw look good and reasonably sensitive; not to subvert and wreck Loblaw. So, there's a built-in bias involved. That's why I earlier invoked politics and legalities--that's how the political and legal system works. It's corporate/client spin, no matter how you try to counterspin it. And I've witnessed many a heritage architect or consultant over the years doing similar "deals with the devil"--within a different context, their conclusions may turn up differently; but as a Flintstones contraption would put it, "it's a living"...
 
'Gristle' & 'Automation Gallery',

I shudder at reading your perspectives on heritage preservation (or lack thereof). Your views are typical of Toronto's legacy of obliterating it's past, mostly to make way for banal new square footage. Toronto has to be one of the most shameful examples of heritage destruction in the western world.
 
neubilder said:
'Gristle' & 'Automation Gallery',

I shudder at reading your perspectives on heritage preservation (or lack thereof). Your views are typical of Toronto's legacy of obliterating it's past, mostly to make way for banal new square footage. Toronto has to be one of the most shameful examples of heritage destruction in the western world.
Click to expand...

Based on your statement, you have failed to read my postings. I'm not advocating the destruction of the building. Your suggestion that somehow I tacitly support heritage destruction is baseless (I was going to say stupid, but I'm a nice guy).

I think you can look to wars and the purposeful demolition of cities as much worse examples of active heritage destruction. Try that out.
 
neubilder said:
'Gristle' & 'Automation Gallery',

I shudder at reading your perspectives on heritage preservation (or lack thereof). Your views are typical of Toronto's legacy of obliterating it's past, mostly to make way for banal new square footage. Toronto has to be one of the most shameful examples of heritage destruction in the western world.
Click to expand...

Come on neubilder, as much as i like development and tall buildings i also love my heritage buildings. Nowhere have i said to get rid of this building, but basically i have said all along is... the longer you keep it this way the less likely anything can be done to save it...you talk about heritage destruction in Toronto, but a lot of it had and has to do with neglect from the owners of those lovely buildings and a government that did and has done nothing to address those issues. Right now i could count a couple dozen heritage buildings in the GTA that are sitting empty either waiting for a complete gut/reno, a facade retro, or the wrecking ball, if nothing is done to these structures in the next decade or two the most likely scenario is the wrecking ball. Hey, when worse comes to worst i think most of us would rather see a facade retrofit into the new development than total elimination of the past.
 
neubilder said:
'Gristle' & 'Automation Gallery',

I shudder at reading your perspectives on heritage preservation (or lack thereof). Your views are typical of Toronto's legacy of obliterating it's past, mostly to make way for banal new square footage. Toronto has to be one of the most shameful examples of heritage destruction in the western world.
Click to expand...


It's hard to take someone seriously by posted hyperbole such as, "most shameful examples of heritage destruction in the western world"
 
One only needs to look at a lot of the cities in the US rustbelt to witness far worse examples of heritage demolition (and neglect). And as far as local examples go, what about Hamilton? We're not the best, but we're nowhere near the bottom either.
 
Exactly. Detroit tore down buildings to make additional parking for the Super Bowl and Michigan Central Station is in deep trouble. Around the same time, some rust belt city allowed a developer to refurbish one building on the national registry and tear down two others to create an open air parking structure for that building. There was no effort on Chicago's CHA part either to rehab even one of the 100 plus high rises destroyed.
 
what does everyone think about the fact that some historic buildings are becoming the podium for taller structures that don't come close to complementing the existing architecture and facade?

Nothing annoys me more than to see a glass tower built on top of something else.
 
Last edited:
Depends on how it's done, I suppose

hearst_tower_8thavenue.jpg
 
TOBoy said:
The article in The Bulletin saying Fox and Fiddle restaurant is applying for a liquor license for the 17 Fort York space (ground level of N1/N2 building). However, Adam Vaughan and CityPlace Residents Association are making sure that it will be more of a restaurant and not a bar, and that noise will not be an issue. Thumbs up to them! If F&F comes, it will be a welcome addition, assuming that they can make it more of a restaurant establishment as opposed to a bar. The space is huge and the outside patio area is spacious.
Click to expand...

I believe it's official. "Fox & Fiddle Coming Soon" sign is up at the retail space at bottom of N1/N2 building. I just the concern whether it will be a loud establishment has been addressed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top