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

[pw20]

I'd rather see the facade's preserved then the building being fire-bombed by an absentee landlord...

The outside is gorgeous. There are some lovely interior details (the staircases) but the mushroom columns aren't really something to write home about.

We face this issue a lot - similar to the North Toronto Collegiate reconstruction - do we save what we can (a facade) when we don't have enough money to completely renovate an out of date building, or do we prop up a building with stop-gap measures until potentially, we find the funds we need to re-purpose an out of date building. (For example the cost of completely renovating NT was astronomical)

As urban enthusiasts - what is our cost benefit between letting a building rot until financing can come together to renovate it so the 2000 ppl on this board are happy, losing the building entirely, or saving a bit of the building so an entire corner is re-vitalized?

I'm leaning towards saying save the facade if that's what is actually going to get done.

 

[grey]

But I want to understand why these are "treasures"? What purpose do they serve that couldn't be served better by just looking at a picture of them? I don't know about you, but I have better things to do than to stand outside an old/heritage building and "admire" the history of it. It's like looking at art - which is fine because art has museums. But in this particular instance, the utility of a grocery store far outweighs some strange touchy-feely notion of "heritage" (which to non-European immigrants is very strange notion in the first place as it speaks to a time when the west was less evolved anyway).

Funny, you wouldn't think a "highly evolved" society would be so eager to bulldoze its own history and culture...

From heritagetoronto.org:

What makes an individual property important?

A building, structure or site may be considered important for a variety of reasons. It may have architectural value or it may relate to a significant person, an important event in the history of the city or a critical time in the development of one of its neighbourhoods. A building may be well crafted or represent a characteristic of the community. A building does not have to be "old" to be an important heritage property. Many modern buildings and structures such as Roy Thomson Hall and the CN Tower are significant parts of our heritage and are symbols of our city. Nor does a property have to be a grand public building - small cottages, warehouses, industrial structures and bridges are also valuable legacies of the past and deserve to be protected and preserved.


You should also read up on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_reuse

 

[Maurice]

Funny, you wouldn't think a "highly evolved" society would be so eager to bulldoze its own history and culture...

From heritagetoronto.org:

What makes an individual property important?

A building, structure or site may be considered important for a variety of reasons. It may have architectural value or it may relate to a significant person, an important event in the history of the city or a critical time in the development of one of its neighbourhoods. A building may be well crafted or represent a characteristic of the community. A building does not have to be "old" to be an important heritage property. Many modern buildings and structures such as Roy Thomson Hall and the CN Tower are significant parts of our heritage and are symbols of our city. Nor does a property have to be a grand public building - small cottages, warehouses, industrial structures and bridges are also valuable legacies of the past and deserve to be protected and preserved.


You should also read up on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_reuse

I'm with you on the definition - I'm questioning why is "architectural value" important in the first place? I am suggesting that utility (in this case a grocery store in an underserved area of the city) should ALWAYS trump "architectural/historical value".

The reason is that "architectural/historical value" is based on a fuzzy (mostly white/european) idea of nostalgia/heritage. No one here was actually alive when the original building was being used (and it's not particularly relevant even if they were). The utility of being able to buy organic spinach quickly and at a store with parking is much more relevant than whether the building where that spinach is stored makes some people feel good inside when passing by on the streetcar.

Ultimately, that's my issue with this topic in general - the folks who fight for "heritage" buildings are the intellectual (albeit more inert) cousins of the same folks who move out of neighbourhoods because "it just doesn't look like how I remember" (code words for: there are more ethnics in the neighbourhood now).

 

[adHominem]

Wow. I just... wow.

 

[FAC33]

But I want to understand why these are "treasures"? What purpose do they serve that couldn't be served better by just looking at a picture of them? I don't know about you, but I have better things to do than to stand outside an old/heritage building and "admire" the history of it. It's like looking at art - which is fine because art has museums. But in this particular instance, the utility of a grocery store far outweighs some strange touchy-feely notion of "heritage" (which to non-European immigrants is very strange notion in the first place as it speaks to a time when the west was less evolved anyway).

Maurice, I know few people in the heritage community that would argue for buildings to be preserved purely as objets d'art, or to be restored absolutely faithfully to their original uses. (Those old factories and warehouses are never going to have those functions again). Rather, the goal is to reuse the building for something new, so that instead of standing and admiring the history of it, you can use the building and at the same time appreciate what it once was. For instance, the Steam Whistle Brewery is a cool place to visit, both for seeing how they brew the beer and how they've repurposed the old Roundhouse building. You get the best of both worlds. When you reuse buildings in this way, you obviously are going to need to make changes to the buildings--but the key is to preserve as much as possible to keep the flavour that made the original building what it was.

I will confess: I am a historian by training (a medievalist, in fact, speaking of a "less evolved" period) and to me historical buildings are valuable as keys to understanding the past. It's not touchy-feely at all, to me it's about technology, how building materials were used, what aesthetics were important to particular eras, how the building looks on the site, and so forth. No photograph can replace an actual extant building. Facade preservation is better than nothing, but it's a last resort.

 

[Maurice]

Maurice, I know few people in the heritage community that would argue for buildings to be preserved purely as objets d'art, or to be restored absolutely faithfully to their original uses. (Those old factories and warehouses are never going to have those functions again). Rather, the goal is to reuse the building for something new, so that instead of standing and admiring the history of it, you can use the building and at the same time appreciate what it once was. For instance, the Steam Whistle Brewery is a cool place to visit, both for seeing how they brew the beer and how they've repurposed the old Roundhouse building. You get the best of both worlds. When you reuse buildings in this way, you obviously are going to need to make changes to the buildings--but the key is to preserve as much as possible to keep the flavour that made the original building what it was.

I will confess: I am a historian by training (a medievalist, in fact, speaking of a "less evolved" period) and to me historical buildings are valuable as keys to understanding the past. It's not touchy-feely at all, to me it's about technology, how building materials were used, what aesthetics were important to particular eras, how the building looks on the site, and so forth. No photograph can replace an actual extant building. Facade preservation is better than nothing, but it's a last resort.

FAC33 - There's definitely some value in making the attempt to preserve "heritage" (I'll use the term heritage - but I mean it in the specific context of this topic). My issue is that there's a cost to preserving heritage, and for me (admittedly, not a historian, but a resident of the area who uses his car more often than not to get groceries) that cost is not worth it.

Yes, learning about old building materials etc. has value - but I'm arguing that a much more relevant and useful value is the grocery store at that location. The overall benefits of that grocery store (in terms of employment, convenience, reduction in car use etc.) is a larger net benefit than delaying the construction by years to force the owners of that property and land to make sure the outside of their grocery store looks like a building from the 1920's.

 

[Rebecca - HT]

Maurice, you sound like most of the city.

If Loblaws has the decency, the vision and will they can keep this structure AND provide the community a grocery store. This isn't a case of its future use not being appropriate for the space, it's ideal for the space. Developers and owners have been given too much leeway with their structures in this city. Heritage is always the last consideration. The major of cities in North America and in Europe have insisted that heritage be incorporated in all aspects of the city - planning, public space, culture, tourism...but no, Toronto is all the more poorer for it.

Facadism is a crock of shit...the heritage community doesn't want, it's a way for developers to go "There there" pat us on the hand and send us on our way. What purpose does it serve? It doesn't remind people of the previous use of the buildings, its space or its place in the city. It's a lazy proposition that the heritage community doesn't demand, it's the result in many cases of a compromise forced on heritage planning.

As someone deeply involved in the heritage community, does the public have any idea how many concessions we have to make? People assume that our efforts always pay off, instead we are treated with such disdain. Quite frankly the community has had enough, the Empress Hotel is that breaking point.

In particular heritage planning in the city is so beleaguered, the public has no clue how horrific it is.
Imagine you spend weeks on a project, researching, planning your presentation, blood, sweat and tears only to have it shot down for no legitimate reason. How the hell would you feel?
Now imagine your in heritage planning in Toronto, when you are not supported and treated as the fly buzzing around that needs to be swatted away?

Right now I learned from Heritage Preservation Services that they have a backlog of 100 properties, which is a few years work. Because the resources and staffing have not been allocated to them. Those properties will probably fall, because there is no push to fix the system or provide the resources needed.

We have already lost so many treasures. There have also been some great examples of re-adaptive reuse. When we do the later, it gets celebrated (see Wychwood Barns, Brickworks, Distillery, RCM). So why the hell don't we do it more often?

What also stuns me is that a major issue for this isn't just the heritage value of the building, but the waste of materials. The greenest brick is the one in the wall.

Developers and owners do need to be offered incentives to restore heritage structures, no doubt. But you know what? A heritage planner in DC told me that developers accept NO and understand that designation means hands off. They aren't given means to appeal. They understand to work with the structure, and as a result their city has an amazing architectural record, both old and new. We had it too, but we are rapidly losing it.

Community needs, more business, more condos, intensification, blah, blah. Heritage always gets the short end of the stick, and really the public doesn't care. The public is just as at fault as the politicians are - if more people supported heritage, we may have a better culture of preservation in this city.

 

[Maurice]

Maurice, you sound like most of the city.

If Loblaws has the decency, the vision and will they can keep this structure AND provide the community a grocery store. This isn't a case of its future use not being appropriate for the space, it's ideal for the space. Developers and owners have been given too much leeway with their structures in this city. Heritage is always the last consideration. The major of cities in North America and in Europe have insisted that heritage be incorporated in all aspects of the city - planning, public space, culture, tourism...but no, Toronto is all the more poorer for it.

Facadism is a crock of shit...the heritage community doesn't want, it's a way for developers to go "There there" pat us on the hand and send us on our way. What purpose does it serve? It doesn't remind people of the previous use of the buildings, its space or its place in the city. It's a lazy proposition that the heritage community doesn't demand, it's the result in many cases of a compromise forced on heritage planning.

As someone deeply involved in the heritage community, does the public have any idea how many concessions we have to make? People assume that our efforts always pay off, instead we are treated with such disdain. Quite frankly the community has had enough, the Empress Hotel is that breaking point.

In particular heritage planning in the city is so beleaguered, the public has no clue how horrific it is.
Imagine you spend weeks on a project, researching, planning your presentation, blood, sweat and tears only to have it shot down for no legitimate reason. How the hell would you feel?
Now imagine your in heritage planning in Toronto, when you are not supported and treated as the fly buzzing around that needs to be swatted away?

Right now I learned from Heritage Preservation Services that they have a backlog of 100 properties, which is a few years work. Because the resources and staffing have not been allocated to them. Those properties will probably fall, because there is no push to fix the system or provide the resources needed.

We have already lost so many treasures. There have also been some great examples of re-adaptive reuse. When we do the later, it gets celebrated (see Wychwood Barns, Brickworks, Distillery, RCM). So why the hell don't we do it more often?

What also stuns me is that a major issue for this isn't just the heritage value of the building, but the waste of materials. The greenest brick is the one in the wall.

Developers and owners do need to be offered incentives to restore heritage structures, no doubt. But you know what? A heritage planner in DC told me that developers accept NO and understand that designation means hands off. They aren't given means to appeal. They understand to work with the structure, and as a result their city has an amazing architectural record, both old and new. We had it too, but we are rapidly losing it.

Community needs, more business, more condos, intensification, blah, blah. Heritage always gets the short end of the stick, and really the public doesn't care. The public is just as at fault as the politicians are - if more people supported heritage, we may have a better culture of preservation in this city.

Rebecca, that's exactly my point - heritage should be on the short end of the stick. At it's best, it's a romantic notion filled with very iffy words like "history", "past treasures", "culture". At it's worst, it's an elitist puff of smoke similar to people arguing over trends in women's fashion. It's the type of discussion that makes ordinary people mad and run to anti-elitists like Rob Ford.

The fact that you're saying that the public doesn't support heritage to me is a good sign - and our city will be better off for it. I'm questioning the entire premise of "Heritage" - if it was free, I'd be all for it. But it's not, and the cost is simply not worth it.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Maurice, you sound like most of the city.

I don't agree. Many not have the eye or inclination to take a moment to study older buildings of significance because it's simply not on their radar, but I do not accept that "most of the city" advocates tearing them down. "Maurice" is just playing games here and wasting space.

 

[Maurice]

I don't agree. Many not have the eye or inclination to take a moment to study older buildings of significance because it's simply not on their radar, but I do not accept that "most of the city" advocates tearing them down. "Maurice" is just playing games here and wasting space.

I don't advocate tearing them all out either - just the ones where the utility of the proposed "new" building is more than the additional cost of retaining the "architectural heritage". Further, I'm making the larger point that "heritage talk" feels like elitist talk - which works against the intention because ordinary people are turned off by such talk.

 

[grey]

Maurice, excuse us if we seem hostile, but you're looking at this exclusively in terms of economic value and ignoring cultural value. Heritage preservation is rooted in cultural identity. It helps define who we are as people. Struggling with our identity is a national challenge, and it's generally not helpful when people like you come along and say, "this building means nothing to me, therefore it isn't important".

Elements of cultural value (prominent economist, David Throsby, has written extensively on this topic):

- aesthetic value (recognized by individuals or groups, whatever criteria might be used to define aesthetic significance)
- social value (heritage buildings convey social value because they inform people about the nature of society, and in many cases, contribute to cohesion in the community)
- historical value (defines identity by providing a connection with the past and revealing the origins of the present)
- symbolic value (conveys cultural meaning)

These are public goods.


When approaching the cost benefit analysis, you have to compare the costs and benefits of alternative projects. Heritage buildings have an existing asset value, require real resources for their maintenance, and yield flows of benefits and costs into the future, so any of the cost benefit analysis methods for evaluating capital investment decisions could be applied. A cost benefit analysis undertaken from Loblaws' private perspective (rather than a social perspective) would use actual financial flows and opportunity costs that the company would experience. They're also likely to use the oportunity cost of capital at the appropriate discount rate.

Here's an example analysis:

- account for taxes and transfers
- use shadow prices, not market prices
- use a lower discount rate reflecting (say) a social time preference rate,
- include all non-market effects (public goods and externalities).

Now you can compare the priate and social rates of return as a basis for decision-making. But cultural value is another dimension that yields both economic value and cultural value, so it's necessary to assess it as well.

 

[Maurice]

Maurice, excuse us if we seem hostile, but you're looking at this exclusively in terms of economic value and ignoring cultural value. Heritage preservation is rooted in cultural identity. It helps define who we are as people. Struggling with our identity is a national challenge, and it's generally not helpful when people like you come along and say, "this building means nothing to me, therefore it isn't important".

Elements of cultural value:
- aesthetic value (recognized by individuals or groups, whatever criteria might be used to define aesthetic significance)
- social value (heritage buildings convey social value because they inform people about the nature of society, and in many cases, contribute to cohesion in the community)
- historical value (defines identity by providing a connection with the past and revealing the origins of the present)
- symbolic value (conveys cultural meaning)

These are public goods.


When approaching the cost benefit analysis, you have to compare the costs and benefits of alternative projects. Heritage buildings have an existing asset value, require real resources for their maintenance, and yield flows of benefits and costs into the future, so any of the cost benefit analysis methods for evaluating capital investment decisions could be applied. A cost benefit analysis undertaken from Loblaws' private perspective (rather than a social perspective) would use actual financial flows and opportunity costs that the company would experience. They're also likely to use the oportunity cost of capital at the appropriate discount rate.

Here's an example analysis:

- account for taxes and transfers
- use shadow prices, not market prices
- use a lower discount rate reflecting (say) a social time preference rate,
- include all non-market effects (public goods and externalities).

Now you can compare the priate and social rates of return as a basis for decision-making. But cultural value is another dimension that yields both economic value and cultural value, so it's necessary to assess it as well.

Grey - now things get more interesting!

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.

One open question for thought (and I don't know the answer, more curiousity) - what is the racial make up of the Toronto "heritage community"? Is it similar to that of the city?

 

[Blovertis]

Rebecca, that's exactly my point - heritage should be on the short end of the stick. At it's best, it's a romantic notion filled with very iffy words like "history", "past treasures", "culture". At it's worst, it's an elitist puff of smoke similar to people arguing over trends in women's fashion. It's the type of discussion that makes ordinary people mad and run to anti-elitists like Rob Ford.

The fact that you're saying that the public doesn't support heritage to me is a good sign - and our city will be better off for it. I'm questioning the entire premise of "Heritage" - if it was free, I'd be all for it. But it's not, and the cost is simply not worth it.

Where does one begin to respond to such philistinism? If you genuinely believe that "history" and "heritage" are "iffy" and "worthless", there's no point in attempting to persuade you otherwise. It's because of people like you that much of Toronto is as ugly and banal as it is.

Further, I'm making the larger point that "heritage talk" feels like elitist talk - which works against the intention because ordinary people are turned off by such talk.

Who made you the authority on what "ordinary people" think? Heritage talk, as you put it, "feels" elitist to you and you only. I suppose you'll argue next that the Lalani Group struck a blow for the common man at 335 Yonge.

 

[grey]

"culture is a concern of the racist white elites." -Maurice, the immigrant with a chip on his shoulder

 

[Maurice]

"culture is a concern of the racist white elites." -Maurice, the immigrant with a chip on his shoulder

Now now grey, I hope we can have a discussion more nuanced than what your summary above portrays. It's intellectual laziness to confuse racism with cultural-elitism.. I view discussions equating culture and "old" buildings to be cultural elitism - not racist.

The overall discussion had turned to the more general idea that the Toronto public is not supportive of "cultural/heritage projects". I was simply proposing that given the racial makeup of our city - the term "culture" means very different things to different people. And, especially to the 50% not born in Canada - the notion that the term "culture" is used within the context of preserving an old building would seem quite silly.