News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 637     0 

Toronto Architecture from the 1940's and 1950's

Too bad they didn't build entire neighbourhoods with midrise apartment buildings like those ones.

+1000

I did not know those two complexes were built by the same architect. But I suppose I should have guessed. I have always admired them, being an ex-Montrealer and all. They are very reminiscent of buildings back home.
 
Too bad they didn't build entire neighbourhoods with midrise apartment buildings like those ones.

I agree, junctionist! As an ensemble they are unparalleled in the City urbanistically and architecturally. They are also particularly skillful in responding to the steep grade of Eglinton in this section.

The Official Plan's "Avenues" designation only seems to generate this scale of buildings on commercial streets, with retail at grade (and very few at that). This really should be the scale of streets like Bathurst, Dufferin, etc instead of the existing house form buildings. Even non-retail wide streets (like St. Clair between Bathurst and Avenue Road) only have a height limit of 14M.
 
I can find nothing about 49 St Clair w - The Whitehall Apartments built by it's owner Harry Jennings c1935.


Regards,
J T
 
Me either, JT!

Ava Manor Apartments, 1862 Bathurst, 1952 (note the circular penthouse apartment atop):

47e110b18515a60b3f0613e926ab4e9a.jpg


f193f8e1346846de4a664ee5b78bf84c.jpg


919025d7818b7385227766d1ccadf1c2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I agree, junctionist! As an ensemble they are unparalleled in the City urbanistically and architecturally. They are also particularly skillful in responding to the steep grade of Eglinton in this section.

Well, compared to Montreal, Toronto's development patterns tended to enshrine single-family/semi-ownership; apartments were much more of an exotic "incremental" phenomenon, and often (as in Forest Hill) w/a bit of a secretarial/servant-class stigma. Yeah, Toronto The Good tended to be snottily un-foresighted about such things--though it's certainly ironic that the city went from pre-WWII apartment-phobe to Commie Block Central in the 60s and 70s...
 
"though it's certainly ironic that the city went from pre-WWII apartment-phobe to Commie Block Central in the 60s and 70s... "
QUOTE: adma.

The rot arrived in The Town of Mimico during the 1950's with the wholesale tear-down of the large estates lakeside. This of course was

aided by the corruption of one of the City Counsel members. The Mimico Story by Harvey Currell (1967) highlights this in a rather terse way:

"Of course, we all know of Jim Ferrie's long and valued service to the town."
QUOTE: G W G Gauld.


Regards,
J T
 
[QUOTEJ Well, compared to Montreal, Toronto's development patterns tended to enshrine single-family/semi-ownership; apartments were much more of an exotic "incremental" phenomenon, and often (as in Forest Hill) w/a bit of a secretarial/servant-class stigma. Yeah, Toronto The Good tended to be snottily un-foresighted about such things--though it's certainly ironic that the city went from pre-WWII apartment-phobe to Commie Block Central in the 60s and 70s... [/QUOTE]

I have a number of theories about all that based on nothing more than gut.

Montreal, being a creature of the French tenant society (and I don't mean apartments but land and seigneuries) was more likely to accept apartments or multi-family dwellings such as duplexes and triplexes. They also made more sense, given the high cost and difficulty of heating. Until the mid-80s or so, 80 per cent of Montrealers rented.

Meanwhile, Toronto was settled by English and Scots who were used to their mean little city houses. I would much rather live in an expansive Montreal flat, with its architectural flourishes (wrought iron stairs, fabulous cornices etc. thanks to craftsmen who built the churches), than a plain, narrow Toronto houses.

That said, the first true apartment building in Canada was in the Golden Mile, the heart of anglo riches in Canada, on Sherbrooke W. Half of it is now gone, while the other half still is more or less intact. It is all part of the Musee.

Montreal could easily have turned into much worse than Soviet blocs had Mayor Jean Drapeau continued to run amok. I don't know if it was organized crime or just a fondness for concrete but the number of historical buildings destroyed for cement highrises continues to appall me. Thankfully, his botching the Olympic file and the subsequent PQ-caused depression and flight of money saved the city from the wrecking ball. It's so beautiful. Even the 30s, 40s, and 50s buildings are straight out of the movies.

However, last time I was there and spent some time wandering around, I was concerned by the hoarding in various locations (Mountain street!) announcing monster supertall condos. I'm not against them in principle. I just hope they respect Montreal's architectural integrity.
 
"though it's certainly ironic that the city went from pre-WWII apartment-phobe to Commie Block Central in the 60s and 70s... "
QUOTE: adma.

The rot arrived in The Town of Mimico during the 1950's with the wholesale tear-down of the large estates lakeside. This of course was

aided by the corruption of one of the City Counsel members. The Mimico Story by Harvey Currell (1967) highlights this in a rather terse way:

"Of course, we all know of Jim Ferrie's long and valued service to the town."
QUOTE: G W G Gauld.


Regards,
J T


Screen-shot-2013-03-29-at-100440-PM_zps42907d0b.gif:original
 
I had forgotten about mr Jack Book.
(The pseudo-man hiding beneath the desk. - LOL)

BTW, where is (Continued on Page 2, Col. 6)?

Thank you Mr Thedeepend.


Regards,
J T
 
Last edited:
Well, compared to Montreal, Toronto's development patterns tended to enshrine single-family/semi-ownership; apartments were much more of an exotic "incremental" phenomenon, and often (as in Forest Hill) w/a bit of a secretarial/servant-class stigma. Yeah, Toronto The Good tended to be snottily un-foresighted about such things--though it's certainly ironic that the city went from pre-WWII apartment-phobe to Commie Block Central in the 60s and 70s...

I think that the story is more nuanced than what we are used to hearing about Toronto=home owners while Montreal = renters. We have to distinguish builtform from habitation patterns. While it was true that the primary residential builtform in pre WWII Toronto were houseform buildings, this does not mean that every house was single-family or even owner-occupied. There were boarding houses (precursors of rooming houses, and would have probably included meals), duplexes, triplexes, apartments above stores on every commercial street and most likely, rooms rented out in single-family homes.

The immigrant experience in Toronto post 1900, (as I can attest to from tales from my own family), would have seen multiple families or extended families within the typical Toronto Victorian house, a builtform whose flexibility made it do adaptable. Edwardian subdivisions like Palmerston Boulevard included small apartment buildings and purpose-built duplexes and triplexes cheek-by-jowl with mansions for the upper middle-class. Post WWI saw the growth of "Pullman-style" apartments all over downtown as large single-family homes (like on streets like Maitland, Charles, Isabella, etc), were replaced by two to three storey apartment buildings, without having to assemble a number of houses to make it happen.

Finally, the apartment buildings of the 40's and early 50's shown on this thread, reflected the changing demographics of the city post-war, both in terms of the increase in immigration, and the change in family structures such as seniors choosing to live on their own rather than with their children, the increase in "separated" households and most importantly, the increase in single-person and two-person households, a market which was not being addressed in the old houseform buildings. The huge growth of apartment neighborhoods in the 50's addressed this market and transformed the city and streets like St.George, Jamison and Jarvis. Even Rosedale was not immune to the post-war population pressures as the old mansion lots were replaced by small apartment buildings and many of the old houses themselves became rooming houses.

"Infill" apartment buildings of the 1950's:

St. George's Towers, St. George Street, 1957, Venchiarutti & Venchiarutti:

getimage-57.exe.jpg
getimage-55.exe.jpg


getimage-54.exe.jpg
getimage-53.exe.jpg


16 Rosedale Road, 1958, Bregman & Hamann:

getimage-52.exe.jpg


Crescent Road, 1957:

getimage-51.exe.jpg


Jameson Avenue 1950:

queen jameson2.jpg


Today:

P1020491.jpg
 

Attachments

  • getimage-57.exe.jpg
    getimage-57.exe.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 1,219
  • getimage-55.exe.jpg
    getimage-55.exe.jpg
    17.2 KB · Views: 1,219
  • getimage-54.exe.jpg
    getimage-54.exe.jpg
    14.1 KB · Views: 1,216
  • getimage-53.exe.jpg
    getimage-53.exe.jpg
    16.5 KB · Views: 1,228
  • getimage-52.exe.jpg
    getimage-52.exe.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 1,210
  • getimage-51.exe.jpg
    getimage-51.exe.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 1,227
  • queen jameson2.jpg
    queen jameson2.jpg
    99.6 KB · Views: 1,260
  • P1020491.jpg
    P1020491.jpg
    94 KB · Views: 1,295
Last edited:
The immigrant experience in Toronto post 1900, (as I can attest to from tales from my own family), would have seen multiple families or extended families within the typical Toronto Victorian house, a builtform whose flexibility made it do adaptable. Edwardian subdivisions like Palmerston Boulevard included small apartment buildings and purpose-built duplexes and triplexes cheek-by-jowl with mansions for the upper middle-class. Post WWI saw the growth of "Pullman-style" apartments all over downtown as large single-family homes (like on streets like Maitland, Charles, Isabella, etc), were replaced by two to three storey apartment buildings, without having to assemble a number of houses to make it happen.

And I can also imagine that to immigrants fleeing "tight" living conditions in their homeland, the ample space and flexibility of old Victorians might have seemed a breath of fresh air--much like 905 suburbia might seem to their present-day counterparts...
 
Photos taken June 1954. Some of these are pretty obvious, but others are now more obscure. No addresses or identifying info provided in the file.


s0381_fl0308_id12103-31_zps19ee6b1e.gif:original

s0381_fl0308_id12103-38_zps8a6eb3bd.gif:original

s0381_fl0308_id12103-42_zps0a58344b.gif:original

s0381_fl0308_id12103-45_zpse172361f.gif:original

s0381_fl0308_id12103-14_zpseded89f4.gif:original

s0381_fl0308_id12103-15_zps41ab5a88.gif:original

s0381_fl0308_id12103-22_zps3dc70058.gif:original

s0381_fl0308_id12103-26_zps6fd4901f.gif:original

s0381_fl0308_id12103-12_zps73ddec87.gif:original
 
"you're welcome JT!"
QUOTE: Mr Thedeepend.

Much appreciated.


Regards,
J T
 
Great set, deepend! I was at a loss on the last on but just realized it was the office building on Bay north of Wellesley about to be demolished for the 1000 Bay project. Almost made it to 60 years old!
 

Back
Top