LNahid2000
Senior Member
If this is true then I completely blame the city for this. Like I said before, you can't really blame the developer for doing something they have the right to do.
Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Councillors have no power over demolition/building permits. Building permit staff have no power to deny the permit if all requirements are met. It sounds like she was made aware of the permit (that's what the motion is about, making sure councillors are aware) and started the process to see if it should be designated, however the developer started demolishing much quicker than anticipated. The only thing that can stop it is City Council passing a motion to give notice of intent to designate the property. Next meeting is not until February 10, although a special meeting could be called if enough councillors are on board.
Here is the timeline:
Jan 7 - Demolition Permit application submitted
Jan 12 - Letter submitted to Toronto and East York Community Council from KWT requesting staff review potential to designating the building heritage http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-74715.pdf
Jan 13 - Toronto and East York Community Council approved KWT motion. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.TE3.100
Jan 16 - Demolition permit approved
Jan 17 - Demolition commences
Last edited:
buildup
Senior Member
As I read some of these comments including Greenleaf's "F*** these guys" I can relate to, and support, the strategy of demolishing quickly. The preservationist movement in this city can be so reflexive, petty and holier-than-thou. Perhaps the developer is thinking 'its my project not Greenleaf's, my capital, my concept, my risk'.
He's got a modern concept in place and simply wants to avoid having cheap facadism imposed on him (and us).
He's got a modern concept in place and simply wants to avoid having cheap facadism imposed on him (and us).
Last edited:
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
She did have the power to hold or at least delay the demolition permit given the buildings status of "intention to designate", which must first pass by her desk as per KWT's Motion on this very topic put before Council in 2012, which passed.
david-realtor
Active Member
Ontario is for the most part in favour of intensification and infill projects and personally I think this plot qualifies for major development, there are streets that I am against redevelopment, i.e Scollard and Hazelton but this one does not qualify IMHO. Preaching heritage designation for anything and everything is a backwards way of thinking, especially when this whole area is going to be completely different in the next 10 years no matter what you try to do to stop it. Mizrahi is fully within their right ( although some might call it a grey area or "unethical") to do what they are doing, whether me or you like it or not is irrelevant when they have approval from the city/province.
Last edited:
greenleaf
Senior Member
Hey, I expressed my own ambivalent feelings on the building earlier this thread. What I lament is the loss of opportunity for saving the frieze which to me was the only remaining interesting part. With care, these architectural details could have been easily removed and their use could be determined at a later date. Hell, even that Stollery's sign with the buck on it could be saved for a future Museum of Toronto (how many Toronto businesses have lasted 114 years?). Surely it'll get an unsentimental drill by a jackhammer.
I get that the rules were technically followed and I accept that.
It stinks though and reeks of cowardice by the developer.
Last edited:
ardwold1
Active Member
Yeah, this is undeniably slimy. Sure Mizrahi is within his rights to pulverize this building if he so wishes- but how disappointing and disrespectful of him to do so given the circumstances. Not to mention wasteful (of resources, materials, opportunities). I was eagerly anticipating the details of this project, and willing to have Stollery's sacrificed for something (potentially) monumental- but this leaves me with a sick feeling that I'm not sure I'll be able to shake. Let's not forget that we really have no idea yet what is in store for this site, aside from some overly-effusive newspaper interviews with the developer himself. Yikes.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I am against preserving the building, and yet I cannot condone what was being done - it's unethical to say the least. And frankly, the promise (from a developer) of excellence without any demonstration of such is utterly insufficient to excuse his actions - and I certainly would be paying close attention to any plans for the Yonge street side of things. The post photos of workers attacking/destroying the aspects of the facades with detailing that might be worthwhile to preserve is particularly heinous. Sam Mizrahi is definitely on my shit list now.
That said, I found KWT puzzling - once is an oversight, twice is a pattern - for someone this on the ball in the development game, with respect to a proposal that has been clearly in the works her late submission stretches the boundary of what's believable.
AoD
Last edited:
Lenser
Senior Member
Though I too think the present building's days were deservedly numbered, especially in the face of grand promises for this signature urban intersection, I can only see these actions as slimy and cowardly. Shame on them for speeding it through in such a craven manner. The building should have had its due process; at the very least, there should have been careful salvage of certain elements. Instead, we get this disgusting butchery.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Of course you can - just because one is within the law doesn't mean being rude is "right".
greenleaf
Senior Member
Yep. This was a surprise there too.
And for those who think a development will pop up overnight here, remember 81 Wellesley was bull dozed in a similar fashion 3 years ago. The lot still sits empty. Any bets on how long this lot sits empty?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
She definitely isn't responding to any of the tweets directed at her over the past day or so about the Stollerys issue, but she is clearly still tweeting about other issues. Suspicious eh?
AoD
LNahid2000
Senior Member
It's not being rude...it's business. He paid $300 million for the site and doesn't want to have restrictions placed on him when building his condo. I'd do the exact same thin.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I don't think that entail having workers direct their crowbar to architectural detailing. That goes way beyond removing the structure. Besides, preservation doesn't have to be preservation in situ and in full - elements of a building can be saved for potential reuse - One Bloor East as an example where the original developer went out of their way to do so.
AoD
Last edited:
