Church-Wellesley Village

[androiduk]

This is the old law offfice just north of Gloucester. It was orignally going to be a B&B.


Application: Zoning Review Status: Not Started

Location: 600 CHURCH ST
TORONTO ON M4Y 2E7

Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 13 138995 ZPR 00 ZR Accepted Date: Mar 22, 2013

Project: House Other Proposal

Description: Proposal for change of use to a 30 seat restaurant.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

This is the old law offfice just north of Gloucester. It was orignally going to be a B&B.


Application: Zoning Review Status: Not Started

Location: 600 CHURCH ST
TORONTO ON M4Y 2E7

Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 13 138995 ZPR 00 ZR Accepted Date: Mar 22, 2013

Project: House Other Proposal

Description: Proposal for change of use to a 30 seat restaurant.

An oddball building, it doesn't quite fit in with the street but I like the idea of turning it into a restaurant, I hope they can get people up that far to make a go of it. Too bad there's no room for a patio out front. This used to be my real estate lawyer's office, Paul Willis.

The Church Wellesley Village gateway markers are now illuminated. As stated earlier, I like them but the lighting fails big time. The Church Wellesley Village area is illuminated from behind as expected but the four lights that shine onto the mirror ball on top do nothing. I had to walk around it to figure out if they were on or not. I had visions of light reflecting off the mirror ball and illuminating the rainbow swirls below. Nope, no such luck, very disappointing. Perhaps the lighting can be re-designed once they realize how ineffective they are at illuminating the gateway markers at night.

I spoke too soon. Tonight I noticed an added light that wasn't hooked up or illuminated the previous night. The added light is below the crystal ball and shines down, thus illuminating the spiral rainbow blades just as they should be. The blades pick up the light magnificently and it really looks terrific at night now. I had my iPhone on me so I grabbed a few photos, night time shots are not a strong feature of the iPhone camera/software but you get the idea

 

[mgl]

I noticed that the Garage is now open and the Regal is now closed.

I think the track record of businesses that open without a permanent sign is rather low. If you can't afford to have a sign hung by the time you open, months after your original target opening date, can you really afford to open a business?

 

[Torontovibe]

What was Regal? I've never heard of it. The colours really light up nicely at night, on the new poles.

As for the new restaurant at 600 Church, why can't you put a patio out front? It looks like there is room for a narrow patio along the front of the building. The building looks indented a few feet, from the buildings beside it, just enough for a small patio, on each side of the stairs, I would imagine. If done right, I think it could be rather nice.

 

[Dan416]

It's a shame about that mural being painted over. I know it was an ad, but it was iconic. It's sad to see our history being painted over.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I noticed that the Garage is now open and the Regal is now closed.

I think the track record of businesses that open without a permanent sign is rather low. If you can't afford to have a sign hung by the time you open, months after your original target opening date, can you really afford to open a business?

I walked by The Garage about a week ago and it kinda' seemed open. Small candles were burning, a few people were tending and sitting at the bar, a flat panel was on & it looked complete inside but there was no formal indication that it was actually open. Strange.

 

[to_l]

What was Regal? I've never heard of it.

That's the one next to Sambuca's.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Better photos of the north gateway marker using my Canon. Strangely, the light that shines down wasn't on when I photographed these so it actually looks better than these photos when it's on and of course even better in person.

*******************************


The lights at the Gloucester gateway marker keep turning on and off randomly, sometimes the "downward" light which illuminate the spirals comes on, sometimes it doesn't (??). Spirals are lit in the photos below from tonight, not in the photos from last night (above)

 

[intervention]

I am not surprised that Regal has shut down, I haven't seen anyone in there ever. As for Garage - they did not look open but their delivery trucks with their emergency flashers make it a really difficult commute home for me on a regular basis.

 

[Dandy Horse]

those BIA markers are so pointless

 

[whatever]

The mural is an ad - don't forget that part. Why should the city grant an exemption in this instance and not to others? And FYI her co-curator is a rather well known local gay artist as well.

Ads or not, some of those painted signs do add character to a neighborhood. Is this city going to start actively enforcing the policy against all painted advertisements?


M. Rawlinson Limited: Moving, Packing, Storage by Now and Here, on Flickr

I would have been ok with the Molson bit being painted over, but the mural didn't need to be ordered removed. Had something happened on the lot to the south the section 37 benefits could have been used to address the mural's loss (perhaps a scaled down recreation in the building's lobby, or housed elsewhere in the village, like they did with the mural that was inside the entrance of MLG)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

whatever:

The city needs to be consistent in applying its' policies - otherwise, why bother having them in the first place, and what legal grounds would the city have against other parties? Beyond that, reproducing the mural and having it elsewhere is hardly an impossible task after it's been covered (and considering the amount of extant material on the murals, I am not even sure if one needs to unpaint the mural to achieve that goal).

AoD

 

[whatever]

That's precisely my point: the city isn't being consistent. Why haven't they gone after the Rawlinson's ad? Or any of the dozens of other examples along Queen West and in/around the Entertainment District? Some of those ads have been around for decades longer than the Barn's, surely some city inspector must have noticed them by now?

And reproducing the mural was only a suggestion for what could have been done had the lot to the south been developed. I still don't believe it was at all necessary to cover it up. It served as a far more distinctive and effective gatemarker for the village than those new poles they've put up

 

[DSC]

That's precisely my point: the city isn't being consistent. Why haven't they gone after the Rawlinson's ad? Or any of the dozens of other examples along Queen West and in/around the Entertainment District? Some of those ads have been around for decades longer than the Barn's, surely some city inspector must have noticed them by now?

And reproducing the mural was only a suggestion for what could have been done had the lot to the south been developed. I still don't believe it was at all necessary to cover it up. It served as a far more distinctive and effective gatemarker for the village than those new poles they've put up

Did you actually read the Xtra piece referenced above> http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/The_Barns_gay_cowboys_ride_off_into_the_sunset-13312.aspx

It says the City had nothing to do with the over-painting. It was the new owner.

 

[whatever]

I did read it, as well as the comments, which is where we got this from:

Clarification on a few points!
As former GM of The Barn I'd like to clarify a few points in this article. My sense of nostalgia makes me a bit sad to see the mural go but the new owners had no choice to paint as its the City of Toronto who ordered it removed. No permit was ever issued for the mural and in 2009 the City ordered it removed. We then attempted to procure a permit, the city refused and in turn threatened legal action multiple times!

I'd consider it a fair probability that KWT knew nothing about it as it was before her time, but perhaps Kyle Rae is the man who would know.