Interesting Concourse Building Article

[Ed007Toronto]

www.omnitecturalforum.com...csave.html

A save the Concourse Building article. Very informative. Two things that stood out.

Property Taxes - a historical reminder
The recent controversy over the survival of real estate "Class B" buildings such as The Concourse is not the first time our society has grappled with the issue of a new generation of offices displacing those of an earlier generation. The Concourse itself was once on the cutting-edge of office design and its appearance contributed to the loss of Edwardian buildings. Articles appeared in the press on twelve such buildings that had been demolished in 1935 alone. Consider the following account.
******** Under the current regime ... taxation has reached such dizzy peaks that the owners are tearing down their buildings rather than pay the taxes. They find it cheaper to run a parking lot....It is bad for everybody. ... In the heart of the city twelve buildings have been torn down. ... These buildings once housed hundreds of tenants and in some cases thousands of employees of different business concerns have totally disappeared. In the case of the Arlington Hotel the site has been converted into a weed lot ... (Others include) 18 King Street West where the former tenant was the Toronto Daily Star. The Evening Telegram, Toronto, December 27, 1935

We really go overboard when we think only since the 60's and 70's have we not cared about the past or that we have too many parking lots. This is not a new situation at all per the above quote.

Toronto City Council has voted to demolish the Concourse Building. If Council refuses to acknowledge the fundamental legal protection of 'designation' then there exists no means to preserve any built heritage.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of vote to allow demolition (the 'Concourse clause' TCC 8 (24), May 10 2000):*

"NO": ADAMS, AUGIMERI, BOSSONS, BUSSIN, FILION, LAYTON, MCCONNELL, MIHEVC, NUNZIATA, PITFIELD, PRUE, WALKER.*

"YES": Altobello, Ashton, Berardinetti, Berger, Brown, Chong, Chow, Davis, Disero, Duguid, Feldman, Gardner, Giansante, Holyday, Johnston, Jones, Kinahan, King, Korwin-Kuczynski, Lastman, Li Preti, Lindsay Luby, Mahood, Mammoliti, Miller, Moeser, Moscoe, O'Brien, Ootes, Palacio, Pantalone, Rae, Saundercook, Shiner, Sinclair, Silva, Soknacki, Tzekas.

Our dear Mayor voted to allow them to demolish the building.

 

[andreapalladio]

Which was the right decision. Oxford has undertaken to save the bits of the building worth saving, and rebuild the rest to current class A standards, and enlarge it too boot. The only thing there worth saving is the stonework on the first 3-4 floors, the mosaics around the front door, and the tile at the roofline. The interior is a warren of cubbyholes that is not and cannot be wired for current office uses, with old, environmentally unfriendly windows, low ceilings, slow elevators and perhaps the worst example of a mid 80's pink marble lobby anywhere.

 

[ganjavih]

I disagree that only the first 3 floors are worth saving.

 

[migueltree]

I had the unique (if uncomfortable) experience of meeting the designer of omnitectural forum at last years "Doors Open" seminar, with Keynote speaker Daniel Lebeskind.

This strange looking, annoying gentleman took advantage of the question period to hog the microphone and advertise this forum. Instead of asking any questions to the qualified speakers, he rambled on to the disdain of the entire audience. The moderator eventually had to tell him to ask a question, or relinquish the microphone. (He ignored her and kept talking)

BTW, the facade of the Concourse building, as beautiful and respected as it is, will most likely be given as much respect as the facade of the old bank building in the Maritime Life tower. Meanwhile, we'll get a new skyscraper and modernized office space.

 

[ahsun]

It pains me to lose this beautiful building, but at the same time I feel it is the common sense thing to do as in its present state the building is useless unless converted to residential.

Wouldn't that be nice eh? We turn the entire building into High-end condos then build around and over it with a modern 4 m / floor office tower, thereby preserving the building as well as adding useful office space to the site.

 

[andreapalladio]

Why would someone want a high end condo with no view whatsoever? Not every building can be converted to condos.

 

[Ed007Toronto]

I had the unique (if uncomfortable) experience of meeting the designer of omnitectural forum at last years "Doors Open" seminar, with Keynote speaker Daniel Lebeskind.

This strange looking, annoying gentleman took advantage of the question period to hog the microphone and advertise this forum. Instead of asking any questions to the qualified speakers, he rambled on to the disdain of the entire audience. The moderator eventually had to tell him to ask a question, or relinquish the microphone. (He ignored her and kept talking)

I was there as well and remember the guy. Much more lucid online than at that event.

 

[ahsun]

Why would someone want a high end condo with no view whatsoever? Not every building can be converted to condos.

Fine how about a hotel then.

 

[andreapalladio]

That would make a lot of hotels in one block, what with the Sheraton at the other end of Sheppard, and Stinson's alleged new hotel in at Sheppard and Temperance.

 

[miesvanderjoe]

I agree with Ganja - the whole exterior should be saved.

 

[building babel]

There's a model of a proposed development of this site in a building on York Street ( in one of the Richmond Adelaide Centre towers I think ). It shows the entire Concourse building retained, with a new addition on it's western side and rising on top of it too, to a height of about 40 storeys in all. I assume this is the current plan, in which case they won't be saving choice bits and pieces of it after all. The model has been there for quite a few months.

 

[ahsun]

I think that proposal is mostly facadism.

 

[andreapalladio]

And what's wrong with that? There is nothing in the interior of the building worth saving.

 

[building babel]

As facadism goes, this is a facade worth saving, and if they're renovating or upgrading the interior so much the better.

 

[SD2]

They should keep the entire building. Do whatever is necessary to upgrade/keep as much of the building intact and current as possible.

The proposal, to me, looks ridiculous. It's like the new tower is being held up by the old one...and they don't match at all.

Isn't there a nearby parking lot that could be used for a new tower?