McGill Street Arch

[dt_toronto_geek]

Yonge/McGill Street Arch

Matches the arch across the street, though it'd work better if the College Park laneway was aligned with Granby and not archless McGill. They're close enough that the reference makes sense, though.

Does anyone know the origin of the Granby Street arch?

 

[whatever]

It's at McGill, not Granby, and it came off of a church near Yonge and Bloor

http://www.torontolife.com/urban_de...-stone-archway-east-side-yonge-north-gerrard/

 

[adma]

It's funny how they never installed a plaque or anything indicating the arch's origin. It's like it was simply offered to the city in a Wayne & Shuster spirit: "You like it?" "Yeah, I like it." "It's yours!"

 

[scarberiankhatru]

So it is at McGill...just shows that one shouldn't rely on memory or trust Flickr captions.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I was thinking that this was built in the 80's or early 90's but never knew it's origin. Thanks!

 

[Hipster Duck]

I always thought of the McGill arch as a portal, kind of like the Stargate, between the seedy commercialism of Yonge street to a much quieter and more dignified townhouse neighbourhood beyond it.

 

[DSC]

There was a short "Urban Decoder" piece on it in Toronto Life in 2007. http://www.torontolife.com/urban_de...-stone-archway-east-side-yonge-north-gerrard/

A while ago I wrote to Kyle Ray suggesting it ought to be plaqued, he agreed but I guess nothing happened.

 

[Observer Walt]

It's unfortunate that a plaque wasn't attached to it, explaining its origin. I don't buy the explanation in the Toronto Life item that they were afraid of vandalism. Plaques seem to do pretty well in many locations in Toronto, most of which are less visible than this busy location on Yonge Street.

It's a small sign of the general lack of respect for the city's history.

 

[adma]

It's a small sign of the general lack of respect for the city's history.

...and ironically, it was probably intended as a "respectful" gesture t/w the city's history, i.e. see? we didn't demolish the whole thing. we reused part of it as an "urban feature" elsewhere...

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

It's unfortunate that a plaque wasn't attached to it, explaining its origin. I don't buy the explanation in the Toronto Life item that they were afraid of vandalism.

I was the Urban Decoder at the time. Took me for freaking ever to research that piece. Eventually I got through to the long-retired minister of the church at Yonge and Bloor from which the arch was salvaged. He was of a very advanced age - late 80s, I think, if not older - and an absolute delight to talk to. Thanks to the wonders of digitization, I still have the interview in my music library (iTunes, no less). Since I could never get details or texture like this into the Decoder, I thought I'd type it up. Here is the end of what he told me:

"When [the church] came down, some bright person from the department of works and buildings at the city felt this archway was an interesting archway. They asked the church if they could have it, and the church said, "certainly, if you wish. Take it away!"

They decided, "we would like to put it at the end of McGill, on Yonge." So we said, "That sounds fine to us. We'll put a bronze plate on it about where it came from." And they said, "Don't put a bronze plate on it down in that neighborhood. It'll be pried off the first night it's there!" The result was, they didn't ever put a mark on it. They talked about it, and in the end, they decided that what they'd like to do - but they never got permission and they never got round to doing it - was to get one of these people who inscribes gravestones. On the inside of the arch, you'll probably notice that there are some flat surfaces. And they'd put that the arch came from St Andrew's Church on Bloor Street and was moved there on the demolition of the church."

"Now there," he added. "I've given you the story."

I seem to also recall getting the explanation that Yonge St. in the mid-70s wasn't as genteel as it is now. Those who were there at the time would be better suited to weigh in on that than me. I was in contact with Heritage Toronto about this story, as well.

What was most remarkable at the time was the fact that *nobody* exactly knew where the arch came from - not the heritage department, not the BIA, not Kyle Rae himself, though they were all helpful. My foggy recollection is that Heritage Toronto had to look it up and get back to me, whereupon I had to go through the church, who found the retired minister. It's amazing how quickly history is lost, if you don't have a brass plaque to hold it in place.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

On the one hand, I don't see the big deal about not having a plaque...it's not disrespectful. Must everything be catalogued like an outdoor museum? Can't things just hang around and be old? The plaquization of the city tends to create a situation where plaqued things are important to history, and unplaqued things aren't. If the arch had a plaque, this conversation about the arch would not be taking place and we wouldn't be interested in learning more about it. Plaques help us feel ok about destroying history...why keep history around when a plaque can both tell us all we need to know like some cultural/historical Timbit ready to be consumed in only a few seconds, and still permit progress and development.

On the other hand, though, I really like the idea of the arch being inscribed like a gravestone, telling its own story at its final resting place.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Thanks SNF, that's an interesting piece.
Recording events and data is what we do, this could have been better documented. You can't miss this arch, it's quite significant, I wonder how many people have wondered what the significance of that remnant is. I think a better effort can always be made to better document our past, in particular the context which surrounds us.

 

[Observer Walt]

... It's amazing how quickly history is lost, if you don't have a brass plaque to hold it in place.

Amen. Thanks for the info.

 

[DSC]

NOTE TO MODS. As the Archway isn't at Yonge/McGill maybe a name change for the thread is in order? Yonge/Granby Arch?

 

[adma]

On the one hand, I don't see the big deal about not having a plaque...it's not disrespectful. Must everything be catalogued like an outdoor museum? Can't things just hang around and be old? The plaquization of the city tends to create a situation where plaqued things are important to history, and unplaqued things aren't. If the arch had a plaque, this conversation about the arch would not be taking place and we wouldn't be interested in learning more about it. Plaques help us feel ok about destroying history...why keep history around when a plaque can both tell us all we need to know like some cultural/historical Timbit ready to be consumed in only a few seconds, and still permit progress and development.

On the other hand, though, I really like the idea of the arch being inscribed like a gravestone, telling its own story at its final resting place.

I think in this case it's a bit of a courtesy thing, i.e. they removed the arch and deliberately reerected it here as a "historical artifact" (well, that's what it is, whether they like it or not), at the very least identify where it came from. Unfortunately, such an object practically begs for ID to "make sense".

The question "Can't things just hang around and be old?" might pertain more to the many extant Victorian and post-Victorian shopfronts on Yonge, where the so-called historical-artifactness is more by survivor's happenstance than by design. (And even there, who's to say they can't be subjected to murmur-esque "virtual plaquing" for the curious these days. Certainly less cutesy-poo than a metal slab declaring "I am a piece of Heritage".)