News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 828     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.6K     0 

Miscellany Toronto Photographs: Then and Now

Very interesting photos, Mustapha! According to the 1910 Goad Atlas below, it looks like the burnt-out building was at the NE corner of King and Francis, a narrow street that ran north from West Market Street (now the pedestrian walkway beside the St. Lawrence Hall).

Toronto_1910_Atlas_Volume_1_Plat-6.jpg


Not sure if the building ever got rebuilt but below is a photo of some of the buildings demolished to create St. James Park to the west, futher west, as well as an aerial of the block from the west:


20-68-1.jpg
CN005884-1.jpg




September 27 addition inspired by thecharioteer's post of a couple of days ago. Here is a then and now of the NW corner of Church and King.



fo0124_f0124_fl0002_id0028.jpg


Now: September 26 2009.

DSCF1202.jpg
 
September 27 addition inspired by thecharioteer's post of a couple of days ago. Here is a then and now of the NW corner of Church and King.



fo0124_f0124_fl0002_id0028.jpg


Now: September 26 2009.

DSCF1202.jpg

God, how depressing! If this building (and the block) had only survived a few more years, it never would have been demolished and the corner today wouldn't have a building more appropriate to Yonge and Finch .
 
Last edited:
Of any criticism that can be levelled against said building, "Yonge and Finch" somehow goes really wide of the mark. (For the record, it's servicable early 90s urbanism and doesn't offend me one iota. And there was something like 20-25 years btw/the demolition of the old and the building of the new.)

Is that a Greenspoon sign I see in the lower left arch on Church in the old photo?
 
Of any criticism that can be levelled against said building, "Yonge and Finch" somehow goes really wide of the mark. (For the record, it's servicable early 90s urbanism and doesn't offend me one iota. And there was something like 20-25 years btw/the demolition of the old and the building of the new.)

Is that a Greenspoon sign I see in the lower left arch on Church in the old photo?

My apologies to the residents of Yonge and Finch, but my criticism is on its architecture (or lack of) not on its urbanistic qualities. Yes, it fills the zoning envelope well, (and is a "background" building) but is so second-rate, so reductive in its commodity approach to design in terms of materials, windows, proportions, and colour. No, it is not offensive (not like the Primrose Hotel at Jarvis and Carlton and so many other buildings of that era), but is inoffensiveness a reason for acceptance? Imagine if it had been designed by aA or CORE or KPMB or HPA, and we had a building that actually enhanced the corner and St. James Cathedral.

True, there was a two decade gap between the Beaux-Arts beauty's demo and this building (and I do remember the two-storey above-grade parking garage that used to be on the block). However, the contrast between the architectural quality of the two buildings does illustrate the decline of quality over the decades (Very few of the "now" pics in this thread actually look better than the "then"; what does that mean?)

I do believe that there has been a huge improvement in design over the past 10-15 years because of the committment of some developers and their architects (GG, Context, Freed, Allied, Lantera). I think we should celebrate that fact, which means not accepting buildings because they are "serviceable" but insist on the best in design excellence, particularly when the site is as critical as the historic crossroads of King & Church.
 
My apologies to the residents of Yonge and Finch, but my criticism is on its architecture (or lack of) not on its urbanistic qualities. Yes, it fills the zoning envelope well, (and is a "background" building) but is so second-rate, so reductive in its commodity approach to design in terms of materials, windows, proportions, and colour. No, it is not offensive (not like the Primrose Hotel at Jarvis and Carlton and so many other buildings of that era), but is inoffensiveness a reason for acceptance? Imagine if it had been designed by aA or CORE or KPMB or HPA, and we had a building that actually enhanced the corner and St. James Cathedral.

True, there was a two decade gap between the Beaux-Arts beauty's demo and this building (and I do remember the two-storey above-grade parking garage that used to be on the block). However, the contrast between the architectural quality of the two buildings does illustrate the decline of quality over the decades (Very few of the "now" pics in this thread actually look better than the "then"; what does that mean?)

I do believe that there has been a huge improvement in design over the past 10-15 years because of the committment of some developers and their architects (GG, Context, Freed, Allied, Lantera). I think we should celebrate that fact, which means not accepting buildings because they are "serviceable" but insist on the best in design excellence, particularly when the site is as critical as the historic crossroads of King & Church.

Nicely put. In that part of town, Clewes's Spire is a standout ... and both KPMB's King James Place and Markson's Market Square fit in with the existing low rise historic buildings without resorting to faux copyism. They all work in their own various ways because they're qualitatively excellent. That early-90s apartment building may well represent the timidity of a fear-or-heights era - but its being "of its time" doesn't absolve it from having some splainin' to do as design.
 
More Good Then And Now pics...

Mustapha: I will add my thoughts on these pics:
9/27: Church and King streets:Late 60s or early 70s judging by plates on cars
is my guess here. The Ontario blue on white permanent plates first came out in 1973...
9/28: I will second Ed and mention that pic at Yonge and Finch is earlier then 1976 also-I would like to see the plate on that car in the pic...
The Sai Woo menues are interesting-the prices date them somewhat!
LI MIKE
 
Subway at Finch opened in 1976 so this might be 1974/1975.

Finch opened in 1974. And I believe there was another photo thread a couple of years ago which hinged upon this 1972-dated series of photos (the damage on the right is the giveaway)
 
Nicely put. In that part of town, Clewes's Spire is a standout ... and both KPMB's King James Place and Markson's Market Square fit in with the existing low rise historic buildings without resorting to faux copyism. They all work in their own various ways because they're qualitatively excellent. That early-90s apartment building may well represent the timidity of a fear-or-heights era - but its being "of its time" doesn't absolve it from having some splainin' to do as design.

I still can't find it--and its office-building partner at the corner of Toronto--that offensive, or even offensive-in-its-inoffensiveness.

Maybe the worst I can say is, imagine if the other 50s/60s modern buildings on or facing Toronto St didn't immediately replace demolished landmarks--to today's eyes, they might seem perfectly fine (though 36 Toronto does seem a distant ancestor to the "timidity" we're presently speaking of); and the long-loathed Revenue Canada building at the top of Toronto became a Docomomoish cult item in the 90s...
 

Back
Top