News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.2K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 379     0 

Miscellany Toronto Photographs: Then and Now

Well, moving the hospital to a more modern building and central location wasn't stupid, but destroying the building was. The TGH building would've added something of interest to a pretty bleak stretch nowadays.
 
egotrippin said:
Well, moving the hospital to a more modern building and central location wasn't stupid, but destroying the building was. The TGH building would've added something of interest to a pretty bleak stretch nowadays.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that what I really meant. This must be like the only instance when a multi-story building was demolished for a couple of detached homes.
 
jks said:
Yeah, that what I really meant. This must be like the only instance when a multi-story building was demolished for a couple of detached homes.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not just "a couple of detached homes": Gifford St and Nasmith Avenue in their entirety are the result of TGH's clearance--thus their teens/twenties bungaloid character, like a little bit of Greenwood/Coxwell/Woodbine-zone subdivision at the edge of Cabbagetown. (And as such, it was probably superior to what most of Hugh Garnerville had to offer at this time.)

And how is it an "only instance"? Ultimately, it may be more comparable to the contemporary infill redevelopment of industrial brownfields (or even former hospital sites). I don't see anything the slightest bit unusual--it's the "urban intensification" of its day.

And...honestly. Stop projecting today's values upon nine-decades-ago reality. Back then, this would not have been regarded as "heritage" or a "must-keep"--in fact, and especially once its function decamped to University Avenue, the former TGH would have been viewed as more of an internalized urban dead zone than what replaced it on-site...
 
Jan 25 addition

Bloor looking E towards Avenue Road.



fo1231_f1231_it2069.jpg


DSCF0150.jpg
 
adma said:
And...honestly. Stop projecting today's values upon nine-decades-ago reality. Back then, this would not have been regarded as "heritage" or a "must-keep"--in fact, and especially once its function decamped to University Avenue, the former TGH would have been viewed as more of an internalized urban dead zone than what replaced it on-site...
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't we be allowed to pass judgment on decades-old "urban renewal"? We're the ones who have to live with the consequences.

If our forebearers lacked the imagination to preserve or readapt a beautifully designed and constructed building, then why not call them on it? We can see with our own eyes what they replaced it with -- a subdivision that was destined to age poorly.
 
Blovertis said:
Why shouldn't we be allowed to pass judgment on decades-old "urban renewal"? We're the ones who have to live with the consequences.

If our forebearers lacked the imagination to preserve or readapt a beautifully designed and constructed building, then why not call them on it? We can see with our own eyes what they replaced it with -- a subdivision that was destined to age poorly.
Click to expand...

(1) How has said subdivision "aged poorly"? At worst, it's "anonymous"--but in general, I don't think of streets of 10s/20s bungalows in terms of "aging poorly" at all. The worst "sin", I suppose, is that the streets don't look terribly impressive from Gerrard--but why should they be so-called "impressive"? In the first quarter of the c20, Palmerston-type subdivision planning "with pretensions" was the exception, not the rule.

(2) "Beautifully designed and constructed buildings" like the old TGH were a dime a dozen and taken for granted circa 1920--or to go even further, it would *not* have been considered, at the time, either "beautifully designed" (i.e. eclectic Victoriana was thoroughly out of fashion) or "beautifully constructed" (compared to the state-of-the-art facilities TGH moved to). It would have been considered obsolete and dispensable. Thanks to changing fashion and the rise of the preservation movement, only once we got to the 60s or so would such a demolition been seen as regrettable (cf. the House of Providence, razed for the Richmond/Adelaide on/off-ramps in 1962). But, 40-50 years earlier, it was perfectly excusable, even forgivable--at most, a fuss would have been raised had the premises been half a century older, neo-classical, and associated with a name like "Baldwin" or "Howard".

So, sure, you can pass judgment; but given the circumstances, you're still making a mountain out of a molehill...
 
Mustapha said:
adelaide.jpg
Click to expand...

Interesting point to consider: that Adelaide Coach Terminal in the foreground was extremely early (i.e. mid-40s) Parkin. It was *very* short-lived--demolished around the time the Yonge Subway opened (i.e. shortly after the photo was taken)--yet here, in utero, was the "Toronto Subway" aesthetic we've come to revere.

Maybe the ultimate in lost, forgotten, unsung Toronto landmarks.
 
Wow. Yes. That lost gem was the grandaddy of so much we're doing today. Maybe Dominion Modern could recreate it somewhere, in homage, as their new home?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top