CityPlaceN1
Senior Member
Too bad it wasn't the crappy houses on the Richmond side of the block that went. They are an eyesore.
|
|
|
Queen W & Portland fire
- Thread starter casaguy
- Start date
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
KPMB's King James Place - next to St. Lawrence Hall - is a fine example of how new buildings can be designed to match the existing scale and proportions of a streetscape that has many earlier buildings, yet still remain contemporary to our time. Jerome Markson's Market Square condominiums, next door, also show that you don't have to resort to faux copyism to capture the essence of an earlier style in order to blend in.
bjl
New Member
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Around 4pm today
Braddale
New Member
As much as it is great to see all the highrise projects coming down the pipe, I hope it does not take years and years to redevelop this area.
I have a far greater appreciation for the older buildings that are still in the downtown area than I used to, as I can see now how they make up the fabric of the city.
I was so relieved to hear there was no loss of life, I can only imagine what the people who lived in those buildings went through.
I have a far greater appreciation for the older buildings that are still in the downtown area than I used to, as I can see now how they make up the fabric of the city.
I was so relieved to hear there was no loss of life, I can only imagine what the people who lived in those buildings went through.
CityPlaceN1
Senior Member
adma
Superstar
But what's so, er, fatally offensive about those homes on Richmond?
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
Towered
Senior Member
What's the building standing where the Queen and Portland parking lot is now?
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Fire's ruins have promising future
Architects who will rebuild Queen St. have chance to define city – if they resist forces of homogeneity
Feb 23, 2008 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Urban Affairs Columnist
The past may be a different country, but it's one we still inhabit in Toronto.
Though our record on heritage preservation is less than stellar, the 19th-century city remains very much a part of the 21st.
That was made clear by the terrible events of Wednesday, when a row of buildings from the late 1800s burned down on Queen St. W. None of the structures involved qualified as an architectural marvel, but perhaps that's the point. Taken together, they added up to an authentic slice of an earlier Toronto.
Like all cities, Toronto had a few great buildings and many more that weren't so great. But a city that saves only the best examples of its historical architecture keeps only a tiny portion of itself. These are the architectural masterpieces that transcend time and place. They are the monuments, the landmarks, the icons by which a community is known to the larger world.
But it's buildings like those on Queen that define the city for those who live here. They are not the buildings that stand out, that force us to stop and pay attention. They are the buildings where we go to buy falafel, used CDs, videos, bongs, and the like. They are the stage on which real life unfolds. Thus, their loss, though not quite tragic, hurts deeply. Their disappearance leaves the city diminished.
If any good comes out of the Queen St. fire, it may be that we as a community are reminded of how fortunate we are to have so many of these unassuming two- and three-storey buildings left. Indeed, to a large extent, they form the streetscape of Toronto. That's true of Queen, but also of King, Dundas, College, Bayview, Mount Pleasant, and, of course, Yonge St. itself.
Remember when the new front was added to the east side of the Eaton Centre back in the early 1990s? It was little more than a row of façades; but divided vertically into a series of tall, thin sections, it resembled – what else? – Yonge St. in the 19th century. It echoed the rhythm of the street so characteristic of Toronto. Though it isn't beautiful, it has served us well.
As the Queen St. stretch exemplified, these modest structures – retail at grade, residential/commercial above – have been reinvented time and time again. Jane Jacobs would have been thrilled at how many new ideas have found a home in these old places.
In recent years, however, they have become victims of their own success, nowhere more so than on Queen. Retail chains, franchises and developers – the forces of homogeneity – have had their eyes on the street since the 1980s. Indeed, Home Depot is said to be planning a store at Queen and Portland St., on what's now a parking lot. This need not be as awful as it sounds, if Home Depot hires a decent architect who can respond to the context. That doesn't mean designing in a phony 19th-century style.
Last September, the city designated Queen between University Ave. and Bathurst St. a historic district. Perhaps that will help keep the street intact, but, in the meantime, one of the big problems is that so many of these 19th-century structures have been allowed to deteriorate.
The focus will now shift to the future; there will be pressure to restore buildings that weren't too badly damaged, and to replace those that were.
Some will insist that what comes next must resemble the Victorian originals, but that would be wrong. Instead, we should ensure that the Queen St. of the 2000s will be as vital and enduring as that of the 1800s.
Architects who will rebuild Queen St. have chance to define city – if they resist forces of homogeneity
Feb 23, 2008 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Urban Affairs Columnist
The past may be a different country, but it's one we still inhabit in Toronto.
Though our record on heritage preservation is less than stellar, the 19th-century city remains very much a part of the 21st.
That was made clear by the terrible events of Wednesday, when a row of buildings from the late 1800s burned down on Queen St. W. None of the structures involved qualified as an architectural marvel, but perhaps that's the point. Taken together, they added up to an authentic slice of an earlier Toronto.
Like all cities, Toronto had a few great buildings and many more that weren't so great. But a city that saves only the best examples of its historical architecture keeps only a tiny portion of itself. These are the architectural masterpieces that transcend time and place. They are the monuments, the landmarks, the icons by which a community is known to the larger world.
But it's buildings like those on Queen that define the city for those who live here. They are not the buildings that stand out, that force us to stop and pay attention. They are the buildings where we go to buy falafel, used CDs, videos, bongs, and the like. They are the stage on which real life unfolds. Thus, their loss, though not quite tragic, hurts deeply. Their disappearance leaves the city diminished.
If any good comes out of the Queen St. fire, it may be that we as a community are reminded of how fortunate we are to have so many of these unassuming two- and three-storey buildings left. Indeed, to a large extent, they form the streetscape of Toronto. That's true of Queen, but also of King, Dundas, College, Bayview, Mount Pleasant, and, of course, Yonge St. itself.
Remember when the new front was added to the east side of the Eaton Centre back in the early 1990s? It was little more than a row of façades; but divided vertically into a series of tall, thin sections, it resembled – what else? – Yonge St. in the 19th century. It echoed the rhythm of the street so characteristic of Toronto. Though it isn't beautiful, it has served us well.
As the Queen St. stretch exemplified, these modest structures – retail at grade, residential/commercial above – have been reinvented time and time again. Jane Jacobs would have been thrilled at how many new ideas have found a home in these old places.
In recent years, however, they have become victims of their own success, nowhere more so than on Queen. Retail chains, franchises and developers – the forces of homogeneity – have had their eyes on the street since the 1980s. Indeed, Home Depot is said to be planning a store at Queen and Portland St., on what's now a parking lot. This need not be as awful as it sounds, if Home Depot hires a decent architect who can respond to the context. That doesn't mean designing in a phony 19th-century style.
Last September, the city designated Queen between University Ave. and Bathurst St. a historic district. Perhaps that will help keep the street intact, but, in the meantime, one of the big problems is that so many of these 19th-century structures have been allowed to deteriorate.
The focus will now shift to the future; there will be pressure to restore buildings that weren't too badly damaged, and to replace those that were.
Some will insist that what comes next must resemble the Victorian originals, but that would be wrong. Instead, we should ensure that the Queen St. of the 2000s will be as vital and enduring as that of the 1800s.
egotrippin
Senior Member
This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about buildings today vs now. Even bog standard warehouses back in the day had interesting and intricate masonry work, that's sorely lacking in today's brick buildings.
I personally hope this block is essentially recreated to look as it was when built. Lame historicist fronts will look contrived and cheap, and this is not the place for modernist building. Take that stuff elsewhere (preferably as far away from where I work and spend my time as possible) Rebuild it as it looked, but with modernized building codes and let's hope for a revitalized street life.
Braddale
New Member
Those are my thoughts exactly, I shudder when thinking of a Home Depot going in that area. This council has to start getting tough when developers want to move into these so called designated areas, because whatever rules they have made out, they dont seem to have any teeth to them.
DENTROBATE54
Banned
adma
Superstar
Trouble with such "observational humour" is when it chooses the wrong target. F'rinstance, ordinary as they may be, said "crappy houses" wouldn't resonate nearly as well as a "too bad the fire didn't happen there" target as the banal concrete fashion/industrial/office behemoth on the south side of Richmond...
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Rebuilding the block will not curtail the criminal activity, as it was never the buildings themselves that caused this activity. If you want to curtail the criminal activity, you need to drive out the criminals from the neighbourhood through strong police enforcement, community involvement (i.e. if you see a drug deal across the street, get out your photo lens take the shot for the police), and pressure on local rooming houses and shelters to take some (not all) responsibility for the actions of those they shelter. If alcohol abusers are a problem, find out where the drunks are getting their booze, as neither shop or bars are permitted to serve intoxicated persons, and tell the police. Public drunkeness is still a crime, so the community needs to to push the police to enforce this law, they won't otherwise.
Remember, police resources in Toronto are applied on a per-call basis. The more calls they get from a community, the more resources they allocate to enforcement in that area. That's why you see a constant police presence in the low-crime Beach(es) area, while little in high-crime Regent Park, since in the Beaches, old ladies will call the cops if the neighbour's radio is too loud, while residents in Regent Park won't call the cops if they see drug deals going down outside their windows.