How does heritage protection have anything to do with what someone likes aesthetically is my question? I hate most of the old buildings that are protected. Doesn't mean I don't understand why they are protected. Their historical and cultural importance transcends what they actually look like.
I've always loved 2 Carlton. Not many buildings from this era still standing. It most certainly should be protected.
I would surmise that we very much disagree on this.
I don't believe in preserving anything merely because it's old; or because it is representative of something. We have pictures for that.
We preserve things because they have intrinsic value.
Put another way, money aside, if you wouldn't build it today, there's little or no reason to keep it.
Reasons for retention are both aesthetic and functional. If both are lost, I'm not sure why one would retain something in most cases.
There may be an argument if one is preserving something that affords critically important insight into history w/lessons for the future, say Auschwitz; or perhaps the very first building of a city/province/country/civilization for its extraordinary symbolism. I might even accept the argument of extreme novelty such as a 'pioneer village' that allows people to realize the benefits (and detriments) of a modern technological existence by having a point of comparison.
I fail to see where this building meets any of those attributes. It lacks extraordinary function, it lacks important novelty or historical lessons, it has no great symbolic value and its aesthetics are ho hum at best.
If this can be preserved so can condos by Huang & Danczkay.
We've demolished far more beautiful buildings, far more functional buildings, far more historical buildings and indeed several that were all three.
Heritage Considerations & Built Form Context
The Panel felt that College/Carlton and Yonge was a very notable and distinct intersection in the city due to both the jog in the street and the significant existing architecture.
The Panel pointed out that the wall condition along Carlton St. was one of the few places where that type of "canyon" streetwall condition exists in Toronto. The Panel thought the intersection was a great, unique moment for the city and strongly felt its built character needed to be better considered by the design team when developing this proposal.
Given that the surrounding built form comes right down to the ground, the members thought it was strange to propose a built up podium and "stovepipe cap" tower. One member thought the design response was a "weird inversion" of the existing physical character and another member questioned the decision to emphasize the podium massing.
I completely agree but unfortunately planning in Toronto does not allow for canyon buildings. A project without a podium and/or huge canopies and without tower setbacks is almost unthinkable to our planning department.
Build atop it in a sympathetic manner, if possible.
I think at most we might see the facade saved. Having worked in the building, the interior has no redeeming qualities and the sides of the building not facing the street are very plain. Even the exterior has been altered in the 90s with changes to the awnings and main floor retail.