Toronto 335 Yonge | 55.2m | 16s | Lalani | Zeidler

[Rebecca - HT]

Chicago's - done in 1995: http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/landmarksweb/web/historicsurvey.htm

LA's survey: http://www.preservation.lacity.org/survey

We are way behind.

 

[MetroMan]

There's at least one camera outside the 10 Dundas E loading dock right next to this building.

EDIT: At the time of this Google View photo, there was a police camera right across the street:

I can confirm that the police camera is still there. Whether it was pointed in the right direction is another story. Whoever that person of interest is, they had to have gone somewhere along Gould towards Yonge or Victoria. Both streets have cameras everywhere. I'm pretty confident that now that this is a criminal investigation, they're going to be able to get new footage of this person. I seriously hope they find him.

 

[FAC33]

Actually, you'd be surprised how much historical preservation goes on in Buffalo. They have a few large neighbourhoods of well-preserved older housing (including the Darwin Martin House, currently undergoing major restoration, and three other Wright houses in private hands), a Frederick Law Olmsted park system, and their downtown is considered to have a number of fine examples of skyscraper architecture, including buildings by Sullivan. They have their issues, too, but they're nowhere near the level of a Detroit in that regard. Seriously, you wouldn't think Buffalo as a great place to see architecture, but it actually is.

 

[taal]

Actually, you'd be surprised how much historical preservation goes on in Buffalo. They have a few large neighbourhoods of well-preserved older housing (including the Darwin Martin House, currently undergoing major restoration, and three other Wright houses in private hands), a Frederick Law Olmsted park system, and their downtown is considered to have a number of fine examples of skyscraper architecture, including buildings by Sullivan. They have their issues, too, but they're nowhere near the level of a Detroit in that regard. Seriously, you wouldn't think Buffalo as a great place to see architecture, but it actually is.

meh < btw the 'meh' probably isn't what you're thinking

My point is, I absoutely agree that average folks wouldn't have any clue at the variety (and quite unique / amazing) architecture in Buffalo but I'd think / hope most on this forum would.
We've had plenty a Buffalo photo thread.

So anyway, yes, Buffalo is a great place to see architecture. But from my experience, so are a lot of other mid sized American cities - not so in Canada (to much a lesser degree).

 

[HOWARD123]

Its a real shame to lose a Historic building like this from the 1800's, not too many left on Yonge Street like that. There should have been more done by the city to protect this important property

 

[Admiral Beez]

There should have been more done by the city to protect this important property

If the city and its citizens want to keep buildings their government should buy them.

 

[Marcanadian]

Doesn't Toronto already have a heritage inventory?

http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/heritage_properties_inventory.htm

 

[GraphicMatt]

They do, but it seems far from comprehensive. Properties are added after they come to the city's attention, either because someone has requested a demolition permit or, as in this case, the structure begins to deteriorate.

A serious approach to heritage protection would have seen this building listed as heritage a long time ago.

 

[cdr108]

They do, but it seems far from comprehensive. Properties are added after they come to the city's attention, either because someone has requested a demolition permit or, as in this case, the structure begins to deteriorate.

A serious approach to heritage protection would have seen this building listed as heritage a long time ago.

i don't know the full details of this building, but if it is from the 1800s as someone had noted, then this building should have been added decades ago.

 

[Admiral Beez]

i don't know the full details of this building, but if it is from the 1800s as someone had noted, then this building should have been added decades ago.

I'd reckon that half the buildings south of Bloor downtown are from the 1800s. If that's the criteria do we register them all?

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

I'd reckon that half the buildings south of Bloor downtown are from the 1800s. If that's the criteria do we register them all?

It wouldn't be a bad plan to survey and evaluate them, oldest first, as potential listees though.

My understanding is that identifying the buildings that should be listed is not the problem. The bottleneck is that it is taking much too much time, energy and resources to document each building for designation - it must be possible to simplify the paperwork involved. For example, listed buildings in the UK have a short, usually single paragraph, description and the process can be completed in weeks if necessary. It is dealt with by an agency (English Heritage) which is apolitical in the sense that there are no politicians involved. In contrast, the reports I have seen for buildings in Toronto are pages in length and are debated and approved individually by council, with the usual political forces in operation. It takes forever...

BTW - The online database of the (1 million+) listed buildings in England and Wales is fun to browse: http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/

Happy New Year Everyone
AmJ

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

An interesting piece on building preservation in light of the loss of 335 Yonge

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/918692--historic-buildings-the-problem-with-preservation?bn=1

 

[FAC33]

i don't know the full details of this building, but if it is from the 1800s as someone had noted, then this building should have been added decades ago.

As I think has been mentioned before, the historic inventory is just a listing of historic buildings in Toronto. Just that--a listing, nothing more. The next step up is to be desginated as a heritage property. This is what likely should have happened decades ago, but only happened last year after the wall collapse. Even then, designation does not completely prevent a building from being torn down (the developer just must apply and wait on a decision) and it does not prevent demolition by neglect. It's meant to protect the historic aspects of the property and to give incentives to owners to maintain or restore them (such as tax credits), but in reality, it takes a motivated developer who is interested in heritage preservation.

One thing I've seen often following preservation issues these past few years is that any time a developer (or a community) wants to get rid of a heritage property, they will say it's ugly or not architecturally significant. The years are often not kind to these buildings, and decorative features may have been stripped, ugly stucco or cladding added, or the building may just be allowed to deteriorate--thus resulting in an ugly building. A building left to decay is also not attractive to its neighbours, and so developers can often count on public opinion to help them eliminate "eyesores." Yonge St. has been particularly vulnerable to this, whereas shopping districts where the older buildings are part of the charm aren't so affected.

Yet at the same time, we have seen such successes with industrial buildings--often not seen as attractive initially--being restored and repurposed. The Distillery District is a great example, and these days few people are willing to tear down an older industrial building downtown or in trendy or up-and-coming areas if there's an opportunity to do a loft conversion.

 

[Tewder]

An interesting piece on building preservation in light of the loss of 335 Yonge

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/918692--historic-buildings-the-problem-with-preservation?bn=1

Interesting article and I think it highlights some of the things you and I have discussed back and forth.

We cannot overlook the fact that the state of heritage preservation in Toronto is a direct consequence of a deeper cultural devaluation of our own history and identity. People do not only ignore these things, in many cases they actually underrate them at best (the 'hmph, we have nothing here that's worthy or interesting like Europe or the USA' position) or vilify them at worst (the 'who cares about the boring, white-bread and exclusionary colonial past of a place that was dead until the multiculturalism of the 1970s anyway' approach). In one form or another these are the impressions that most in our community have about Heritage, and in the absence of very little political/government support, and in the face of the cultural imperative of multiculturalism that is supported politically and by the government, who can be surprised?

... and none of this is to suggest that there hasn't been some real success stories, there have. Thankfully, regardless of any perceived heritage value, people seem to like cool industrial loft conversions or the possibilities that some heritage buildings offer, as long as economic, property value or business feasibility considerations don't get in the way.

 

[adma]

They do, but it seems far from comprehensive. Properties are added after they come to the city's attention, either because someone has requested a demolition permit or, as in this case, the structure begins to deteriorate.

A serious approach to heritage protection would have seen this building listed as heritage a long time ago.

It was.

Address: 335 YONGE ST

Ward: 27
Status: Designated Part IV
List Date: Mar 15, 1974
Intention Date: Jul 8, 2010
By-Law: 1176-2010
Part IV Date: Aug 27, 2010
Part V Date:
Heritage District: N/A
District Status: N/A
Heritage Easement Ag:
Registration Date:
Building Type: Residential
Architect/Builder:
Construction Yr.:
Details: William Reynolds Block, 1888, (including Empress Hotel) at Gould St. (SE) -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974. City Council stated it's Intention to Designate on July 6, 7 and 8, 2010. City Council enacted designation by-law 1176-2010 August 27, 2010.
Demolition Date:
Primary Address: 335 YONGE ST