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

[Admiral Beez]

"Crumbling" and "museum pieces" is a bit contemptuously condescending, is it? I mean, a counter-view might be that a more modern and enlightened view of "progress and city building" thinks better than to blithely dispose of the past...

I have no problem with museum pieces, nor mean to imply that they're necessary a bad thing. I live in Cabbagetown and love the historic "museum-piece" homes of the area. However we wouldn't build anything if we were worried about preserving the buildings of the past, which is ironic since when those buildings were first built the feeling was all about progress, forgetting what was there before and building new structures in the design of the times.

 

[Edward Skira]

No one is suggesting everything needs to be saved. But this building was special and relatively rare. Are you OK with tearing down the Winchester Hotel in Cabbagetown in order to build some modern green glass clad condo?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

The street has re-opened to vehicular traffic, one lane north and one lane south. Demolition continues, although there was no activity when I was there around 2pm.

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

 

[Bogtrotter]

Are you talking about the 'average' Torontonian? In my experience the average Torontonian would be hard pressed to even acknowledge the city has a heritage, never mind be concerned about it... and for that matter, when we're talking about a city the size and importance of Toronto is this really just an issue for Torontonians? I mean, I'm pretty sure the average Quebecer is pretty aware of the heritage of Montreal whether from there or not. Ditto the average Illinoisan vis a vis Chicago or Californian vis a vis San Fran...

As Rebecca points out there is no culture of preservation here (not even a museum of Toronto), and I would add that until we start to understand that we have something worthy of preserving, and just what it might be in terms of a shared cultural narrative that is meaningful, there probably wont ever be much of one. In other words preserving the Distillery is great but until anybody has a deeper understanding of what the Distillery is in the context of Toronto's heritage it is really just a lucky one-off like the Carlu or like some other repurposed sites. When the meaning is understood and valued the heritage asset likely fares better (Mapeleaf Gardens) than when the meaning is not understood or valued (first Parliament site). So rather than looking to our leaders for more laws, rules and punishments (which maybe we should be still) we should be looking to them to start understanding, valuing and disseminating the cultural/heritage narrative.

That's my point, I don't believe Torontonians are any less or more concerned about heritage issues than the citizenry in NYC or LA etc, so why does Toronto have such weak kneed and unenforced policies with regards to heritage? Indeed LA is a much more vast metropolis (17 million is it?) and is of course renowned for shady dealings, yet they have a more advanced system in place to preserve historic architecture. What gives with Toronto, you'd think the exact opposite would be true.

 

[Student99]

I wish someone was down there getting shots tonight-- with just the main floor remaining and going fast, it's a surreal sight, all lit up bright like a movie set, and you can still see the racks of clothes inside the previous Urban Behaviour clothing store, etc... pretty awesome scene down there right now if anyone is interested.

ahhh wish I could have seen this.

 

[Tewder]

Sure, but not necessarily to the point where they'd rally for the heritage of said centres, aside from obvious potboilers which are mostly presently safe-ish anyway. Like, Montreal has plenty of magnificent churches that have been, or are in danger of, closure or deconsecration. You think "average Quebecers" are going to expend elbow grease to join the "sauveur" chorus on their behalf?

... but in a context like that of Montreal the heritage crusade amounts to a skirmish rather than a full-on war as it is in Toronto. Little wonder les habitants are lining up to join the cause, now matter how much matters of patrie and patrimoine are valued in a more general sense. As you say, what's one more church or industrial loft, more or less?

 

[ShonTron]

I am glad that dt-Toronto-geek got the pics. Peering inside and seeing Wanda's Waffle Cafe still set up was weird.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I am glad that dt-Toronto-geek got the pics. Peering inside and seeing Wanda's Waffle Cafe still set up was weird.

Thanks! I was almost lured into going over last night to grab some shots after SP!RE posted that message but it was just too cold for me.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Are you OK with tearing down the Winchester Hotel in Cabbagetown in order to build some modern green glass clad condo?

No more than than those were OK with tearing down whatever the Winchester Hotel replaced when it was built in 1888. As long as a building is designed to visually compliment the style of the area and meet the building and height codes I don't see a problem.

 

[FAC33]

The focus of most of the best urban historical preservation I've seen is (in all cases other than actual museums) not on "preserving museum pieces." It's on adaptive re-use of historical properties so that they can continue to have a long and useful life and enhance the neighbourhoods in which they are found. Anyone who's been to the Distillery District knows that it's not at all about museum pieces or architectural flies in amber that cease to make sense in their modern surroundings. I don't think anyone was calling for the Edison/Empress to be restored to use as a hotel, but that building had the potential to be an attractive jewel in that stretch of Yonge St. had the owners been interested in pursuing that angle.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If the city and its citizens want to preserve the buildings of the past there has to be real and substantial financial incentives to do so in the form of tax breaks, preservation grants, etc.

 

[junctionist]

If the city and its citizens want to preserve the buildings of the past there has to be real and substantial financial incentives to do so in the form of tax breaks, preservation grants, etc.

I agree that those would be useful, but often what we see are profitable buildings being neglected. Sometimes, it's not affordable for an ordinary owner to replace century old architectural details or stabilize a building. That's where grants come in, and these people need to take the grants offered. On the other hand, some people aren't interested in properly maintaining their properties, and this sort of neglectful and ignorant owner is most visible when a heritage building is involved. But they exist for all kinds of properties. The city should not be bribing them to properly maintain their buildings.

Also, there comes a time when a city achieves what it wants, at least in a particular area and there's little need for "progress". The functional, beautiful, and historical area becomes a city-building achievement, at which point the changes should be more minor.

Finally, I see Torontonians' love of heritage every year at Doors Open, an event which is quite vibrant, where people stand in lines to see heritage buildings. I see a shining examples of preservation all over the city. Surviving heritage doesn't just happen naturally; the typical century old heritage building has probably seen several renovations and restorations of varied quality over its 100 years.

 

[adma]

I don't think anyone was calling for the Edison/Empress to be restored to use as a hotel,

Actually, who says it *couldn't* have been, of a sort--whether as a boutique operation, or a hostel, or something serving Ryerson...

 

[adma]

... but in a context like that of Montreal the heritage crusade amounts to a skirmish rather than a full-on war as it is in Toronto. Little wonder les habitants are lining up to join the cause, now matter how much matters of patrie and patrimoine are valued in a more general sense. As you say, what's one more church or industrial loft, more or less?

I'm kind of confused re what you're saying, unless you garbled a message--are the "les habitants" the "average Quebecers" I'm speaking of? Are you saying they *would* rally, or *wouldn't* rally?

Unless you're trying to send a message along the lines that Montreal can "absorb its" losses better than Toronto can--which is, really, a totally bass-ackward way of approaching the issue. Look: a loss is a loss. Period. Toronto has Salad King; Montreal has Ben's. Toronto has the Riverdale half-round; Chicago has Michael Reese Hospital. And for all Chicago's professed "architectural town-ness", I highly doubt that "average Chicagoans", so wo speak, would have rallied for Michael Reese Hospital. Yet, that didn't make it any less valid as a preservation crusade (however failed) du jour.

Put it this way: inherently, I don't feel Torontonians are so heritage-ignorant as you seem to feel. Where the critical ignorance *does* lie is regarding heritage *regulation*--and it's a perfectly natural ignorance: you don't expect average folk to understand bureaucratese. In this case, I feel the building was taken for granted--but not in the disposable/dispensable sense; rather, I think that for very, very many, it was taken for granted *as* casually-presumed heritage. The architecture, and the building's survival (however precarious), spoke for itself, regardless of whether one knew of its history and/or provenance and/or level of heritage protection, or lack thereof (and w/Salad King lately adding a tantric gastronomic twist to it all).

Don't be too rough on Torontonians--in fact, we may be paradoxically better off for a state of "full-out war", or maybe should we say "full-out catharsis". Perhaps it's the Jane Jacobs thing, but Toronto does urban catharsis well. The Duke's fire proved it; the G20 proved it; this present fire proved it.

Maybe in the end, the problem isn't that Toronto is hostile to heritage; rather, it's that the existing standards, parameters, common communicated knowledge etc are flabby, ad hoc and formless--which leads to lacunae after misunderstanding after confusion after calamity after whatever...

 

[Tewder]

I'm kind of confused re what you're saying, unless you garbled a message--are the "les habitants" the "average Quebecers" I'm speaking of? Are you saying they *would* rally, or *wouldn't* rally?

You could be excused for not understanding my posting as I don't quite understand it either. I think I was hopped up on meds at the time. Let that be a lesson to me.

What I meant to write was that it's little wonder Montrealers are not lining up to join the cause if they don't perceive there to be much of a cause to join...

Unless you're trying to send a message along the lines that Montreal can "absorb its" losses better than Toronto can--which is, really, a totally bass-ackward way of approaching the issue. Look: a loss is a loss. Period. Toronto has Salad King; Montreal has Ben's. Toronto has the Riverdale half-round; Chicago has Michael Reese Hospital. And for all Chicago's professed "architectural town-ness", I highly doubt that "average Chicagoans", so wo speak, would have rallied for Michael Reese Hospital. Yet, that didn't make it any less valid as a preservation crusade (however failed) du jour.

I'm talking here about the 'average' Montrealer, Chicagoan or Torontonian. I think it'd be a tough sell to try and convince Montrealers that they are falling down on their preservationist duties, no matter what building here or there is lost and/or what preservationists have to say about it. Not to say that this is right but only to say that the perceived sense of urgency is so different within the differing contexts. Even still, in a Quebec context the opinion of preservationists probably carries a lot more weight than it does in Toronto, as a residual benefit of the overall value that is conferred on heritage within the culture in general.

Put it this way: inherently, I don't feel Torontonians are so heritage-ignorant as you seem to feel. Where the critical ignorance *does* lie is regarding heritage *regulation*--and it's a perfectly natural ignorance: you don't expect average folk to understand bureaucratese. In this case, I feel the building was taken for granted--but not in the disposable/dispensable sense; rather, I think that for very, very many, it was taken for granted *as* casually-presumed heritage. The architecture, and the building's survival (however precarious), spoke for itself, regardless of whether one knew of its history and/or provenance and/or level of heritage protection, or lack thereof (and w/Salad King lately adding a tantric gastronomic twist to it all).

Don't be too rough on Torontonians--in fact, we may be paradoxically better off for a state of "full-out war", or maybe should we say "full-out catharsis". Perhaps it's the Jane Jacobs thing, but Toronto does urban catharsis well. The Duke's fire proved it; the G20 proved it; this present fire proved it.

The sad reality is that the vast majority of Toronto cares little about the Edison, and about 95% wouldn't know who the heck Jane Jacobs was. I see this as the 'critical ignorance' and not the regulations, even if they could and should be better. At the end of day if people don't see value in heritage, if it is not meaningful to them in any way and in any collective sense, there will never be enough regulations in place to safeguard it.

Maybe in the end, the problem isn't that Toronto is hostile to heritage; rather, it's that the existing standards, parameters, common communicated knowledge etc are flabby, ad hoc and formless--which leads to lacunae after misunderstanding after confusion after calamity after whatever...

Yes, on this I agree... though I wouldn't characterize Toronto as 'hostile' to heritage so much as oblivious to it.