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

Knowing how far back the property was/is in its CVA capping schedule might shed light on why it, and many like it, are left as is.
 
April 29th

I finally read this whole thread last night and nearly had a stroke as the pages progressed, especially the part that the whole building at 335 Yonge may have to come down. That's fantastic news to hear it's designated and will be saved.

I took a walk by around 1:30 & snapped a few shots. CityTV was there with Kyle Rae who was all decked out in suit and tie, I tried to talk to him but someone got to him as I approached and got talking his ear off. I presume there will be a piece on the news at 6pm tonight.

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

 
Last edited:
After all, in the absence of a story what is heritage but a collection of eventually outdated structures, obstacles to change and progress? It is the story that confers the significance which is why relatively newer structures like Boston City Hall remain vulnerable until their story is understood, contextualized and embraced.

Well, maybe an important issue here re Toronto is not so much a raw disregard for "our collective heritage", but that that our approach to it over time has, except for the potboilers, been excessively subjective and impressionistic--like, in the case of Yonge & Gould, the building was listed and sandblasted back in the day and most everything else hinged upon a hypothetical Potter Stewart-esque "I know it when I see it" reflex; but it's telling that in all this reportage, the actual story of the place has been mute--as if the generic "Yonge & Gould" were all that sufficed. The inherent sympathy is there, i.e. the yahoo reflex of "it was a firetrap that should have been knocked down long ago" is about as universal as support for a Rob Ford mayoralty, I wouldn't label it "typical" by any means. But the backup's been lacking. The process of its being "understood, contextualized and embraced" has thus far been passively half-baked.

However, there remains virtue to the "impressionistic" approach--ideally, of course, as part of a broader synergy; but also as "preventative medicine" and, well, in its (as I put it) "hit-the-ground-running meta-mythological" way, to even override your kind of hand-wringing over the absence of commitment/collective story/whatever.

Which is why I highlighted the "collection of eventually outdated structures" thing above--essentially, there's the root of the fallacious, hackish attitude. Once you view your surrounds, anywhere, as just a "collection of eventually outdated structures", you've suspended yourself in an unnecessary vacuumland, whether out of disdainful snobbery or ignorance or self-conscious overrefinement.

Thus re

Absolutely. A collective story is easier to tell and save than buildings, but it will also have far greater power to save them in the long run. In this sense we should not be so disdainful of the armchair hack who is able to get to the meat and potatoes of what is truly important while the self-appointed 'knowledgeable' among us will spend an eternity wringing their hands over useless details - all things being equal - like whether a building is preserved in situ or not... as it is lost to the wrecking ball.

I'd actually argue that, while not to the point of NIMBY nuisance, we should have a strategically broad scope of "what is truly important"--yes, even venturing into the realm of so-called detritus and crud when necessary. After all, this isn't just about "important buildings"; it could just as well pertain to averting the rampant shaved cornices, clumsy window replacements, and EIFS-i-fication in many a BIA neighbourhood, without having to justify whether it involves "a historical property" or not. And with such scaleable agility re the low end, the middle and high ends will follow. It's a common existing cityscape; approach it with love and wit.

And you know something...forget Toronto. If we use this disarming approach in visiting New York, London, Paris, Boston, heck even Brampton, we might wind up out-localling the locals; which is practically the inverse of those who visit Toronto and gripe about our so-called ugliness, etc.

Remember re said "armchair hack who is able to get to the meat and potatoes of what is truly important" is that he/she only has a armchair-hack notion of said meat and potatoes.
 
Which is why I highlighted the "collection of eventually outdated structures" thing above--essentially, there's the root of the fallacious, hackish attitude. Once you view your surrounds, anywhere, as just a "collection of eventually outdated structures", you've suspended yourself in an unnecessary vacuumland, whether out of disdainful snobbery or ignorance or self-conscious overrefinement.

Perhaps, but I don't know that it is always as pernicious as that. Most people just sort of innocently want what they want, and the path of least resistance to getting it. No matter how you look at it a heritage building offers 'resistance' whether because of age and condition, size and/or scale (or lack of), expense, lack of mod-cons/sustainability, availability of materials or knowledge, and so on and so on... or simply the fear of the money-pit 'piggy in a poke'-type trap.

...and isn't this myopic view of our surrounds somewhat human nature? How much did Haussmann value the fabric of medieval Paris that he destroyed? Yet the product of his disdain for that heritage then became itself an essential part of the heritage landscape there. On the other hand you have the Marais which was a totally different approach and inspiration given the critical mass of extant heritage buildings and a business model/urban plan that would fit. Then again, at what point do we consider La Defense heritage? In other words, sometimes it is the heritage advocates themselves that have the myopic view. We cannot freeze our surroundings in time and place or we atrophy as a culture. Different approaches will work given the different specific forces at play, if we are open to them and willing to compromise a little.


I'd actually argue that, while not to the point of NIMBY nuisance, we should have a strategically broad scope of "what is truly important"--yes, even venturing into the realm of so-called detritus and crud when necessary. After all, this isn't just about "important buildings"; it could just as well pertain to averting the rampant shaved cornices, clumsy window replacements, and EIFS-i-fication in many a BIA neighbourhood, without having to justify whether it involves "a historical property" or not. And with such scaleable agility re the low end, the middle and high ends will follow. It's a common existing cityscape; approach it with love and wit.

... and given my last point I must agree with you. "History' is the stuff of museums and monuments etc while 'heritage' in a broader sense captures everything around us from the sublime to the ridiculous, and not that the line between them isn't often blurred.

Also, to be clear my points here have all sort of assumed we are discussing the general 'heritage' fabric and not so much specific important historic buildings or sites. For them, I would agree that we must have strong advocacy and legislation, and this should absolutely not be left up to the armchair hack.
 
Then again, at what point do we consider La Defense heritage?

As anticipatory, preemptive strategy--why not now? For all I know, certain elements of it (CNIT, above all) already are "heritage" of one sort or another...
 

Check out the beautiful building at the rear that was razed for a Parking Lot ...

20100502-wrb2.jpg
 
Check out the beautiful building at the rear that was razed for a Parking Lot ...

The oldest part of the O'Keefe Brewery complex--bit the dust in the 70s. (The newer parts across Victoria were reused for Ryerson purposes.)
 
This is very encouraging.
When I was by on the weekend I noticed that they have erected a more permanent barrier around the site on both Gould and Yonge Streets with a safe pedestrian walking underpass on Yonge. Yonge Street remains reduced to two lanes, one north and one southbound.
 
Wow. The city's reports have gotten more detailed, haven't they? Lots of details in there. I hope that the partial collapse of this building and designation brings some much-needed TLC to it.
 
This is very encouraging.
When I was by on the weekend I noticed that they have erected a more permanent barrier around the site on both Gould and Yonge Streets with a safe pedestrian walking underpass on Yonge. Yonge Street remains reduced to two lanes, one north and one southbound.

Today, May 30th

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

 

Back
Top