Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

Tewder:

I disagree - legal responsibility is one thing, moral/ethical responsibility is another - and it is in the latter that developer had failed utterly. More disconcertingly, said developer had made grandeur promises of excellence which he will not be legally bound to either - would we then excuse him for this scenario of hypothetical failure, knowing that by the book his responsibility is just maximizing return?

AoD
 
Last edited:
The disadvantage for the developers in this kind of behaviour is that they should not expect any favours from any office where KWT has any influence.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Which makes her move to designate the building at this late stage all the more curious. I suspect this is a fait accompli even before the demolition.
Click to expand...

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the press coverage is beneficial for the City if they want to lobby the Province to extend demolition control to commercial buildings/change heritage rules.
 
Last edited:
67Cup said:
The disadvantage for the developers in this kind of behaviour is that they should not expect any favours from any office where KWT has any influence.
Click to expand...

The cynic in me suspect this could be a case of political calculus - losing the heritage "battle" is preferable to losing the s37 one. At the end of the day, why waste political capital on lost cause that people may complain, but ultimately ranks low on the priority list?

AoD
 
Tewder said:
I agree with Mike in TO's take on it. Blaming the developer here feels reactionary, it's not their responsibility to assess what's heritage or not, it's their responsibility to maximize a return on investments. They likely sensed a long and drawn-out issue here was looming - in other words a costly one - and decided to act fast to nip it in the bud. I can't say I like the way they did it but it sure was effective! The real issue remains as it ever was, which is to say a lack of commitment to heritage preservation in terms of assessing/identifying and protecting/enforcing true heritage structures.
Click to expand...

Clearly the developer wants to avoid the same problems and delays encountered by Mirvish. The developer doesn't want the project design governed by an old building with no clear historic value. Frankly I applaud his quickness to do so even though I would hate to see the lot empty for an extended period of time. Looking back, I wonder if the Mirvish project would have been handled similarly had his project not been leaked early. It appears Mirvish may have unintentionally taught developers a lesson or two.
 
It's interesting to read all the storm and fury here, over a building that hardly anyone thought mattered until the past week or so... is it the fact that the nice detailing of a minor architectural structure was destroyed, or the fact that a developer, wisely or unwisely, chose to act in their own interest, that has so many people enraged? I think Mike in TO has it right, if anything, the attempt by KWT to designate heritage, after the fact, is sneaky, some kind of weird grandstanding... and Tewder's post a few pages back is also pertinent - when folks try to heritage designate everything and anything, it cheapens the whole process.

The developer by acting so brutally may have created bad PR, but at the end of the day, they may be pretty smart after all... maybe they watched the Mirvish-Gehry debacle and wanted to avoid that type of drawn out compromise.

/long time readers here know that I despise facadectomies, for being fake preservation presented as real.

I shed no tears for the demise of the Stollery building....
 
Last edited:
With respect to Mike in TO's comments I have to disagree with laying so much blame with the City. The Heritage Dept. is backlogged by years and our friends in the former administration only further cut that department back through attrition. In the Church Wellesley Village the Neighbourhood Association has obviously recognized that development is moving east - quick. They have begun to move forward to take action themselves with community volunteers to document, photograph and then research every single building of possible value within it's boundaries and then submitting the report to Heritage. Whenever Heritage has the resources they'll presumably do thorough and formal research on the buildings flagged and then the official process will move along from there, whenever that might be. That's the state of affairs we are in here. This was launched last spring, I myself volunteered to do some photographing and research, but the project is stalled for some reason. I must make contact to see what is happening, it seems all the more urgent today.

CP24 is reporting that Councillor Wong-Tam is in meetings right now to help save the building. Pfft! They clearly outsmarted her, I suspect she's hiding in the bathroom this morning. A presser is expected later, it's game over here. Everyone they interview at Yonge & Bloor has a negative reaction to the building coming down. The reporters mention the proposed 70-storey condo, but also mention in the reports that it is being demolished "for a parking lot". Take what you will from that.
 
A lot of morals, this one has: “So I looked at it as a moral responsibility to build buildings that are going to stand the test of time and resonate with people.”

"Frustration over shoddy, sloppy construction was his main motivation for getting into the custom-home business. “I saw details were being missed and that there was a real need for old-world craftsmanship to come back" [italics mine] What about the craftsmanship of the details on the Stollery's building?

This note from a forumer on Sam Mizrahi's Hazelton project is interesting:

"Next door [at 133 Hazelton], a few crew members walk off site over safety issues, being treated as slaves, having no respect and being yell at to the point the labour board was sending over a supervisors to look into this matter."
 
I'm surprised the south/west side of Bloor isn't completely closed off for this. I guess this is going to be a very controlled demolition with no mistakes.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Mike in TO:

I don't disagree with the developer demolishing the structure - heritage designation an unsuitable outcome for the site anyways, and the attempt by the city to get involved in this late stage is a pointless Hail Mary (for public consumption). To me, at issue is how the demolition had occurred - by the way of selective destruction of architectural details, presumably to make the process irreversable. This is a truly excessive response that does not engender goodwill. Also, we do not know if the proponent have approached city officials or even members of the public regarding selective preservation either.

I think the photo of using a crowbar to chip way architectural details is a rather powerful, albeit extremely unfortunate image.

AoD
Click to expand...

Agreed. This could have been handled better and the proponent still has to work with the councilor through the approvals process. This may not have been the best PR move to start such a relationship.
 
Big Daddy said:
Clearly the developer wants to avoid the same problems and delays encountered by Mirvish. The developer doesn't want the project design governed by an old building with no clear historic value. Frankly I applaud his quickness to do so even though I would hate to see the lot empty for an extended period of time. Looking back, I wonder if the Mirvish project would have been handled similarly had his project not been leaked early. It appears Mirvish may have unintentionally taught developers a lesson or two.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree here. No one wants a parking lot, but Foster deserves a clean slate. No one cared about this until now. Not to go too in depth here because its off topic and petty, but before KWT was councilor she managed a coffee shop where my partner at the time and a number of friends worked, and I can say she did some very shifty things like invading employees' private property, cut corners, turned a blind eye on sexual harassment, didn't follow legal work ethics etc, etc. She had her good side too of course.

Point being... I would in no way be surprised if she is just staging efforts to "save" this building to make her self look good. Like a champion of the people.

Hopefully with this surprise demolition this project will happen a little faster now. I hope that rules are laid out in the future to prevent this from happening to other structures worth saving. But in this particular situation I think the site and benefit from a clean slate.
 
I could go into much detail though I imagine I shouldn't. She didn't break into anyone's homes or cars or anything but she would go through back packs, purses etc while the floor was busy and she knew staff wouldn't catch her. I will leave it at that. If moderators feel this is inappropriate I will understand if my posts get deleted lol
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top