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

The city / province actually admitted Mizrahi is breaking the rules and yet they're not doing anything about it? That's even worse than being incompetent!
 
MetroMan said:
Yup, they’re definitely building above ground. They poured the elevator cores today. Mizrahi really doesn’t care whatsoever for the rules. He’s blatant about it too.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but the site was inactive for 2-3 months just recently. If he were that much of a scofflaw, he would have ignored that stop-work order. I'm not defending the man, as I don't know him; just wanted to point that out.
 
Rascacielo said:
The city / province actually admitted Mizrahi is breaking the rules and yet they're not doing anything about it? That's even worse than being incompetent!
Click to expand...
Do people not realize that there are over 250+ Hi-Rise buildings going up in Toronto not including areas around the city, I can't get a building inspector to come to regular small residential projects at the moment as a lot of them are off work at the moment, i believe that under the circumstances of everything that the City and the Province are facing at the present time this is not on their priority list, that's just my own opinion.
 
thaivic said:
Do people not realize that there are over 250+ Hi-Rise buildings going up in Toronto not including areas around the city, I can't get a building inspector to come to regular small residential projects at the moment as a lot of them are off work at the moment, i believe that under the circumstances of everything that the City and the Province are facing at the present time this is not on their priority list, that's just my own opinion.
Click to expand...
I get it, but maybe it shouldn't be on ours either. I know, I know, unlike the bureaucrats, we're bored and stuck at home, but if they don't care, why should we? Either they choose to ignore the violation or they will deal with it in due time. If you're concerned about the workers' well-being, I'm sure their union will champion their cause if the working condition is unsafe.
nationalpost.com

COVID-19: 'We’re all breathing on each other' says Toronto construction worker, slamming job site

'If I lose my job I lose my job, I shouldn’t be speaking like this, but I don’t care'
nationalpost.com nationalpost.com
 
Last edited:
CityPlaceN1 said:
I don't know who you are or the others that are supporting your arguements. You could be right. Or not. You've made your point. If you think you are right then call the authorities. Constant ranting here is pointless and frankly annoying.
Click to expand...
He or she keeps making the same "rant" likely because others keep bringing up the same questions, lol.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Sure, but holding off would have given HPS time to evaluate and pass a listing or designation on the property. Something Sam did not want. In the end, we would have gotten largely the same building, but with the Stolleries facade taped onto the north side. No thanks.

Say what you will about fly-by-night demo jobs, but if they're done legally, I've really got no problem with them. Were HPS an easier department to work with, I'm sure you'd get more willingness on the part of the development community to do just that. Since they're not, however, they really are more part of the cause of, not the solution to, things like this.
Click to expand...

Could you expand on why HPS are difficult to deal with? Just curious how these processes tend to go.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Sure, but holding off would have given HPS time to evaluate and pass a listing or designation on the property. Something Sam did not want. In the end, we would have gotten largely the same building, but with the Stolleries facade taped onto the north side. No thanks.

Say what you will about fly-by-night demo jobs, but if they're done legally, I've really got no problem with them. Were HPS an easier department to work with, I'm sure you'd get more willingness on the part of the development community to do just that. Since they're not, however, they really are more part of the cause of, not the solution to, things like this.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have taken much longer to remove the panels for preservation and then demolish the rest of the building. They were just small ornamental pieces below the second-storey windows. We're probably talking about a difference of hours or at most, days. It could have been done on a weekend.

I may have to stand corrected, though. There are some indications that the ornamental stone panels below the windows were preserved. This article says that parts of the building would be preserved and commemorated on site. It would make sense to preserve the artistic panels between the windows since they were relatively unique features to the building versus the more generic classicism of the facade in general. If you look closely at some of the photos in the Toronto Star story I linked to, you'll see that the panels were missing before the rest of the facade was demolished.

Personally, I don't think the whole building was worth preserving, nor do I think that destroying everything with jackhammers in the blink of an eye would have been rational. But aside from what you think about what Mizrahi did, there's an appearance of impropriety because there was a heritage issue (if not designation) that he aggressively suppressed rather than resolving.

Anyone can huff and puff about HPS and whether what he did was legal and/or morally correct. But just the appearance of impropriety can hurt you in your future transactions with the city and other bodies.
 
Towered said:
Could you expand on why HPS are difficult to deal with? Just curious how these processes tend to go.
Click to expand...
HPS's opinion of heritage buildings is that they are sacrosanct and need to be preserved (even if it's just a facade) in place and as completely as possible. Even secondary ones that are only captured in a Part V (HCD), as opposed to a Part IV (individual building), listing. They also very much enforce the [correct] opinion that 'buildings tell stories through time' - except that those 'stories' are only in the past and the time to stop that kind of interpretation is now. It's remarkable to hear statements like 'an irreplaceable element of our built and social heritage' in reference to secondary structures that haven't been wholly evaluated outside of a recognition of the office that designed them (hint: not everything by a particular office is a masterpeice, architects need to make money with shitty work too).

junctionist said:
It wouldn't have taken much longer to remove the panels for preservation and then demolish the rest of the building. They were just small ornamental pieces below the second-storey windows. We're probably talking about a difference of hours or at most, days. It could have been done on a weekend.

I may have to stand corrected, though. There are some indications that the ornamental stone panels below the windows were preserved. This article says that parts of the building would be preserved and commemorated on site. It would make sense to preserve the artistic panels between the windows since they were relatively unique features to the building versus the more generic classicism of the facade in general. If you look closely at some of the photos in the Toronto Star story I linked to, you'll see that the panels were missing before the rest of the facade was demolished.

Personally, I don't think the whole building was worth preserving, nor do I think that destroying everything with jackhammers in the blink of an eye would have been rational. But aside from what you think about what Mizrahi did, there's an appearance of impropriety because there was a heritage issue (if not designation) that he aggressively suppressed rather than resolving.

Anyone can huff and puff about HPS and whether what he did was legal and/or morally correct. But just the appearance of impropriety can hurt you in your future transactions with the city and other bodies.
Click to expand...
I mean, 'huff and puff' is pretty loaded language, no? All of the above said, I do think that HPS does a decent job a lot of the time, and I do think the Stolleries panels should have been saved in some way. I also believe that the stonework on the facade of 61-63 Charles East should be saved and displayed in the lobby. It really wouldn't be hard...

My point is that once you start allowing for those *no brainer* things, the City could start to mandate not only them, but the entire preservation of a facade. Again, as stated above, the frustration I have with HPS is their one-dimensional view of 'heritage' and what that means. Also, their strict view that things before a certain date *are* heritage (1950s-60s-ish), bar none, and things after that, really, aren't. They need to start protecting our significant modernist heritage with the same pants-wetting enthusiasm they have for John Lyle's, friend's, East York garden shed.
 
ProjectEnd said:
HPS's opinion of heritage buildings is that they are sacrosanct and need to be preserved (even if it's just a facade) in place and as completely as possible. Even secondary ones that are only captured in a Part V (HCD), as opposed to a Part IV (individual building), listing. They also very much enforce the [correct] opinion that 'buildings tell stories through time' - except that those 'stories' are only in the past and the time to stop that kind of interpretation is now. It's remarkable to hear statements like 'an irreplaceable element of our built and social heritage' in reference to secondary structures that haven't been wholly evaluated outside of a recognition of the office that designed them (hint: not everything by a particular office is a masterpeice, architects need to make money with shitty work too).


I mean, 'huff and puff' is pretty loaded language, no? All of the above said, I do think that HPS does a decent job a lot of the time, and I do think the Stolleries panels should have been saved in some way. I also believe that the stonework on the facade of 61-63 Charles East should be saved and displayed in the lobby. It really wouldn't be hard...

My point is that once you start allowing for those *no brainer* things, the City could start to mandate not only them, but the entire preservation of a facade. Again, as stated above, the frustration I have with HPS is their one-dimensional view of 'heritage' and what that means. Also, their strict view that things before a certain date *are* heritage (1950s-60s-ish), bar none, and things after that, really, aren't. They need to start protecting our significant modernist heritage with the same pants-wetting enthusiasm they have for John Lyle's, friend's, East York garden shed.
Click to expand...
Well summarized..

It’s been particularly entertaining reading them get shut down at the board for several buildings within the King Spadina HCD. 445 Adeaide and 457 Richmond pretty much curb stomped that notion of “anything old is sacrosanct”.
 
Fines for civil disobedience are often viewed as a cost of doing business - ie noise bylaw violations, couriers parking in no parking zones, 4/20 activities, etc.
Remember when Sunday shopping was banned and stores defied the law and opened?
 
madknife said:
i learned this the hard way... some people not only not care about the truth, but would much prefer to be ignorant than be shown something new... to them, if it's something they don't already think/know, it must be wrong...
but rest assured that many on this forum have benefited tremendously from the references and analyses you have provided!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your supportive words. I try hard to research and understand an issue before I post. I also lean on my years of experience as a development professional to try to make informed comments and to share insights. It is disappointing and discouraging when people assume otherwise without even bothering to read what I have shared.
 
Last edited:
You can't know that they are non-diabetic
 
Kenojuak said:
Oh my god, I have explained this in detail, with references and links, so many times that other members are telling me that I’ve made my point and to stop repeating myself. Please read up a few pages. I am not just “making up stuff” and “ranting”. I have called 3-1-1 as another member suggested. I have also spoken with Toronto Buildings which confirms the site should not be active. I am not going to bother the police about this. You are welcome to.

If you read up the thread and believe I’ve come to the wrong conclusion, please point it out and I will either explain myself further or admit that I got something wrong in my analysis. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I'm curious if you are policing all city constructions sites like you are this one? If no then why not?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top