The One | 338.3m | 94s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,304
Reaction score
2,381
I see only comedic value.
Stollery's was a modest structure for its time, it barely stood out when it was built. To imagine any part of it being retained in a $billion 80-100 story building is amusing - in fact tourist worthy!

No it shouldn't be protected but, ignoring everything about it for some boutique builder billion dollar vision is also what led to the block busting and parking lots of previous generations.
 

fedplanner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
572
Reaction score
18
Location
NYC
No it shouldn't be protected but, ignoring everything about it for some boutique builder billion dollar vision is also what led to the block busting and parking lots of previous generations.

What's your definition of block busting?

The rise of the automobile and a change in land economics is what led to older buildings being torn down for parking, not failed development proposals...

Add me to the camp of folks skeptical of KWT's motives for the push for historic designation. Regardless, it's the right move by her office because there is a real chance Strolleys, along with the rest of the acquired buildings on the block, get demolished long before any construction begins. The tower may still be under design, and no formal application has been submitted to the city as of yet. What's the rush with demolition permit? The Strolleys building might make an interesting condo sales office before it goes.
 
Last edited:

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
17,029
Reaction score
1,630
The historical images upthread even indicate that this was not the original intended design for the building, but the result of a reconstruction in the 1930s.

Actually, 1920s.

And honestly: that "not the original intended design" argument is about as amateurish as anti-Stollery's arguments get. You might as well suggest that *any* Art Deco rebuilds/reclads ought to be disqualified because, well, there's something older that was effaced on their behalf. It's almost as bad as the idiot "this ain't heritage; it ain't 100 years old" or "it's only 100 years old; there's stuff in Rome that's 500 or 2000 years old" arguments.

(Not to mention that the circumstances of reconstruction, i.e. the rebuild and widening of Bloor St, are architecturally/historically "interesting" in their own right--a lot of Carriage Trade Deco frontages, now mostly gone, were created as a result. It's almost like a lot of UT-poster mentalities are actively *scared* of reflecting on such facts because, well, such facts fuel the anti-developer hysterical preservationists--better to suppress everything and ahistorically redline the whole furshlugginer mess as a worthless old crock because, well, new development rools, old crocks drool, etc etc)
 

LNahid2000

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
1,916
Reaction score
1,585
Wow, it looks like they're already making changes to Stollerys!

35aq845.jpg
 

am29

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
591
Reaction score
510
I'm so glad they're moving fast on this one.. And I'm sure if the site gets demolished it won't be very long til we get renders!
 

travis3000

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
717
Reaction score
708
The fact that they are moving so fast already shows they are serious. It was just a couple months ago we read the stories in the paper that this site was bought and now its closed and changes are happening. I love when things happen so fast. I agree we will see a rendering soon, probably in the next month.
 

yyzer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,433
Reaction score
313
Location
Mississauga
I think if we see a rendering, and it turns out to be really good, that may help to silence the KWTs of the world... right now she is already voicing objections against demolition, for something which is still an unknown entity..
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
32,157
Reaction score
26,144
Location
Toronto
I think if we see a rendering, and it turns out to be really good, that may help to silence the KWTs of the world... right now she is already voicing objections against demolition, for something which is still an unknown entity..

I don't agree with a heritage designation, but premature demolition is also not exactly the greatest way to go, especially when one doesn't have a clue what the proposal is going to be.

As an aside, one can only hope they got the Scotia site.

AoD
 

ChesterCopperpot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
4,118
Reaction score
6,898
Location
Toronto
H&M/Scotia - not part of the development
 

waterloowarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,778
Reaction score
96
Location
Ottawa
Demolition permit approved on Friday


Building Application Status
Application: Demolition Folder (DM) Status: Permit Issued
Location: 1 BLOOR ST W
TORONTO ON M4W 1A3
Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 15 101573 DEM 00 DM Issued Date: Jan 16, 2015

Project: Retail Store Demolition
Description: Proposal to demolish existing 3 storey retail building. Conveniencve address - 786 YONGE STREET.
 
Last edited:

waterloowarrior

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,778
Reaction score
96
Location
Ottawa
KWT's motion was for a heritage report to come back to Toronto East York Community Council. Next meeting is Feb 18. Next two Council meetings are Feb 10 and March 10.
 

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,882
Reaction score
1,019
I agree with that. It will make for a much interesting block to have two different buildings there
 

Top