The Loblaws rep said that the building had been assessed -- would that report not have to be made available before final decisions are made?
Toronto West Block Est. 1928, The LakeShore, and The LakeFront | 130.75m | 41s | Choice Properties | a—A
- Thread starter ten_eighteen
- Start date
Rebecca - HT
New Member
The report is given to the City. But the report has been commissioned by Loblaw, which is a conflict of interest. The City has no resources to do it's own assessment, so there needs to be resources where an independent person evaluates a building's condition.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Rebecca:
A question for you - considering the relatively small number of firms (or even individuals) specializing in architectural preservation in Toronto, wouldn't conflict of interest be a major issue by default?
AoD
A question for you - considering the relatively small number of firms (or even individuals) specializing in architectural preservation in Toronto, wouldn't conflict of interest be a major issue by default?
AoD
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Explain how it's a conflict of interest on the part of Loblaw? With any development application, the applicant will retain qualified consultants to prepare reports and studies that would support the development application. An Heritage Report or Engineering Report would be no different than any other report such as a Traffic Study, Functional Servicing Report, etc., in that the City would review and comment on. The City could also ask for a peer review at the expense of the applicant.
Rebecca - HT
New Member
Sure, but there can be process in place that allows a person - maybe not a firm - with expertise to evaluate. The architectural firms in this city do great work in preservation, but it needs to be someone who is independent from proposed plans, IMO.
Rebecca - HT
New Member
Marcus,
Of course they do their own review, but you summarized it perfectly with this:
Of course they do their own review, but you summarized it perfectly with this:
gristle
Senior Member
Rebecca-HT,
The name of the Loblaws representative was supplied in this thread. You can always contact him and make a request for a copy of the report. He did mention that he could also be contacted through councillor Vaughan's office.
The name of the Loblaws representative was supplied in this thread. You can always contact him and make a request for a copy of the report. He did mention that he could also be contacted through councillor Vaughan's office.
Rebecca - HT
New Member
Gristle,
It's not my role to do so, plus I don't have the expertise personally. It is HPS's job to do so.
I have not seen the report, what's in it, whatnot. That is why HPS is heritage planning.
In terms of process though, for complete transperency it would be good to have an independent assessment for all potential demolishments.
It's not my role to do so, plus I don't have the expertise personally. It is HPS's job to do so.
I have not seen the report, what's in it, whatnot. That is why HPS is heritage planning.
In terms of process though, for complete transperency it would be good to have an independent assessment for all potential demolishments.
gristle
Senior Member
It's not your role?
I'm stating that you, as a person (and not a role), can acquire a copy of the report. That availability is part of the transparency that you have alluded to, but appear to not want to take advantage of.
Just out of curiosity, if you now claim to not have expertise in heritage matters, then on what basis are you attacking this project?
I'm stating that you, as a person (and not a role), can acquire a copy of the report. That availability is part of the transparency that you have alluded to, but appear to not want to take advantage of.
Just out of curiosity, if you now claim to not have expertise in heritage matters, then on what basis are you attacking this project?
Rebecca - HT
New Member
Gristle,
We are not heritage planners, we were separated post amalgamation to do programming and education on heritage. HPS are educated planners. Does that mean we don't know about planning issues and heritage issues? Of course not. We speak on behalf of the heritage community, which includes many of these people including heritage architects, developers and community members. Does that mean we can look at a facade and determine that it can be salvaged or not? Absolutely not. That is why HPS exists.
See here - http://www.heritagetoronto.org/sites/heritagetoronto/files/HT_HeritageReport(Web)FNL.pdf
I don't think my expertise needs to be questioned.
Any designated building that is being torn down needs to be questioned, that is our role. Why designate it then?
The report is available, that is par the course. What I am saying is that the report is from Loblaws, not the City of Toronto. The City of Toronto needs to do their own review before deciding what the state of the building is. If all demolitions of a designated building did not go through some other review we'd be left with no heritage sites.
We are not heritage planners, we were separated post amalgamation to do programming and education on heritage. HPS are educated planners. Does that mean we don't know about planning issues and heritage issues? Of course not. We speak on behalf of the heritage community, which includes many of these people including heritage architects, developers and community members. Does that mean we can look at a facade and determine that it can be salvaged or not? Absolutely not. That is why HPS exists.
See here - http://www.heritagetoronto.org/sites/heritagetoronto/files/HT_HeritageReport(Web)FNL.pdf
I don't think my expertise needs to be questioned.
Any designated building that is being torn down needs to be questioned, that is our role. Why designate it then?
The report is available, that is par the course. What I am saying is that the report is from Loblaws, not the City of Toronto. The City of Toronto needs to do their own review before deciding what the state of the building is. If all demolitions of a designated building did not go through some other review we'd be left with no heritage sites.
gristle
Senior Member
I'm talking about you personally, not about the organization you are affiliated with. Are you the official spokesperson, or merely stating your own personal opinion here? It's not clear.
Obviously, but if you don't bother to read the Loblaws report, you will have no idea what they intend to do or why. So it's a little hard to see you excoriate them without a full reading of their intentions and rationale for proceeding in the manner they are suggesting.
You are more than entitled to your own opinion, but given the arguments you are asserting here, it'd be nice if you actually were sure about what the company was suggesting it would be doing and why.
Last edited:
Rebecca - HT
New Member
I think it's clear that this is the organization's opinion, or else I wouldn't be on this board and would have taken an anonymous approach.
The reason this project is not supported:
-Doesn't matter how they do it, its facadism, plain and simple.
-It's a designated building, which according to law, should stay standing. If the building is not in condition to stay standing, that its loss is because of neglect.
-Designation, increasingly, is not respected in this city, for countless reasons. If you're curious why, read the report above.
HPS will review the reports and condition on the building and report back, that's how it works. If it can be saved, they will encourage reuse.
Do I really need to read a report to understand that? It doesn't change the above scenario.
The reason this project is not supported:
-Doesn't matter how they do it, its facadism, plain and simple.
-It's a designated building, which according to law, should stay standing. If the building is not in condition to stay standing, that its loss is because of neglect.
-Designation, increasingly, is not respected in this city, for countless reasons. If you're curious why, read the report above.
HPS will review the reports and condition on the building and report back, that's how it works. If it can be saved, they will encourage reuse.
Do I really need to read a report to understand that? It doesn't change the above scenario.
gristle
Senior Member
So you are speaking for yourself in this instance.
The trouble with the "it must be perfect" approach is that it can inevitably end up making no one happy. For example, based on unbending adherence to heritage principles, why not advocate that the building be used for its original warehouse purposes only? That is part of its heritage, is it not? That's why the structure was built.
At the same time, the building can always sit there empty as an unused and irrelevant warehouse. There is nothing compelling the owner to use it or even to sell it. It could be empty for decades. Even minor attention to the maintenance of the facade would result in an unused structure right in a part of the city undergoing extremely rapid change.
There is a balance that needs to be struck.
Of course the process being suggested by Loblaws is essentially "facadism." That being said, at least the effort is one where there is recognition of the architectural qualities of the building exterior. I would think that if this is to be the process, then as much of that facade should be retained and refurbished as possible to address that intention. The company is aiming at changing the interior structure of the building - demolishing it and rebuilding the interior warehouse structure to suit its needs based on the requirements for a large supermarket, parking area and office space. I would imagine that the upper additions proposed would be more of a concern regarding heritage, as they are out of keeping with heritage exterior.
Add to all of this, there is an ongoing semantical debate where dismantling the facade is being equated with demolition - which is also not always terribly helpful.
I'd say that this proposal is big improvement over the original plan to demolish (totally destroy) the entire structure. Based on what I saw of the new proposal, I would also say that the company appears to have good intentions with their approach to refurbishing the facade, but that the additions above and at the rear should be carefully scrutinized. The real aim of the company at this point is to reconstruct the interior warehouse structure. Is doing this presenting a prospect of an irreplaceable loss in the city's heritage inventory?
Let's be clear, if you want to be extremely purist about it, anything other than a warehouse use would be out of keeping with the actual heritage of the building. Any repurposing will inevitably require changes to the building.
If you really want to know what they are intending to do and why, then the answer is yes. You are the one who is supposed to be making the reasoned heritage appraisal here. A critical, in-depth appraisal requires that kind of information. Is that asking too much?
Last edited:
Rebecca - HT
New Member
Gristle,
We can argue about this in circles, but at a time when its the heritage side that ultimately always has to make the sacrifice, you have to understand why the heritage community would be weary. There is always a reason why a heritage building should come down - there needs to be a grocery store, not energy efficient, doesn't fit into the design, a homeowner wants to build a new home, its too expensive, there's a need for a condo/office building - and quite frankly, we've heard it all. Its Loblaw that wants a grocery store, in their dimensions, with their design, on this site.
It's not a matter of what it becomes, it's a matter of it (the original structure) having new life. In this day in age we can't find ANY way to re-purpose the original site, really?
You keep ignoring that it's a designated building and it's not meant to be torn down and rebuilt. This isn't balanced, middle ground and certainly not about being perfect - it's tearing down the structure that is there. Why are we inflexible? Because you say to Loblaw it's appropriate to tear down a protected building and rebuild features, guess what happens? It becomes appropriate to allow this to happen elsewhere. It's called precedence, which you see in the varied heights and design in various developments across this city. It becomes acceptable. This is not balanced, this is basically saying that this is appropriate in any future decision-making the city can make in regards to heritage.
Ultimately, HPS will make their educated guess on this. The report you read, the presentation you had was from Loblaws. Even within planning there isn't agreement between heritage VS development. I will await their report, because quite frankly, it will be the one that will determine that the grocery store will proceed or not, barring Council.
We can argue about this in circles, but at a time when its the heritage side that ultimately always has to make the sacrifice, you have to understand why the heritage community would be weary. There is always a reason why a heritage building should come down - there needs to be a grocery store, not energy efficient, doesn't fit into the design, a homeowner wants to build a new home, its too expensive, there's a need for a condo/office building - and quite frankly, we've heard it all. Its Loblaw that wants a grocery store, in their dimensions, with their design, on this site.
It's not a matter of what it becomes, it's a matter of it (the original structure) having new life. In this day in age we can't find ANY way to re-purpose the original site, really?
You keep ignoring that it's a designated building and it's not meant to be torn down and rebuilt. This isn't balanced, middle ground and certainly not about being perfect - it's tearing down the structure that is there. Why are we inflexible? Because you say to Loblaw it's appropriate to tear down a protected building and rebuild features, guess what happens? It becomes appropriate to allow this to happen elsewhere. It's called precedence, which you see in the varied heights and design in various developments across this city. It becomes acceptable. This is not balanced, this is basically saying that this is appropriate in any future decision-making the city can make in regards to heritage.
Ultimately, HPS will make their educated guess on this. The report you read, the presentation you had was from Loblaws. Even within planning there isn't agreement between heritage VS development. I will await their report, because quite frankly, it will be the one that will determine that the grocery store will proceed or not, barring Council.
Bruvyman
Active Member
This is great ... Its like watching a heritage preservation tennis match. I thought Gristle had just hit a winner down the line, but then Rebecca SOMEHOW managed to dive and get her racket on it and hit back an improbable return.
...Deuce!
...Deuce!