News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 


Senior Member
Member Bio
Sep 3, 2008
Reaction score
Application: Demolition Folder (DM) Status: Not Started

Location: 1040 QUEEN ST W

Ward 19: Trinity-Spadina

Application#: 13 195781 DEM 00 DM Accepted Date: Jun 27, 2013

Project: Mixed Use/Res w Non Res Demolition

Description: Proposal to demolish two storey mixed use building containing commercial use on main floor with residential unit above.

New 4-storey mixed use building with first 2 floors of gallery space and residential above.
Last edited:
I love the central alcove entry arrangement on the existing building and the decorative clerestory windows atop the retail vitrines. I hate seeing those disappear.

Why restore/retain? Those buildings have been decrepit for quite a while, they are likely beyond repair... and there isn't really that much special/distinctive about them is there? I'm all for saving things with heritage value, but these seem to be pretty typical for older brick buildings and there isn't much distinctive about them... it's just a couple of arched windows. But then again, I'm biased...

In any event the demo app was rejected at community council since no building permit has been issued/applied for yet.
Application: New Building Status: Not Started

Location: 1040 QUEEN ST W

Ward 19: Trinity-Spadina

Application#: 14 214118 BLD 00 NB Accepted Date: Aug 29, 2014

Project: Mixed Use/Res w Non Res New Building

Description: To construct a four storey mixed use building containing an art gallery on the ground floor and second floor and three-residential dwelling units on the third and fourth floor.
That lennard's page is out of date, as the property wouldn't be getting demolished if it was still up for sale. Also, I believe the development application was modified. In march/april 2016, here's what the revised submission looked like


Frankly, Mike Layton's twitter posts are ridiculous. I don't think he fully understands exactly how long the city held up the property - it received its NOAC back in 2013, permits issued in 2014. Is it OK to hold up the demolition of an unlisted building for that long, because it might have value? If it had so much value, how come it's 2017 and the building still isn't listed?
I walked through the building - the building was beyond renovating, which is why it sat unoccupied for so long. So there's two choices: list it and it'll sit vacant until someone with more money than sense buys it, or permit the demolition but make sure there's something good to replace it. From what I gather, the original owner (who was building the gallery) was so frustrated with the project's progress that she sold it and moved on. Now look what's getting built. This is definitely a case where nobody wins.