News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5K     0 

Btw, for a good shawarma, try the shop at Gerrard and Mutual. They do it right.

For the Barn, I guess they are going to try adn sell the place and appeal to a wider audience of purchasers. It is unfortunate because it did add some character to the area but if a developer decides to buy the parking lot next to it and the building itself, then maybe they think they can get a better deal for it that way. It's close minded but I get their point of view.
 
Anyone know the status of the 308/314 Jarvis condo project? (The one between the Primrose and the Ramada on Jarvis.)
 
deerparker said:
Update on the Barn from Xrtra:
http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/The_Barns_gay_cowboys_ride_off_into_the_sunset-13312.aspx
Click to expand...

How convenient! Once again Ms Wong-Tam claims to have learned about heritage destruction only after the fact!

I find it hard to believe that Wong-Tam did not know that this was imminent in fact as a former Manager for the Barn notes in the comment section the city had ORDERED the mural removed!

Clarification on a few points!
As former GM of The Barn I'd like to clarify a few points in this article. My sense of nostalgia makes me a bit sad to see the mural go but the new owners had no choice to paint as its the City of Toronto who ordered it removed. No permit was ever issued for the mural and in 2009 the City ordered it removed. We then attempted to procure a permit, the city refused and in turn threatened legal action multiple times! The heritage designation is ONLY on the north and east walls of the building not the entire building itself. The new owner does not need permission from Heritage to paint any other walls or areas and ironically had no choice but to paint the south wall because of the city!
Russell Palloo, Toronto Ontario
Click to expand...

Does anyone really believe that Wong-Tam did not know that there was a standing order from the city to remove the mural? Why didn't she act to preserve it? I suspect that Wong-Tam wants this wall for her mural project . I suspect that she shares the views of her curator for that project who had this to say to Xtra

“That mural is a part of our history, but it’s a very male-centric image. Right now, I see more diversity in the area. And I think a cowboy image is a little dated . . . Maybe now it can become a female-centric wall or a trans-centric wall.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Once again you are really reaching here Peepers, can't you find an issue with substance to criticize the Councillor that you dislike so much and can't seem to get anything right? Everything with her isn't a conspiracy you know. This is a heritage building, not a heritage advertisement, it was painted in the 90's and I remember gay friendly ads on that wall which preceded it. KWT was not on City Council back in 2009 so how would she know about the history of that wall and the City allegedly wanting it removed? Do you really, truly believe that with everything that she has going on with all the issues in her Ward that she knows 100% about every little thing that is happening and it's history?

Moving on... the Church Wellesley Village gateway markers are now illuminated. As stated earlier, I like them but the lighting fails big time. The Church Wellesley Village area is illuminated from behind as expected but the four lights that shine onto the mirror ball on top do nothing. I had to walk around it to figure out if they were on or not. I had visions of light reflecting off the mirror ball and illuminating the rainbow swirls below. Nope, no such luck, very disappointing. Perhaps the lighting can be re-designed once they realize how ineffective they are at illuminating the gateway markers at night.
 
The mural is an ad - don't forget that part. Why should the city grant an exemption in this instance and not to others? And FYI her co-curator is a rather well known local gay artist as well.

Actually, Peepers, come to think of it - the lot to the south is redevelopable. Since you are rather concerned about that piece, are you saying KWT should keep it unused for the sake of the heritage value when a proposal for the lot comes up, or otherwise direct city funds and/or indirect benefits to save what is essentially an ad?

AoD
 
Last edited:
someone actually think an advertisement on a wall from the 1990s is "heritage"?
It is a mediocre painting at best. Get over it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top