Canadian Chocho
Active Member
So where is the hideousness exactly?
|
|
|
- Thread starter dt_toronto_geek
- Start date
Graydon
New Member
Those Second Empire rowhouses most likely date from the late 1870's. While the first floor storefronts have butchered the main level, the second and third floors show how neglect can often work in heritage's favour - the mansard roof, dormers, wooden brackets, double-arched windows, drip moulds and keystones are all intact. To demolish the building and replace it with a 'like new' recreation is not honest, and is not considered to be an appropriate form of preservation.
I'm curious as to what features you've identified as indicating the building is not on sound ground, and incapable of preservation?
adHominem
Senior Member
You know Councillor Wong-Tam was a real estate agent, right?
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Peepers had an engineering firm assess the structural integrity of the building and is simply reporting back on their findings.
Also, Peepers named the murals.
Peepers can do it all.
Torontovibe
Senior Member
Does Peepers not realize how transparent he is? lol
Peepers
Banned
Another one of KWT's Church Street murals is unveiled
photo credit: @arielleps
Not sure what the theme of this one is. Looks like it might be a celebration of women of color . I wonder if they are planning on leaving the plywood covering the window openings unpainted now that they have taken the scaffolding down? What a joke. lol
photo credit: @arielleps
Not sure what the theme of this one is. Looks like it might be a celebration of women of color . I wonder if they are planning on leaving the plywood covering the window openings unpainted now that they have taken the scaffolding down? What a joke. lol
Last edited:
Stupidandshallow
Active Member
wow these murals are so unattractive!
They are so loud and not in a good way... This city really struggles with murals (there are a few good ones, please refrain from posting them, I know they exist lol).
I've never seen a more clueless BIA than the church wellesley BIA
They are so loud and not in a good way... This city really struggles with murals (there are a few good ones, please refrain from posting them, I know they exist lol).
I've never seen a more clueless BIA than the church wellesley BIA
Stupidandshallow
Active Member
Oh dear....You're obviously not a fan of heritage! Totally should revoke your gay card!
Beneath the disrepair lies a really handsome building! Toronto's "victorian era" buildings/housing stock just takes my breath away! The craftsmanship and masonry work -- all but forgotten trades -- can't even be produced today! That just boggles my mind. It's crazy that townhomes made in this city in 2013 look like such dreck and 100+ years ago they were so ornate and spectacular! /end rant.
I also can't believe how long it's taken to designate these buildings as heritage and wonder what good it is now. They will just fall into further neglect; I imagine the owners cannot foot the bill to restore it to its former glory. As it's been said many times on this forum, this city is far too lenient on absentee landlords. It's ridiculous, why aren't there stiffer penalties and laws for these speculators and people who don't even live in the city/couldn't careless about its makeup.
devjohnson
Active Member
I'm a fan of heritage. But I probably can't see the qualities as this building is cluttered with singns and 2nd floor patio fences. Regardess I was walking past this building yesterday, and the middle section along Church is LITERALLY sinking in. There's no way to save this.
mgl
Active Member
I completely agree. The building could have been saved twenty years ago but now you'd have to take it apart and reassemble it because it's in a slow state of collapse.
Save the NW and SE corner buildings but let this one go. It may have been the more remarkable building but it's too late and the cost to restore it would be prohibitive.
Stupidandshallow
Active Member
Yeah, I'm with you guys, it's totally too late for this building.
Based on what we've seen in this city, designating a building in this state as historic doesn't really mean anything (or does it? anyone more well versed in these matters care to chime in...anyone, anyone? Bueller?).
From what we've seen with other heritage buildings (Walnut Hall comes to mind *sigh*), I understand that it can just sit there and fall into further disrepair. Deeming it unsafe -- what does that do? Perhaps vacate all the tenants and relegate it to being boarded up, neglected and finally meeting it's demise and collapse.
On the other hand, it could mean that its fate would be facadectomy or a developer with really deep pockets taking on a restoration (which is really unlikely).
I predict that it will collapse (hopefully not harming anyone) and then the lot will sit vacated for a few years. Yay Toronto!!
Based on what we've seen in this city, designating a building in this state as historic doesn't really mean anything (or does it? anyone more well versed in these matters care to chime in...anyone, anyone? Bueller?).
From what we've seen with other heritage buildings (Walnut Hall comes to mind *sigh*), I understand that it can just sit there and fall into further disrepair. Deeming it unsafe -- what does that do? Perhaps vacate all the tenants and relegate it to being boarded up, neglected and finally meeting it's demise and collapse.
On the other hand, it could mean that its fate would be facadectomy or a developer with really deep pockets taking on a restoration (which is really unlikely).
I predict that it will collapse (hopefully not harming anyone) and then the lot will sit vacated for a few years. Yay Toronto!!
androiduk
Senior Member
The former law office at 600 Church between Gloucester & Isabella is going to be a gourmet grilled cheese restaurant.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Two sections are sagging and have been for years, it's most notable on the Church Street side. This is not the first building to have engineering challenges, it can be fixed and must be fixed along with restoring the brick and detailing. The terraces on Wellesley have to go, replace with perhaps iron railings instead of wood. We can't be so apathetic and let landlords get away with this crap, do you have any idea of what this plot of property is worth? They can afford it.
DSC
Superstar
No, but I would bet the value is in the land not in the current building. (Though I would certainly like to see it properly restored and preserved.) The problem really is that the City lacks the power to force owners of historic buildings to maintain them properly (until they actually become dangerous when it's usually too late.) Remember Walnut Hall on Shuter?
Graydon
New Member
If the building becomes designated (as opposed to just listed) the property owner will then have access to a number of incentives that will lighten the burden of restoration.
The city will provide a grant for 50% of eligible restoration work (capped at $10,000 for residential, unlimited for multi-family/commercial). Had the building been designated prior to 2006 and and easement established, it could qualify for 40% municipal tax relief; I'm unclear if the 2006 cut-off will ever be lifted, but I don't see why it shouldn't be.
For all we know the owner of this building could now be pushing the city for designation in order to access this grant - while the precedent for owner-led preservation might be weak, I wouldn't demonize all landlords as preservation-hating; money-appreciating, maybe.
The city will provide a grant for 50% of eligible restoration work (capped at $10,000 for residential, unlimited for multi-family/commercial). Had the building been designated prior to 2006 and and easement established, it could qualify for 40% municipal tax relief; I'm unclear if the 2006 cut-off will ever be lifted, but I don't see why it shouldn't be.
For all we know the owner of this building could now be pushing the city for designation in order to access this grant - while the precedent for owner-led preservation might be weak, I wouldn't demonize all landlords as preservation-hating; money-appreciating, maybe.