[MetroMan]

There's a minor variance notice on the hoarding of the burned down Dukes building on Queen @ Bathurst. I'm surprised this was missed until now. It's a major development for those living and shopping on West Queen West.

For those not aware of the issue with rebuilding these heritage buildings that burned down: because anything built here would be new structures, the city was assessing the owners new property taxes that were huge increases over what they previously paid. Out of all the tenants, I guess Duke's is the only business able to afford the new property taxes. Also, I believe it was reported that Duke's was the only owner with insurance that would cover the rebuilding costs.

I hope that they use photos of the old buildings to reconstruct them in the spirit of West Queen West's architecture. The good news is that Duke's takes up 2 lots so rebuilding it will go a long way to narrowing the empty lot.

For the purpose of this thread, does anybody have photos of the buildings before they burned down?

 

[Mr.Tang]

What is the probability they would be rebuilt in the original style?

 

[Peepers]

I hope that their intention is to replicate exactly what stood before. The fact that they use the word "reconstruct" instead of construct gives me some hope this will happen. The city should have made an offer to the owners to hold the property taxes at the old rate provided the buildings were reconstructed to their original design.

 

[MetroMan]

^ Likely. When I was shopping for a new bike last summer, I went to Duke's location on Richmond @ Spadina and I talked to the staff there about it. They didn't know when they'd move back to the Queen St. location but they were working with Councillor Adam Vaughan to rebuild the structures as they were before. They must have struck a deal on the property taxes because the new assessed taxes were completely unreasonable and impossible for a small business to pay and still make a profit. Vaughan has been saying ever since the fire that he wants the original buildings to be reconstructed exactly as they were.

 

[MetroMan]

There was a cool graphic in The Star after the fire that depicted the façades of the row of buildings that burned down. I wish I could find that.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Anyone know who the architect is?

 

[MetroMan]

^ not yet. This is in the preliminary stage. There might not even yet be an architect.

In the meantime, here's a list of the buildings that burned down. 623 and 625 were only a small portion of those. I was hoping that the gap would narrow significantly but no luck.

EDIT: 1 and 8 are still standing.

 

[Braddale]

This is great news!!!

With the Portland condos well underway and then the fire site redeveloped, the Queen Bathurst area would change dramatically.

It would be great if they could somehow recreate what was there in size and scale so that it would be a template for future development on Queen West.

 

[tgam]

Building 1 from the above graphic was rehabilitated and now houses an electronics store. Building 8 was also saved and Pizzaiolo has returned. The rest was bulldozed, but the lot never cleared; I'm surprised there hasn't been a rash of tetanus in the neighbourhood.

I confess to a slight touch of schadenfreude about the destruction of Suspect Video, as they once charged me a $100 late fee for the accidental return of an empty dvd box.

Personally, I would like to see this stretch of Queen go to six stories.

Here is a video of that block I took from my bike for an aborted art project:

[video=youtube;EpIY4HpnTrc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpIY4HpnTrc[/video]

 

[MetroMan]

Wow... I never thought I'd be so sad watching a drive by of a bunch of old run down buildings

Thanks for the video tgam.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

^ Likely. When I was shopping for a new bike last summer, I went to Duke's location on Richmond @ Spadina and I talked to the staff there about it. They didn't know when they'd move back to the Queen St. location but they were working with Councillor Adam Vaughan to rebuild the structures as they were before. They must have struck a deal on the property taxes because the new assessed taxes were completely unreasonable and impossible for a small business to pay and still make a profit. Vaughan has been saying ever since the fire that he wants the original buildings to be reconstructed exactly as they were.

What, seriously? Reconstructing a row of century-old buildings in the original style would be bizarre in the extreme. (Perhaps only slightly less bizarre than altering the floor heights for the reconstructed facadectomy at B/A.) For one thing, the old buildings couldn't possibly have been designed to anything near modern code. For another, replicating the original buildings would mean replicating the original building methods and materials. Are the construction trades in TO really geared towards early 20th-centure craftsmanship, and doing it economically?

Evidently, no and no. So, if there's truth to the above, the best they could hope for is a modern building with an old-timey front slapped on. What a strange and dishonest thing that would be!

 

[greenleaf]

the best they could hope for is a modern building with an old-timey front slapped on. What a strange and dishonest thing that would be!

I don't see anything wrong with this. What does "dishonesty" have to do with architecture?

 

[cmcint01]

I don't see anything wrong with this. What does "dishonesty" have to do with architecture?

If Abrahams Antiques a couple of doors before #1 is an example of a so called replica (recently re-built) - I would rather not go there - it is hideous!

 

[grey]

I don't see anything wrong with this. What does "dishonesty" have to do with architecture?

It's faux-historicism, which many consider to be distasteful. It denigrates both the old and new buildings. They can't possibly hope to match the quality and workmanship of the original structures without unreasonable costs, so why not build something modern instead?

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

I don't see anything wrong with this. What does "dishonesty" have to do with architecture?

That's a good question; I think the answer is "quite a bit."

Every building tells a story about itself and the neighborhood it's in. And not just in a theoretical, artsy way: it tells people about where they are, and where the city's been. Is this a new neighborhood? An old neighborhood? Rich? Decaying? Revitalized? Every building is a monument to the history of the space it occupies. Sometimes we tear them down and start a new history on a blank slate, and oftentimes that's fine - it's life.

The trouble is when buildings pretend to be something that they're not. I'm not talking about the "faux" stylings that people here get so worked up about; I'm talking about buildings that really actually pretend to be from another era. The false facade on Bay Adelaide is one example: it earnestly pretends that that same building existed on that spot before the skyscraper went up. When in actuality, the new building is an approximation of the old one since they changed the number of floors and reproportioned the facade. It might be nice to look at from the street, and it might even improve the tower overall. But it's not history: it's history-esque. It's Disney history: geez, who cares if the details are EXAAAACTLY right? It's nice-lookin', isn't it?

I was always taught that when an architect adds onto or alters an old building, they have to be sympathetic to the original design, but never try to imitate it or blend it in seamlessly. The man on the street has to be able to look at the building and say: that's the old part, and that's the new part.

Why? Because faking a building's age or origin amounts to rewriting history. You shouldn't have to know a building's back-story - to have a guide-book or read an urbanist forum - to get a sense for where and when a building comes from. Buildings need to be upfront with their origins - and there you go: that's honesty.