[Goldie]

Pape Ave. 1927

Google Street View

 

[adma]

I'll presume that plasterer's house was meant to display his wares--though it doesn't explain the back porch. (In which case, it looks like it was originally meant to have a tall "Italianate" front with parapet, but only a gabled-roof single storey was built.)

 

[Goldie]

Danforth Ave. 1954

Google street view

 

[steveintoronto]

Danforth Ave. 1954[...]Google street view

Very tasteful! Love the way they they maintained perfectly usable buildings and gave them new life. There's a message in there!

 

[DSC]

BlogTO has a series that may amuse: https://www.blogto.com/city/2014/12/a_1950s_toronto_photo_extravaganza/

 

[adma]

Very tasteful! Love the way they they maintained perfectly usable buildings and gave them new life. There's a message in there!

Nice sarcasm there. (Though, hey--they *did* keep the old form, even if the aesthetic outcome renders the verb "keep" euphemistic.)

Regarding the corner block's original appearance: it looked less like a bar than like the premises of some sort of industrial cleaners. (Maybe, in the spirit of bygone sexism, the "ladies" who entered did the linens ;-) )

 

[Goldie]

Yonge at Edward, 1983 [update: 1965?] (TPL)

Google street view

 

[strookie]

Yonge at Edward, 1983 (TPL)

Might you have meant 1963 instead of 1983?

So happy you're back!

 

[Goldie]

Might you have meant 1963 instead of 1983?

So happy you're back!

Yes, I expect you're correct, stookie.
The Toronto Public Library archive description is: "photographer, Boris Spremo was hanging around the nor[th]twest corner of Yong[e] and Edward Sts. in 1965."
However, it then dated the photo "1983." -------- puzzling!

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[adma]

Maybe whoever was in charge of dating at the TPL was thinking in terms of Atrium On Bay...

 

[steveintoronto]

Nice sarcasm there.

Not meant as sarcasm in the least. As to "form" I mean in the sense of the building lines and physical form. Usage may have changed, time does that, but compared to what has happened to many buildings in as good a shape, I'd say the result is excellent. What do you prefer? Roll back the pages of this string to see the awful things done to the physical form of many otherwise perfectly re-usable buildings.

Form refers to the shape or configuration of a building. Form and its opposite, space, constitute primary elements of architecture. The reciprocal relationship is essential, given the intention of architecture to provide internal sheltered space for human occupation. Both form and space are given shape and scale in the design process. In addition, the placement of a building form in relation to its immediate site and neighboring buildings is another crucial aspect of this form/space relationship. Just as internal space is created by voids in building form, exterior space can be defined or poorly defined by the building form as well.

For instance, consider the difference between an infill building that fits tightly within its' site boundaries (leaving no unoccupied space on the site, except perhaps a defined outdoor courtyard) and a freestanding building located within a large expanse of parking. Without the aid of other space-defining forms such as trees, fences, level changes, and so forth, it is very difficult for a large space to be defined or satisfactorily articulated by most singular forms.

A number of aspects must be considered in order to analyze or design an architectural form, including shape, mass / size, scale, proportion, rhythm, articulation, texture, color, and light.

https://www.wbdg.org/resources/form

The *usage* of that building space can change at any time in the future. Some aspects (doors and windows, for instance) may not be as flattering as prior, sometimes they are better than the original and add to the form, but this case is an excellent illustration of how the built form is retained, and in very good shape.

 

[strookie]

Yonge at Edward, 1983 (TPL)
View attachment 131187

View attachment 131188
Google street view

Yes, I expect you're correct, stookie.
The Toronto Public Library archive description is: "photographer, Boris Spremo was hanging around the nor[th]twest corner of Yong[e] and Edward Sts. in 1965."
However, it then dated the photo "1983." -------- puzzling!

Thanks for the welcome.

There's something else odd in the photo itself. The bowling alley sign says, "120 L...", which I'm imagining says 120 LANES, but how could that be possible? So it must be a street name beginning with L. Anyone have ideas?

 

[DSC]

I think sign and arrow are pointing to the Olympia Bowling Lanes at Edward and Yonge (where World's Biggest Bookstore was.) It closed in 1978 or 1979. It had 10 lanes.

The address given for this photo is 333 Yonge (on west side) so I think it must have been its previous location. I think @ Yonge and Gerrard.

This is from 1952

 

[adma]

120 lanes is possible. If you remember World's Biggest Bookstore, that place was *huge*, and on two levels, yet. (A mix of 5 and 10 pin, one presumes)

 

[Goldie]

Yes adma, I too, think 120 lanes is possible.

Here's a wonderful old (1897) photo that calls out for a "Now" comparison.
Richmond looking W from Yonge --- that appears to be the Temple Building in the distance (corner of Bay St.).
I want to avoid another Google street view........someone please give us a real "Now" version.