[wwwebster]

Is it near the school?

Yes. I think it’s a relatively recent installation. I walk across the viaduct on occasion, but don’t recall noticing it until Royal Drive was first mentioned here several weeks ago.

I’ll try to get a photo this weekend, unless someone beats me to it.

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

Royal Drive

I must say I have never seen such a sign but I do not pass there too often and I can't see it on Google Streetview. Also the official City map gives this road no name and there is no "Royal Road" listed in the City's list of street names. We need a photo!

I don't have a photo handy but I will vouch for wwwebster's observation of the Royal Dr street sign. It is one of the banal new style blue street signs. I have a slide taken in the late-1970s looking north-east towards Broadview & Danforth which has one of the old stamped white acorn signs with ROYAL DR visible. I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[wwwebster]

I wonder how many streets there are out there that are named but don't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_street

 

[spider]

Then and Now for July 17.



Then. 100 Torrens Avenue. Opened 1915. Torrens Avenue School. Note the ships mast thing. They must have had a cadet corps of some sort.

Now. April 2012. William Burgess Elementary (renamed in 1922).

My Alma Mater from 1944 to 1948.

 

[DSC]

Royal Drive and other street oddities in Toronto!

It is interesting that Royal Drive does not appear on the database of all Toronto streetnames - there are 9977 of them going from Abbeville to Zorra. It is also not on the City map at http://map.toronto.ca/roadrestrictions/index.jsp

Interestingly, the map does list strange streets such as Pemberton south of King Street (between Trinity and Gilead). This is an unpaved dead-end but a few months ago it got a street sign!

 

[the lemur]

Nope. Nope. But when fools challenge others in a thread, that's pretty much what happens. Did you get what I meant? Do I have to explain it? I have a feeling you didn't.

Explain what? Could you be a bit more vague, possibly? You're basically saying nothing here:

I spent 20 years working in such industries owning my own business, and consulting for many more, in Canada, and two other continents. I've forgotten more research than most Canadians will ever know

Well, that's nice, but ... maybe there's a separate forum for that?

And how we can sit in here and talk about buildings without discussing the businesses that pay for them (sorry, and taxpayers), and sometimes their silly ignorant administrations, is a bit strange

Maybe so. It seems to me we do discuss the businesses that occupy and sustain these buildings, and what happens to those businesses, from time to time. Mostly, however, this site is about architecture, development, infrastructure, urban history. No one is preventing any kind of discussion of 'the businesses that pay for them', nor even your work experience. But it seems like you'd rather play at being misunderstood and unappreciated.

 

[the lemur]

Interestingly, the map does list strange streets such as Pemberton south of King Street (between Trinity and Gilead). This is an unpaved dead-end but a few months ago it got a street sign!

This?

http://goo.gl/maps/GjGu

 

[DSC]

this?

http://goo.gl/maps/gjgu

yes!

 

[the lemur]

Weird. I guess Pemberton St needs a name because of laneway housing.

I've noticed that Google Maps seems to be gradually being updated as little bits of the new street grid in the Don Lands are being built.

 

[the lemur]

So, let it be written that "We hereby agree to disagree."

I'll agree to this much: beerich probably deserves some credit for his career achievements (not that I have any idea what they were, however, going by his statements so far), and there is no impediment to discussing the economics of the companies that occupy and occupied the buildings mentioned here.

What I don't have any patience for is statements along the lines of 'You all have no idea how awesome ____ is (because no one, not least I, has told you anything about it)' or 'Hmm, isn't it curious that we don't talk about _____' as if there's some ominous cone of silence that's been lowered over the subject.

 

[BeeRich]

Explain what? Could you be a bit more vague, possibly? You're basically saying nothing here:

I spent 20 years working in such industries owning my own business, and consulting for many more, in Canada, and two other continents. I've forgotten more research than most Canadians will ever know

Well, that's nice, but ... maybe there's a separate forum for that?

And how we can sit in here and talk about buildings without discussing the businesses that pay for them (sorry, and taxpayers), and sometimes their silly ignorant administrations, is a bit strange

Maybe so. It seems to me we do discuss the businesses that occupy and sustain these buildings, and what happens to those businesses, from time to time. Mostly, however, this site is about architecture, development, infrastructure, urban history. No one is preventing any kind of discussion of 'the businesses that pay for them', nor even your work experience. But it seems like you'd rather play at being misunderstood and unappreciated.

It seems someone has two accounts. So I will answer once. More of an explanation as some have little memory. So off I go to hold their hands.

Maybe there is a separate forum for that, but I think it's relevant here. You, or your union-mate made a remark about me labelling the LCBO, after a pic of an expanded modern-day LCBO, yet again in an expensive part of town, was posted. The business behind it is one which I have dealt with much more than others, and I made my associated comment. That's what I've been discussing, but you seem to be jumping on me. Is it more clear now?

 

[BeeRich]

I'll agree to this much: beerich probably deserves some credit for his career achievements (not that I have any idea what they were, however, going by his statements so far), and there is no impediment to discussing the economics of the companies that occupy and occupied the buildings mentioned here.

What I don't have any patience for is statements along the lines of 'You all have no idea how awesome ____ is (because no one, not least I, has told you anything about it)' or 'Hmm, isn't it curious that we don't talk about _____' as if there's some ominous cone of silence that's been lowered over the subject.

Really. So tell me your experience with the LCBO, other than walking in and buying something. No silence, considering I was the one who brought it up (and got jumped on by an obvious communist union government worker). Now, if you read that comment, and further comments, it was just adding information about my insight, that's all. If you don't have patience for that, then don't read my comments, or go away. I'm not interested in what you have little patience for, to be honest. I'm sure there's another forum for that.

 

[k10ery]

First post... After lurking for years... But I couldn't resist.

Mustapha, I went to that school. Many good memories still after 30 years. The school actually has two sections: the newer one facing Glenholme that you have taken the picture of, and which looks nothing like the first pic because it is a different building, and an older section, which is not on Gelnholme, but on Earnscliffe. That was the original entrance.

If we can't find the original Rawlinson, there is always John Ross Robertson in Lawrence Park. That was built to the same plan as Rawlinson, and it seems to have survived pretty well.

It looks like the same architect did the Loyal True Blue and Orange Lodge in Richmond Hill. Clearly, he liked this design! (Me too - I like the hints of Wren's Chelsea Hospital.)

 

[the lemur]

It seems someone has two accounts. So I will answer once. More of an explanation as some have little memory. So off I go to hold their hands.

I have only the one account.

You, or your union-mate made a remark about me labelling the LCBO, after a pic of an expanded modern-day LCBO, yet again in an expensive part of town, was posted

I don't belong to a union, in fact I work in a profession that is pretty much off-limits to unionization.

I'm assuming you're referring to the discussion of the St Lawrence LCBO here:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/6947-Miscellany-Toronto-Photographs-Then-and-Now/page607

which you picked up on several pages later:
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/6947-Miscellany-Toronto-Photographs-Then-and-Now/page612

and you'll notice that the remark that followed came from The_Architect. Notice also that while our user names both begin with the definite article, we are not the same person.

Later on, I joined in the discussion when k10ery posited that the LCBO was communist while the Beer Store was fascist, to which I wrote:
I don't really see it as a meaningful distinction here. The LCBO has collectivized the retailing of alcohol, so arguably it's a communist-style entity. The Beer Store is more of a cartel consolidating the power of the brewery industry into something approaching the conglomerates either as produced by various fascist states or created by major corporations themselves. Either way, the victims are choice and competition.
(http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/6947-Miscellany-Toronto-Photographs-Then-and-Now/page613)

I guess you missed the bit where I agreed - in very, very broad terms - with your previous characterization of the LCBO's economic apparatus as communist, or at least resembling that of a command economy.

The business behind it is one which I have dealt with much more than others, and I made my associated comment. That's what I've been discussing, but you seem to be jumping on me. Is it more clear now?

The problem is that your comment about 'such industries', the research you did and businesses that pay for buildings came right after mattelderca's post (ruler from engineering firm, business cards), without referring to or quoting ANY of the previous messages about the LCBO, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that your comment was about the things in that preceding post rather than something several pages back. Is it more clear now?

 

[BeeRich]

The problem is that your comment about 'such industries', the research you did and businesses that pay for buildings came right after mattelderca's post (ruler from engineering firm, business cards), without referring to or quoting ANY of the previous messages about the LCBO, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that your comment was about the things in that preceding post rather than something several pages back. Is it more clear now?

Yet you remembered. I remembered. You have changed your problem. And linear threads don't necessarily come out of single proximity posts. Just my experience that context and username also help to refer to the direction of banter.