I hate seeing historical buildings get demolished. There's so many other parking lots that can still be developed.
 
unfortunately, I didn't have a camera on me for the first day of demolition, then forgot it at home the second day. Too bad cause I wanted some shots of the first place gone but the middle one still up.
Took some shots early friday morning around 6:30am of the remaining townhouse, but they're pretty much identical to the ones already posted up on here, so no point in posting.
found some additional ones here (some are pretty good, though again, some similar to ones already posted): http://torontoist.com/2008/05/st_thomas_charles_street_condos.php#more
 
I was by there today, only the two on the west remain standing. Perhaps it was "Doors Open" people walking by but there was a lot of interest around the site. I only stopped for a few moments (to cry) and saw 3 or 4 people taking photographs of what's left and two others with video cameras.
Madness.
 
We've known for a couple of years now - for sure - that these buildings were coming down for this new condo, and Victoria College has been letting the homes rot away for over a decade...

so cry away.

Sorry to be harsh, but this is not a surprise, and the remorse is coming too late.

42
 
I agree with interchange. The H+P design will probably give the corner more curb appeal than a handful of orphaned Victorian townhouses could anyway.
 
You'll be thrilled to know then that one of them is set to be slaughtered.
Click to expand...


Really? Hmmm...I walked by there a couple of weeks ago, and while I wasn't being overly conscious about checking them out, it appeared that both facades had fairly comprehensive restoration done. I really hope you are not right.


The H+P design will probably give the corner more curb appeal than a handful of orphaned Victorian townhouses could anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement...it's always a case-by-case issue, and rarely is it an improvement...but in this particular case, it's an overall improvement both in terms of aesthetics as well as land usage.
 
Student99 said:
And for those of you that say "oh, but there are condos in the immediate area now, it makes sense to get rid of these houses", well, what next after The St. Thomas? Are you going to say that the buildings of victoria college should get razed for more condos, just because there are more and more condos being built around it?
Or what about over at St Michael's College, just steps away, where they're restoring houses for student use? would it make sense to kick the students out, tear the houses down and build condos?
As a student, I would have jumped at the opportunity to live in those houses on Charles St had they been restored.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that they should tear down Vic. Come on, these houses were fairly nice but they were also fairly isolated.
 
I'm not saying that I have been thirsting for the tear-down exactly, but it is not a surprise it is happening. And it is not happening beyond Victoria College's ability to control it - if they had wanted to renovate these buildings as student residences years ago, they would have, because they own them - but they never wanted to, they wanted something else from the land: specifically, Vic College is making money off of this project. They must need it - I am sure their existing buildings cost a small fortune to maintain - and figured this was the easiest way to obtain it. I don't know if the students were consulted at all: the decision to redevelop those homes was made many, many moons ago, and yes, they were certainly beautiful buildings.

If there is to be any baring-of-teeth over 'The St. Thomas', it should be directed at Victoria College, and not the city, nor the developer: they've just been doing what cities and developers do.

42
 
Student99: I am a current Vic student and I nearly peed myself when I saw that they had put up hoarding around the infamous houses. As an architecture student and an avid Toronto advocate, I believe that the new HP building is a sensible, contextual addition to the neighborhood.

While you are quite correct to note that the towers (One St. and The St.) on the corner dwarf most of Vic's buildings, but you forget that when this is completed, it will be a very different area. We are building for the future, not just the present. With increased density and height, The St. Thomas will fit in more and more with each passing year.

You also cite St. Michaels College as an example of sensible heritage re-use but fail to at least mention the 184/157m development which is planned for the College's north-west corner. I'm not against the St. Michaels sale or the project itself (it's probably my favorite right now), it's just a little hypocritical to praise an institution which is essentially doing the same thing.

Interchange: Vic is not strapped for cash. I'm almost positive we are the wealthiest college at U of T. We own both the Colonnade and the McKinsey building among others along Bloor. This site has been active for more than fifteen years, through various proposals and designs. In short, this is not a flip-deal for some quick cash.
 
ProjectEnd: I'm a past Vic student, and familiar with the decades-long protests that eventually puttered out. The problem with the "context" argument, that the university has also trotted out, is that it's a context of its own making. Twenty years ago, Charles St. was lined with such houses, up and down, both sides. There was a context - a beautiful Victorian street. Vic bought them up and demolished them piecemeal - for RJ, for the now-doomed Lycée, for the parking lot where they built 1 St. Thomas, for McKinsey, and now the last ones are going.

It's not for quick cash; it's for long-term cash. It's always been Vic's strategy (and hardly Vic's alone) to redevelop its real-estate holdings to fund its academic activities. This isn't an indefensible policy, though several lines of argument have been raised over the years. One is that this isn't necessarily the way universities should be funded. Another is that, with a limited amount of real-estate available, shouldn't it be used for university purposes rather than getting liquidated?

Vic has been canny in its agreements, and the eventual return of McKinsey and part of The St. Thomas are better than nothing. Still, even if there's not a huge rationale to chain oneself to a bulldozer anymore, I don't see much reason to celebrate Charles St's gradual descent into a Yorkville annex. It was a better street - more urbane, more urbane, more human, and more humane - the way it once was.
 
There's thousands of those type of Victorians across the city that aren't going anywhere. Is it such a disaster that a handful disappear from this location?
 
CityPlaceN1 said:
There's thousands of those type of Victorians across the city that aren't going anywhere. Is it such a disaster that a handful disappear from this location?
Click to expand...

One could say that about every individual Victorian house and before you know it...

Even though I'd rather see the colleges use their land for college purposes (why not build another residence on this site?), I'm looking forward to seeing the "wall" of condos improve around Vic and St. Mike's. And the McKinsey building will get a Hariri Pontarini designed buddy, which is neat and possibly trumps the fact that The St. Thomas doesn't do much for heritage, or density, or Vic.
 
That said, it isn't exactly great wisdom, either, to regard such housing as expendable unless it exists in "districts". It recalls the worst excesses of post-WWII "zoning" theory.

Besides, go east of Yonge and you'll find other instances of Victorian remnants--some quite elegant and distinguished--that escaped the 60s/70s blockbusting highrise-asparagus-stalk onslaught. Similarly, too, in Hamilton south of the core. Should those be automatically deemed "expendable", too?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top