As has been mentioned above, the wall can't be preserved because the mortar itself is no longer structurally sound due to the heat of the fire -- there is no way to hold the wall together. This situation is not like when a structurally sound building is torn down but the facade is preserved. It's not that the wall itself needs to be braced, but the very bricks need to be secured to each other. I suppose that the wall could be reconstructed, but that would essentially involve tearing it down and rebuilding it brick by brick.
 
^ If that`s the case, it would be a real shame. Regardless, I`m going to set up a petition for the city to attempt to preserve what remains.
 
I haven't seen the site today - but they are already nibbling away at the site yesterday. Newspaper reports suggest they are really biting into the brick now.

If one is punishment-oriented, one can always make those responsible pay for a replica using period techniques - I am sure enough documentations exist for that to be done - and if they can rebuild old Warsaw, I don't see what's so impossible about this relatively minor project.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ganjavih said:
Second, Lalani Group should be boycotted. They have no business dealing with real estate in Toronto.
Click to expand...

Do they own any other heritage or 'properties of interest' in Toronto? If so, I'm sure we could make a greater push to have them not do what they did with this one.
 
C H said that he doesn't know/remember the city ever trying to stop a demo.

Well Chris, do remember the Gooderham+ Worts/C P Rail fiasco, (Atari?) and the North Toronto Station event.

The city was however, dealing with a Federally Chartered Company (C P RAIL) and didn't even know they had no jurisdiction!

If I as an owner I have an unsafe property, the city can and will come in and secure that property; it's called building inspection/public safety.

It's known as a "charge-back", and if no payment is recieved it's called "on your taxes", and if they are not paid it's called "YOU LOSE".

I suppose miller's version of "hope +change", mentality didn't encompass enforcement of existing bylaws; cash was better spent on "luminous veils", instead.

Regards,
J T
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
If one is punishment-oriented, one can always make those responsible pay for a replica using period techniques - I am sure enough documentations exist for that to be done - and if they can rebuild old Warsaw, I don't see what's so impossible about this relatively minor project.
AoD
Click to expand...

The situation is hardly comparable to this mess but there was a situation a few years ago in Richmond Hill with a heritage building - actually the site of the first town hall meeting - that was unsalvagable. I don't know how/why they did it but the owners did end up building a replica that actually looks better than what had been there before. You can see it here.

It doesn't sound like these owners have quite the same spirit.
 
There should be a greater willingness to rebuild the old. Typically there are plenty of photos available to work with and sometimes even original plans. The skills for rebuilding are definitely attainable. It's a good message to send to neglectful owners: cave-ins of vacant buildings and "accidental fires" aren't going to make our heritage conveniently go away for you.
 
It's a good message to send to neglectful owners: cave-ins of vacant buildings and "accidental fires" aren't going to make our heritage conveniently go away for you.
Click to expand...

The message would be even stronger if the negligent owner has to at least partly finance the reconstruction.
 
I'm all for punishment in this case, but generally these kinds of ideas aren't going to fly. Why would anyone want to own a heritage property when faced with these kinds of regulations? What if someone inherits or acquires a heritage property and can't afford the repairs and is unable to sell it?

Ultimately the government needs to be willing to spend money on this kind of thing or we'll just see history repeat.
 
GraphicMatt said:
I'm all for punishment in this case, but generally these kinds of ideas aren't going to fly. Why would anyone want to own a heritage property when faced with these kinds of regulations? What if someone inherits or acquires a heritage property and can't afford the repairs and is unable to sell it?

Ultimately the government needs to be willing to spend money on this kind of thing or we'll just see history repeat.
Click to expand...

I just don't buy the argument that the owner of a heritage property (and this was a company, not a local guy who inherited the joint from his favorate aunt) shouldn't be responsible to keep up with maintenance and current fire regualtions - or any property for that matter. We know what kind of rent they were charging here, you can't convince me that this owner couldn't invest any money into keeping the property safe and up to code. They still had two empty floors above which, with money invested, could have brought in perhaps triple the amount of rent that they were already making each month prior to the wall collapsing last April. I won't pretend that old buildings aren't expensive to maintain, they are, so are buildings built in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Anyway, pedestrian traffic has re-opened on the west side of Yonge Street today between Elm & Dundas Sts.

4:00pm -

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.



HMV looks no worse for wear -

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top