April 17, 11:30 pm

37786ab4.gif


8509fcd7.gif
 
Is it my impression that they're just tearing down the central portion of the building that was compromised? It seems that they're preserving the remaining part of the building on either side. I surely hope so. It's extremely saddening to think we might lose this gem.

EDIT: It's very likely that the building isn't being entirely torn down given what we can observe in this photo: They're rain protecting the building. Why would they do that if it was coming down anyway?

BIG SIGH of relief! Let's hope that this incident is a blessing in disguise and that now that this has happened, the city and the Yonge BIA will pressure and/or raise funds to restore this building and give it heritage status.
 
Last edited:
If this were in Hamilton, the whole block would be deemed unsafe and demolished immediately. Next week there would be a little booth installed where you could pay for parking.
 
thedeepend said:
it is indeed--its amazing that the landlord has been allowed to let the building decay like this. isn't there some kind of "Commercial Façade Improvement Program" happening as part of the Downtown Business Improvement Area thingy?
Click to expand...

The Toronto Star interviewed Kyle Rae and he had this interesting comment: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/796441--part-of-ryerson-closed-after-wall-collapses

"Rae recalled securing money for a “heritage façade grant” of up to $35,000 for the building about three years ago.

“But I don't think they ever did it,” he said. “It was for the heritage building, for the external façade. ... I remember fighting to get it into the budget.”

So what happened with the money:confused:They were given a heritage facade grant but as we see from the pictures above they did not spend one dime fixing up the facade:mad:The turret is in especially poor condition with painted plywood being used to hold the bricks together near the top. This building has long been a hazard to the public and the city did nothing until it was too late. I wonder how many other eye-sores on Yonge street have been given heritage grants which have gone to work other than that which was intended. It is too bad that Kyle Rae having "fought" for the money didn't follow up with the landlord to make sure that improvements were in fact being carried out.
 
Last edited:
They're ripping down the ENTIRE building?? They can't be serious..... what a loss.
 
I don't think I can trust the Sun. I walk by this building everyday, and I love it. To have this along with Sam the Record Man across the street both demolished would be an absolute travesty.
 
That building cannot be allowed to be demolished -- that's precisely what the owner wants. Why should he be rewarded for his neglect?

The City should do everything in its power to shore up and save that building -- and then send the bill to the owner.
 
Marcanadian said:
I don't think I can trust the Sun. I walk by this building everyday, and I love it. To have this along with Sam the Record Man across the street both demolished would be an absolute travesty.
Click to expand...

I simply reported on what their website said yesterday - the Sun often (always?) exaggerates but ....

I agree it would be criminal to knock down the whole building - one Walnut Hall is enough! I hope to walk over to Gould in an hour or so and if there's news to report I will.

UPDATE; 3.45. So far they seem only to have demolished the section around the collapse but the streets are still roped off and several demolition workers and police were eyeing the rest of the building. Let's hope no more is destroyed and that the owner is forced to reconstruct the demolished bit.
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
I'm not condoning what has transpired here but not all owners are made of cash. Grants only offset the costs as well. They could very well be slum lords but I'm not going to make any rash conclusions on their long term visions. I think it's also a slippery slope to force owners to comply or sell just because a building isn't in prestine condition. It should be safe of course but, at this point it may not have been the condition of the building but oversight on the city which allowed the renovation that led to the failure.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Presumably the place would have been inspected for the renovations. If so, one has to wonder how much they would have really known about the condition of the brick work, considering the inspectors didn't pick up on it either.
 
Eug said:
Indeed. Presumably the place would have been inspected for the renovations. If so, one has to wonder how much they would have really known about the condition of the brick work, considering the inspectors didn't pick up on it either.
Click to expand...
In my experience City Building Inspectors don't "inspect" in the way you are describing. They are first and foremost interested in Health and Safety items (railings for example) on site. Then they have their hot buttons for sure but what they are really after are the reports and ultimate "sign off" from the consultant (in this case Structural Engineer) who prepared the approved building permit plans. In the end the end the Building Inspectors job is to transfer the liability from the City to the consultants through the prepared drawings and reports. There is a qualification for those preparing and submiting building permits called BCIN. I don't believe City officials are required to have the qualification for those buildings they are inspecting.
 
Talked to Kyle Rae for about 15 mins while he was waiting for building officials. He said if the rest of the building is stable then they will probably save the corner section and tear down the rest. Owners have tried a number of times to build there but he blocked it because it was a heritage building.
gould1.jpg



Owners of the building discussing strategy with workers.
gould2.jpg



Between this and the Sam's site it looks like a war zone .
gould3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top