Owners have tried a number of times to build there but he blocked it because it was a heritage building.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of cXXXs. They knew exactly what they were doing. After the Walnut block was allowed to go the same say, it saddens me to see our city run by a bunch of gutless individuals. I thought there was supposed to be a bunch of new legislation regarding these exact issues? Those owners should be arrested for public endangerment and sentenced to hard time.
 
^ For real. How many more indignities must our prized heritage structures suffer in this town before we learn? This is a total outrage, yet all anybody will do is perhaps proclaim mild disappointment and then promptly forget about it. People just don't give a damn, and the tragic crumbling of our fine heritage buildings is exactly what we deserve for our collective complacency. Quick! Somebody get a developer to buy this property to put up a 50 storey glass box in order to "save" this building, since that seems to be the only way anything can be preserved here. It's easy to blame the city government for not being more pro-active about this issue, but can you really expect them to take it seriously when the average citizen displays ignorance and ambivalence? The problem lies with the culture itself, and the lack of civic pride.

The two magnificent former banks across from the Eaton Centre will be the next to collapse amidst a deafening roar of indifference.
 
Last edited:
And on top of that, I wonder how much of a deleterious effect 1970s sandblasting techniques had. (Seems to me that they tried to get some of that Gloucester Mews mojo going with the ex-Edison, to no avail.)
 
Honestly, the fine levied on the owners for neglecting the property should put a dent in the capital they need to build whatever stupid building they've wanted to build for years.
 
I just heard Adam Vaughn speak on CBC radio regarding the building. Apparently the Young facade is structurally sound. The utilities have been capped and said the building will be closed for a long time. The city and the owner are working together and there is a rumour that a business just recently put up a sign on the facade that may have dislodged a brick. Overall I got the feeling that the building is going to be saved and part of it will be re-built.
Yesterday this felt a bit like another Walnut Hall but looks like overall good news now--I could see the building be completely assessed and re-enforced. But man does this suck for the businesses, especially that sushi place that just opened. Hopefully everyone can get some kind of compensation and we can see (probably new) business open back up in this building in a year or so.
 
It would be a mistake to assume that everything built in the 19th century was solidly constructed and built to last. When the north east corner of the St. Lawrence Hall collapsed in 1967 there were some surprising discoveries concerning how decorative elements in the original facade were attached ( or not ) to the structure.
 
The reality: What makes business sense?

If anything, at least this brought this gem into the limelight.

That said, I don't believe that the owner will be able to afford to rebuild the collapsed portion and reinforce the rest. They weren't willing to do the less expensive work of maintaining the building before, what makes us think they'll put up the money to rebuild it?

The only use that makes business sense to restore this is a high rise with more leasable square footage and/or condo units. That is also the only likely type of investor that would be willing to take the property off the current owners hands. Nobody would buy it to revert it to its most recent money-losing use.
 
Among other things, insulating the walls likely sped up the deterioration of the facade. One of the reasons why older masonry structures perform as well if not better than newer structures is because the walls are uninsulated. This warms and dries the bricks in the winter, which prevents excessive freeze/thaw cycling. When done improperly, insulating an older masonry building can be one of the worst things that you can do for it.

This is a phenomenon that architects must be aware of in the tower renewal program. If they over insulate from the interior, it may very well lead to the premature failure of the masonry veneers so common in 1960s slabs. It's a catch 22 - the poor energy performance of buildings of this vintage is often what makes them last so long. It would be a better strategy in my opinion to focus on air leakage, inefficient windows, and thermal bridging through balcony slabs than to excessively insulate the walls.
 
Chuck said:
Among other things, insulating the walls likely sped up the deterioration of the facade. One of the reasons why older masonry structures perform as well if not better than newer structures is because the walls are uninsulated. This warms and dries the bricks in the winter, which prevents excessive freeze/thaw cycling. When done improperly, insulating an older masonry building can be one of the worst things that you can do for it.

This is a phenomenon that architects must be aware of in the tower renewal program. If they over insulate from the interior, it may very well lead to the premature failure of the masonry veneers so common in 1960s slabs. It's a catch 22 - the poor energy performance of buildings of this vintage is often what makes them last so long. It would be a better strategy in my opinion to focus on air leakage, inefficient windows, and thermal bridging through balcony slabs than to excessively insulate the walls.
Click to expand...
Does external insulation solve this problem?
 
I've come to the painful conclusion that people in Ontario generally, and in Toronto specifically, simply just do not value their history/heritage in any tangible or appreciable way, and so why fight it? Heritage streetscapes and buildings throughout the city are for the most part in abject condition, and most should simply be condemned. Maybe it is time for a little self-awareness to be applied to urban planning and to start eliminating that which for the most part has become an embarrassing blight on the urban realm, freeing up downtown streets like Yonge for greater height and density. Sad to say it but the collapse of this 'former' beauty is telling, as was Walnut Hall, as was the recent fire on Queen Street, as is the pending destruction of some forty heritage buildings in Brampton... There are admittedly some encouraging isolated examples of Heritage restoration/rehabilitation, and with public/cultural institutions in particular, and maybe we should just be content with this. Besides, take a look at Queen Street as well and you will realize that most of those structures are on their last legs and that in the absence of any new-found enthusiasm ($$) for heritage streetscapes - which is highly unlikely - it is only a matter of time before there will be more (accidental) destruction.
 
The building has amazing brick detailing. Lets hope this is an opportunity to fix up the whole facade and save the sucker.
 
Tewder said:
I've come to the painful conclusion that people in Ontario generally, and in Toronto specifically, simply just do not value their history/heritage in any tangible or appreciable way, and so why fight it? Heritage streetscapes and buildings throughout the city are for the most part in abject condition, and most should simply be condemned. Maybe it is time for a little self-awareness to be applied to urban planning and to start eliminating that which for the most part has become an embarrassing blight on the urban realm, freeing up downtown streets like Yonge for greater height and density. Sad to say it but the collapse of this 'former' beauty is telling, as was Walnut Hall, as was the recent fire on Queen Street, as is the pending destruction of some forty heritage buildings in Brampton... There are admittedly some encouraging isolated examples of Heritage restoration/rehabilitation, and with public/cultural institutions in particular, and maybe we should just be content with this. Besides, take a look at Queen Street as well and you will realize that most of those structures are on their last legs and that in the absence of any new-found enthusiasm ($$) for heritage streetscapes - which is highly unlikely - it is only a matter of time before there will be more (accidental) destruction.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Obviously there are many major buildings that deserve attention and preservation, but IMO the bulk of Toronto's "heritage structures" in terms of commercial streetscapes are of little to no interest visually. The challenge is in making sure that what replaces them has lasting benefit to both residents and the public at large.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top