[Hipster Duck]

I would agree with an earlier comment that in some ways, holding onto certain heritage buildings is holding back the growth of the city. Cities like New York were initially built at a high enough density that their heritage districts meet the needs of the city. In Toronto, many heritage neighbourhoods currently house a fraction of the density that can be supported. If done carefully, I'd like to see most of the Bloor-College-Queen corridor, including side streets, gradually replaced with 8 story mid rises, and subway lines built on the latter two streets.

Exactly. While this is very controversial, this is exactly how urban cities evolve. It doesn't entail the leveling of entire areas and the rebuilding by a single developer, but the gradual teardown of properties over decades and their replacement with higher density, decidedly more metropolitan buildings. A good example of this is Yorkville Avenue; seemingly half of the street was torn down and replaced with new condos over the past 10 years. Yet, we hardly noticed its transition: the vibrancy and character of Yorkville avenue was retained and buildings like the Hazelton Hotel, 100 Yorkville, 18 Yorkville and Minto Yorkville seem to be as well integrated as anything else on the street.

 

[Archivist]

Adma, thanks so much. I almost mentioned Eliot's myself, that building was one of my grotty ones, but were it cleaned up, spic and span, there's no question we would lose a good second hand bookstore. And thank you for mentioning the loathesome and grotesque lower town of Quebec City, a kind of fetishism of an imagined happy tidy past that I find incredibly unappealing. The kinds of uses for marginal buildings like second hand bookstores, gay bars, bathhouses, strip clubs, and various seedy or simply marginal establishments are part of what urban living is all about. We're not going to have that kind of stuff sitting in the bottom of condos any day soon, nor in self-consciously restored heritage buildings.

I could have pointed to several examples on my sample strip of more modest buildings in good shape - like the Superior Restaurant or the recently installed Three Brewers, but those businesses are just a tad dull, no? If that's the cost of spic and span exposed brick, well, I'm ambiguous about that. I guess I prefer to have both - grottiness here, fixed up but upscale there, in fine balance.

At any rate, the overall story here: A handsome, promising heritage building on Yonge Street is left to rot over successive owners. Bricks fall. City forces preservation and restoration. That's a good news story. Tewder's implied contrast with Brantford couldn't be any less appropriate or enlightening.

 

[adma]

Exactly. While this is very controversial, this is exactly how urban cities evolve. It doesn't entail the leveling of entire areas and the rebuilding by a single developer, but the gradual teardown of properties over decades and their replacement with higher density, decidedly more metropolitan buildings. A good example of this is Yorkville Avenue; seemingly half of the street was torn down and replaced with new condos over the past 10 years. Yet, we hardly noticed its transition: the vibrancy and character of Yorkville avenue was retained and buildings like the Hazelton Hotel, 100 Yorkville, 18 Yorkville and Minto Yorkville seem to be as well integrated as anything else on the street.

Though bear in mind that other than maybe the refaced row which the Hazelton Hotel replaced, "heritage" (as opposed to zoning/density) wasn't an issue in the last decade of Yorkville mass-replacement. The old Sick Kids facade was already but a facade, remember.

Really: the critical "heritage/potential heritage loss" tipping point on Yorkville was back in the 70s, so the point is moot re the past decade--OTOH if mass listing and defacto HCDing happened 40 years ago, we might be seeing a different (and not necessarily worse) Yorkville today--more along the lines of Mirvish Village, or Hess Village in Hamilton...

 

[Tewder]

Tewder, though I suspect we agree more than disagree, I feel I do have to answer on these two quotes. Two buildings in this city on the inventory of heritage properties have collapsed in the last 10 years, one in 2007 and one in 2006. There are no other instances of this occuring in the last decade, which is precisely what I said, and I believe by any definition these did occur within the last decade. And none others.

Why be vague about this? The fact that these incidents are not spread out over a decade is important. These buildings all collapsed within the last 'four' years to be more precise, along with a fire that has destroyed a block of Queen Street. The fact that we don't see a lot of this happening earlier is telling: the pressures for growth and expansion have been rising exponentially as the building stock continues to age and fall into disrepair. I'm not trying to be an alarmist about this so much as a realist.

And re this whole issue--I think our perspective's clouded by the immediacy of our own backyard, as if heritage-inventoryish buildings *elsewhere* don't fall down or rot away or get otherwise disfigured, or that other jurisdictions with perhaps more so-called "historical fabric" intact might be even more backward or hidebound in certain quite conspicuous regards (case #1: the struggle over Boston City Hall, which I feel would be much more constructively--as opposed to destructively--handled in Toronto, even among the general public).

As constructively as we handled the Inn on the Park?

I agree that it's important to be aware of how these issues play out in other contexts, both the successes and the mistakes, but our 'backyard' is our context. The challenges/opportunities of Boston or Quebec City - or San Francisco or Montreal etc. - are different because their relationship to heritage is different and the scale and density of the heritage fabric in those places is different, fundamentally. And yes, whether you feel that Lower Town Quebec has been over-restored or whether Archivist finds that condemnable buildings housing marginal businesses are more charming or authentic these are all valid discussions and I don't disagree... but, whithout sounding alarm bells necessarily it is critical to consider the Toronto context specifically in the face of its enormous growth, and how it can or cannot accommodate this with sensitivity to a heritage building stock that appears to be inadequate... and this given the lack of political or popular will to which you allude below:

Look: ultimately, this whole issue isn't about the loaded notion of "heritage". It's about instilling and encouraging broad, open-ended urban sensitivity in an age of mass positive "heritage consciousness", which exists, even in Toronto, whether one likes it or not.

 

[Archivist]

Tewder, I'm vague - really? I gave precise dates for two buildings that fell down irreparably and indicated that not a single other case existed in the past 10 years. You replied "Those cases are not within the last 'decade', they've all happened recently and within a few years of each other...". I pointed out the error in fact, and now you've rebutted it again. I find this amusingly bullheaded and silly (and I work in government, I should be used to manipulating the facts to prove some obscure point). I guess what you are trying to say is that there's some kind of trend here.

Let me, then, say this another way: In the past three years, not one heritage building in Toronto has collapsed resulting in its destruction. The trend therefore, is entirely positive.

 

[Patriot]

Any idea what will happen to this building? They should tear the whole thing down.

 

[maestro]

^I think it's quite clear the facade will be rebuilt whether the owner is a willing participant or not.

 

[grey]

Any idea what will happen to this building? They should tear the whole thing down.

Hahaha.

Welcome to the discussion, Patriot. Why do you think the building should be torn down?

 

[Tewder]

Tewder, I'm vague - really? I gave precise dates for two buildings that fell down irreparably and indicated that not a single other case existed in the past 10 years. You replied "Those cases are not within the last 'decade', they've all happened recently and within a few years of each other...". I pointed out the error in fact, and now you've rebutted it again. I find this amusingly bullheaded and silly (and I work in government, I should be used to manipulating the facts to prove some obscure point). I guess what you are trying to say is that there's some kind of trend here.

Let me, then, say this another way: In the past three years, not one heritage building in Toronto has collapsed resulting in its destruction. The trend therefore, is entirely positive.

LOL, I'm really not trying to be bullheaded. I actually think the time-frame is telling, if not of a 'trend' per se then of some pervasive issues that are at play... and that shouldn't be too optimistically overlooked. A massive fire has happened within the last three years, as well as the partial collapse of a promienent heritage structure, one whose condition - more to the point - is not all that different from legions of others that form the backbone of many city streets.

 

[LowPolygon]

Any idea what will happen to this building? They should tear the whole thing down.

.

 

[adma]

As constructively as we handled the Inn on the Park?

As significant a work and as regrettable a loss as the IOTP was, we're not talking about something of Boston City Hall's prominence and significance--and indeed, I'm not all that certain that, barring private initiative and circumstance, IOTP would have been (at least at the time of its demolition) any "safer" most anyplace else, even in more supposedly "heritage-friendly" jurisdictions. With that considered, it's significant enough that its loss did become an idee fixe among more than just a handful of pointy-headed architectural types. Ditto with the impending doom of the Riverdale half-round.

I agree that it's important to be aware of how these issues play out in other contexts, both the successes and the mistakes, but our 'backyard' is our context. The challenges/opportunities of Boston or Quebec City - or San Francisco or Montreal etc. - are different because their relationship to heritage is different and the scale and density of the heritage fabric in those places is different, fundamentally. And yes, whether you feel that Lower Town Quebec has been over-restored or whether Archivist finds that condemnable buildings housing marginal businesses are more charming or authentic these are all valid discussions and I don't disagree... but, whithout sounding alarm bells necessarily it is critical to consider the Toronto context specifically in the face of its enormous growth, and how it can or cannot accommodate this with sensitivity to a heritage building stock that appears to be inadequate... and this given the lack of political or popular will to which you allude below:

You're putting "the lack of political or popular will" on an unnecessary, overuniversalizing, Christopher Hume-esque pedestal. A neglectful landlord is a neglectful landlord; it isn't "the norm", even when it appears to be. It's like declaring a neighbourhood to be "full of muggers" after one gets mugged; or letting a failed marriage act as an alibi to frame all women as "untrustworthy bitches"; or (as per some UT general-discussion threads) blanket-avoiding any jurisdiction that's perceived (all too often on trumped-up grounds) as "homophobic".

Ultimately, "enormous growth" is a lame and false alibi for Toronto doing a revisionist rolling-over-and-playing-dead re its existing heritage-esque fabric, in much the same way as "because their relationship to heritage is different and the scale and density of the heritage fabric in those places is different" is a lame and false alibi for the mob-rule condemnation of Boston City Hall.

 

[Tewder]

You're putting "the lack of political or popular will" on an unnecessary, overuniversalizing, Christopher Hume-esque pedestal. A neglectful landlord is a neglectful landlord; it isn't "the norm", even when it appears to be.

Interesting, so neglect isn't neglect even if it looks like neglect? I mean, how is that line of thinking even constructive? What are you basing that generalization on? Be careful of your own unnecessary 'pedestals'!

It's like declaring a neighbourhood to be "full of muggers" after one gets mugged.

No, it would be more accurate to characterize it as like living in a neighbourhood full of (un)known sex-offenders, being sexually raped on several occassions recently and in a variety of circumstances yet refusing to acknowledge there may be any common underlaying issues.

Ultimately, "enormous growth" is a lame and false alibi for Toronto doing a revisionist rolling-over-and-playing-dead re its existing heritage-esque fabric, in much the same way as "because their relationship to heritage is different and the scale and density of the heritage fabric in those places is different" is a lame and false alibi for the mob-rule condemnation of Boston City Hall.

No, I'm not suggesting that. There is much heritage worth fighting for, imo, but you yourself insisted on the offputting nature of heritage 'overinsistance'... and in a city with no mythology, who but the pointiest-headed archi-geek or the nerdiest subscriber to the Beaver or whatever it's called 'these days' is really going to bother to 'overinsist' in the first place? Or who is even going to listen, more to the point? These circumstances are different in other 'major' cities... and if you still feel that an enormous pressure for growth in the city combined with a lack of mythology/fundamental relationship to its history and heritage will have little effect on heritage preservation in Toronto then don't be surprised to get 'mugged/raped' yet again.

 

[ganjavih]

Exactly. While this is very controversial, this is exactly how urban cities evolve. It doesn't entail the leveling of entire areas and the rebuilding by a single developer, but the gradual teardown of properties over decades and their replacement with higher density, decidedly more metropolitan buildings. A good example of this is Yorkville Avenue; seemingly half of the street was torn down and replaced with new condos over the past 10 years. Yet, we hardly noticed its transition: the vibrancy and character of Yorkville avenue was retained and buildings like the Hazelton Hotel, 100 Yorkville, 18 Yorkville and Minto Yorkville seem to be as well integrated as anything else on the street.

But Toronto has a different history than New York, and if we simply allow "natural urbanization", there will be little history left in town. Why redevelop successful urban environments such as Queen and College when there's plenty of crap that should be redeveloped? There's room for both small scale historic neighbourhoods and larger scale contemporary ones... Toronto's hardly bursting at the seams. After all, if Manhattan (high density on a little island) can handle Bleeker St, surely we don't need to take the wrecking ball to Queen West.

 

[Edward]

Only single family mansions would exist if midtown Manhattan had been protected in 1900. Yorkville would be no different than the Annex if it had been protected in 1960. That goes for most of the Yonge and Bloor area. And while I like the Annex I also like Yorkville. Some areas can be sacrificed (and I don't mean Queen West) for new growth.

 

[Patriot]

The building should be torn down. The owner has invested no money in the fascade, which is crumbling and shaddy looking. The owner is either cheap, or cash-strapped to invest money into the propery. If the building was renovated, it could have easily accommodated a nice respectable multi-level restaurant or flagship store.

The whole corner is falling a part - between this and the stalled Ryerson demolition project across the street.