I think that part of what makes a city, or dense urban area interesting, is precisely how it does tend to evolve in layers of differing styles, ages and scales. Similarly, that a particular building may evolve in the same way - a victorian remnant here and a modern addition there - is dynamic and creates visual interest, if not architectural or stylistic purity. Still, where's the harm? The richness of the urban architectural fabric will no doubt also include any number of extraordinary examples of pure forms, so it's all good. As for the orphan at Yonge and Queen, I view it differently: Rather than viewing it as isolated and abandoned, I like to think of it as just simply having evolved, or "grown" into a new stage of its development, "matured" so to speak into a new form and new incarnation with a new purpose and a new relevance. Where is the harm in that? Granted it may not be to one's aesthetic liking, and it may no longer be pure and unadulterated, but the parts of it that remain, whether restored or original, do live on, re-envisioned as part of a newer, larger whole, reconnected with its surroundings. Would pure restoration have left better alone? Would moving the building to save it in its initial integrity have been better? Other valid approaches surely, but in the absense of specific historic or architectural significance any of these options would have been valid.
