We look at the wholesale destruction of the Victorian architecture in the St Lawrence Market as a bad thing because for us it is often just decoration and doesn't have anything but charming and folksy associations, but for many of the people alive at the time, they probably had real memories of the companies and industries and educational institutions that lived in those buildings. They often saw those places as exemplifying a lot of very old-fashioned and harmful ideals.
I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of an evolving city. As a foodie, for one, I love the wide variation of food ingredients and restaurant meals that I can enjoy in today's Toronto. That wasn't even true to any great degree when I was a young child in the 70s; and I'm glad for that change, along with less religiosity and Sunday shopping and so much more.
That said, I'm sure how much of a role that played in the destruction of the buildings in question.
The Board of Trade building was the TTC HQ; we didn't abolish the TTC when the building was demo'd; the National Grocetria building was part of the Loblaw's empire which still lives on today as the wholesale arm of said enterprise; and there still is a 'North Market for the St. Lawrence market.
So I don't think the functions were the problem, most commonly; though doubtless that would have been true in some cases, particularly heavy industry, slaughterhouses etc.
I suspect that there were other things at play, such as:
1) Many of the buildings were terribly covered by soot due to years of coal-burning, both by power plants, but also by individual businesses and homes. So many buildings looked quite rough, in an un-restored state.
2) The older buildings required expensive, deep retrofits to meet modern needs (particularly central HVAC); but in some cases, elevators.
3) There were a far greater abundance of said older buildings at the early part of the great demolition derby. Losing one here or there did not seem such an issue where there were a great many.
4) The concept of adaptive re-use was not as widely held then, particulaly for larger buildings (there were always houses that became stores and vice versa). But the idea of a warehouse becoming a condo was all but unheard of....in Toronto, at any rate.
5) Once a critical mass of buildings is lost in any area, it can diminish the value of what remains.
6) Most of central downtown had no residents back then, this automatically reduces objections. The St. Lawrence neighbourhood wasn't yet a thing. (residentially speaking)
7) There was a seemingly unprecedented need for parking, and surface lots were big money makers.
****
I don't fault anyone for the loss of lesser buildings; those of which there were endless examples; or even the odd very good/great building replaced by something equally or more iconic.
I do fault people for not seeing more value sooner; of not recognizing the problem of history loss, the value of restoration, the undesirability of endless parking lots etc. I do fault people for losing 'great buildings' for either parking or mediocre replacements.
People often forget how stultifying Toronto was - and the citizens' primary focus was not in keeping architecture, but in replacing that closed-minded city with something newer and more exciting. I think, in many ways, they have been successful!
As noted above, I'm old enough to remember no shopping on Sunday's, the Lord's Prayer in schools, a far less diverse city, the bathhouse raids etc. I certainly agree, on balance, the City is much improved, notwithstanding the loss of some great buildings and key contextual history.
If we shake our heads at the past and wonder how people could have done what they did, we're probably ignoring the mistakes we're currently making.
I think if we obsess about or live in the past, I would agree. But I think we would learn nothing from history if we didn't recognize regrettable choices of the past and seek not to repeat them.
I'd also add, I see nothing wrong with seriously contemplating rebuilding some of the lost greats (albeit to current code); in a City with serious problems around homelessness and congestion, among other things, I wouldn't want to see most or all the money prioritized to such; but where it can perhaps enhance tourism dollars, civic pride, and perhaps meet one of those other social needs as well, why not?
