[wolfewood]

Really? Such as???

I'm all for archaeological digs just as I'm all for subways. I just don't think the possible results are worth the limited time and resources being put into it any more than I agree with spending $3 1/5 billion building a one-stop subway extension to a suburban shopping mall.

Artifacts from daily life? Garbage and litter from a by-gone era? Remnants of the original buildings on the site? Maybe these things are dull to most but the mundane and everyday is just as interesting as the exciting temples and churches we keep referring to. We can always learn new things about the past and how people lived. If anything, these sorts of digs are how we find evidence of how average people lived. The archival record rarely gives us a glimpse into everyday life and what we do get is often biased or incredibly bureaucratic.

And I'll repeat myself yet again but if we're going to start making arguments over the value of sites and the economics of historical preservation then we might as well just stop wasting our time entirely and leave nothing sacred. When we engage in these subjective debates, nothing is accomplished. If we want to preserve the past, we have to do so constantly. If we're going to debate what's worth preserving and what's better off just being destroyed, it's clear we don't really care about the past but whatever elements we think matter.

 

[greenleaf]

I beg to differ a little on this - for the amount of money archaeological investigations into the foundations provided, how much heritage staff time can be hired to put tabs on existing buildings that are at redevelopment risk? The city has already gone through numerous cases where buildings were demolished because they couldn't be designated in time, and the argument always was that there aren't enough staff. Keep on doing that, and what we will be hiring all the time isn't heritage staff but basement archaeologists.

AoD

This feels disingenuous and not really how departmental budgets work, in my experience.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Artifacts from daily life? Garbage and litter from a by-gone era? Remnants of the original buildings on the site? Maybe these things are dull to most but the mundane and everyday is just as interesting as the exciting temples and churches we keep referring to. We can always learn new things about the past and how people lived. If anything, these sorts of digs are how we find evidence of how average people lived. The archival record rarely gives us a glimpse into everyday life and what we do get is often biased or incredibly bureaucratic.

So in other words....nothing. Victorian Torontonians aren't the Druids....we know everything about them already.

And I'll repeat myself yet again but if we're going to start making arguments over the value of sites and the economics of historical preservation then we might as well just stop wasting our time entirely and leave nothing sacred. When we engage in these subjective debates, nothing is accomplished. If we want to preserve the past, we have to do so constantly. If we're going to debate what's worth preserving and what's better off just being destroyed, it's clear we don't really care about the past but whatever elements we think matter.

Straw man.

You're wrong...it isn't a case of do "everything" or do "nothing" at all...it's a case of managing limited resources wisely.

 

[wolfewood]

So in other words....nothing. Victorian Torontonians aren't the Druids....we know everything about them already.




Straw man.

You're wrong...it isn't a case of do "everything" or do "nothing" at all...it's a case of managing limited resources wisely.

As someone in the middle of an MA on Victorian Canadians, we absolutely do not. In fact, many of the profs I've worked with have said that it is one of the best areas for graduate students today because so little has been written about the Victorian era in Canada - especially the histories of regular people.

You misunderstand me I think. I'm not proposing that seriously. I do get your point. What I'm saying is we might as well just forget historical preservation if we're going to decide what gets that funding based upon what can only be subjective parameters. How old is old enough to justify funding? Subjective. What is pretty/important/relevant enough for funding? Subjective. It has to be all or nothing or we might as well forget it. That's my point. If the resources are limited, fine. Demand more resources, don't play this game of deciding what deserves funding and what doesn't.

 

[DSC]

We're off!

Tender

Call number: 85-2017
Commodity: Construction Services, Construction Services
Description: Construction of the New Building, St. Lawrence Market North Building, 92 Front Street East, Toronto.
BIDS ARE REQUESTED FROM PRE-QUALIFIED BIDDERS ONLY FOR: Construction of the New Building, St. Lawrence Market North Building, 92 Front Street East, Toronto.

This Tender is for the following Pre-Qualified Bidders only that have pre-qualified from Request to Pre-Qualify (RTP) No. 3907-16-5090 General Contractors for Construction of the New Building, St. Lawrence Market North Building Located at 92 Front Street East, Toronto:

1. EllisDon Corporation

2. Bondfield Construction Company Limited

3. Ledcor Construction Limited

4. Graham Construction and Engineering LP

5. Walsh Canada

Bids submitted by Bidders that are not pre-qualified SHALL be declared non-compliant.

Questions about this Tender should be directed in writing to Michael Porcarelli at e-mail Michael.Porcarelli@toronto.ca. The last day for questions with respect to this Tender is three (3) working days prior to closing.
Issue date: March 21, 2017

Closing date: May 10, 2017
at 12:00 Noon
Notes: Viewing Copy

Tender 85-2017 Vendor Viewing Copy.pdf (4924 Kbytes) - Posted on 03/21/2017 11:46:35 AM

 

[DSC]

We will see if the timeline in the tender call is upheld!

Page 56. The project will achieve total completion by October 19, 2019

 

[Edward Skira]

This morning.

 

[Edward Skira]

More revealed.

 

[someMidTowner]

Some through-the-fence shots from today:

 

[Edward Skira]

 

[A Torontonian Now]

It breaks my heart that this location doesn't stay a public square, and the location of the temporary market, slated to become a park, isn't the one developed into the new permanent market and court.

 

[junctionist]

It breaks my heart that this location doesn't stay a public square, and the location of the temporary market, slated to become a park, isn't the one developed into the new permanent market and court.

All is not lost. I think that Front Street between Church and Jarvis would make for an excellent market square one day. Flanked by great heritage buildings and with spectacular views of the skyline behind the Gooderham Building, it would be a beautiful public space. Restaurants could have large patios on the square. The markets could expand outdoors in the warmer months and take over the space with more vendors than the buildings can support.

There could be programming like live music, theatre, fountains, and public art. There's a lot of space that seems underutilized at the moment--enough space for the 6 current lanes of traffic (two regular lanes plus the space for parked cars), a median, rows of trees, wide sidewalks. It would work quite well as a programmed market square surrounded by restaurants and retail in historic buildings, like many a historic European market square.

 

[LUVIT!]

So True..this would have made a great public square.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Status update from the May Gov Mgmt Committee meeting:

Item: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2017.GM21.19
Report: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-103896.pdf

Current Status
The Bid Document Stage for the new SLMN Building has been completed, including value engineering to bring the design within budget in consultation with an independent third party cost consultant. Tender Call for the construction of the new building is currently underway.

On April 26, 2017 Council approved funds for the salvage of archaeological remains for future public interpretation within the new North Market redevelopment in accordance with the approved Heritage Interpretation Plan.

City staff are now aggressively working to contract professional services to salvage some of the key structural archaeological elements. This work will be undertaken over the spring and summer of 2017.

CONCLUSION
The construction tender call for the new North Market building will be extended to award through Council in September 2017 to allow for completion of the archaeological salvage work. (p. 5)

AoD

 

[Edward Skira]

Not much going on in recent weeks. Haven't even seen anybody on site.