jje1000 said:
The building closest to Dundonald is clearly of some value, but looking at various views of the building beside it, that one looks like a set of storefronts that have been reclad.

Could be totally wrong though, and in any case, that one (if it's actually older than it looks) is probably be too far gone for restoration.
Click to expand...

Apologies for quoting myself, but a cursory glance at the 1947 aerials indicate that that building (~591 Yonge) was already there at the time. It does make me wonder what it used to look like...
 
jje1000 said:
Maybe not the entire block, but the two buildings closest to Dundonald could potentially be kept.

The building closest to Dundonald is clearly of some value, but looking at various views of the building beside it, that one looks like a set of storefronts that have been reclad.

Could be totally wrong though, and in any case, that one (if it's actually older than it looks) is probably be too far gone for restoration.
Click to expand...

I know where you're coming from, but I would prefer to see both these historic buildings preserved - at least as facades. Anything that breaks into the historic Yonge masonry streetwall is like a cancer. Even if it starts with the weak buildings, it can then spread to the stronger ones.

And these are historic buildings. 587 Yonge appears on the 1912 revised Atlas (but not the 1910 edition). 595 Yonge has mildly deco lines on the cornice, and a building first appears here on the 1924 Atlas. Sure there's been some modifications, but nothing some new windows and a sensible by-law on commercial signs wouldn't fix.

There's some incredible built heritage under all the crap on Yonge St. Some day people will figure that out - if we don't destroy it all first.
 
I agree that the side-street houses are the elements most likely to be retained; 587-595 have been so thoroughly trashed and mutilated through recladding, truncation, et al that I can't say it's sufficiently "worth it". Oh, and I believe that a gas station stood upon the white brick Yonge-Gloucester site once upon a time...
 
Im sorry, but im having a hard time digesting this whole heritage thing, they have all been hacked beyond recognition and sure not worth keeping...i say keep the corner property (587) and raze the rest
 
Last edited:
... and a further update. In 1921, 589-591 Yonge was occupied by Lexington Motor Sales, and 593-595 by Reo Motor Sales. That might explain the large window openings and rather plain character of the building - it was a car dealership.

I can't find a picture though - anyone got one? Another Lexington dealership built in 1921:

getimage.exe
 
Last edited:
Looks like it underwent a pretty heavy reno. Hopefully they'll overlook this and restore it- far more heavily defaced buildings have been restored elsewhere.
 
The building in the photo above is not related to this development - that's the one across the street.

42
 
And it (Gloucester Mews) is still proudly there--it's hard to believe how *grubby* it looked once upon a time...
 
I don't think androiduk meant to imply that the building at the northeast corner of Yonge and Gloucester was involved, especially since he makes reference to the car dealership in his post.
 
I agree - it's jje1000's post that references Gloucester Mews, so I wanted to make sure that it was understood that it is not part of this proposal.

42
 
I was a little uneasy when I saw another downtown Yonge project thread show up. Checked street view and my worries evaporated.

FYCuV.jpg


A rare justifiable demolition? thoughts?
 
someMidTowner said:
I was a little uneasy when I saw another downtown Yonge project thread show up. Checked street view and my worries evaporated.
A rare justifiable demolition? thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yeah no love loss here, id say there are another dozen or so similar sites on Yonge street in danger of suffering the same fate.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top