Member Bio
Apr 25, 2007
Reaction score

Originally constructed as a Masonic Hall, and currently housing loft condos, retail shops and restaurants, the elegant red brick Gloucester Mews building that has graced the northeast corner of Yonge & Gloucester Streets for the past 123 years could soon become part of a condo tower development project.

According to a development projects entry on the City’s website, an official plan amendment and rezoning application for 2 Gloucester Street was filed earlier this month. However, the website provides no further details about the June 10 application, such as the size or height of whatever building a developer may be planning for the site.

Architects and urban planning consultants identified the properties as a suitable condo tower site several years ago, and city planners told public meetings I attended this past spring that highrise condo development on the corner site was inevitable. Also this spring, word circulated amongst area residents that the Fire on the East Side building had been sold to a developer. What hasn’t been certain, though, is just how big and how tall a developer will seek to build there. I expect those details will be released soon. And until that information is available, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the Gloucester Mews — one of my favourite downtown buildings — will be retained as part of whatever development occurs, rather than being reduced to a mere facade.

According to architectural journalist Patricia McHugh’s Toronto Architecture: A City Guide (Mercury Books 1985), the Gloucester Mews/Masonic Hall was for “many years the tallest building on Yonge Street north of Dundas.†She noted that the Masons met in a fourth floor hall “for 33 years until 1921 when a new Masonic building was constructed at Davenport and Yonge.†In 1972, the firm Adamson Associates renovated the Masonic Hall, joining it to the “Bay-n-Gable†house at 8 Gloucester with a two-storey glass link. “Though still called Gloucester Mews, the shops-around-a-courtyard mews plan was early abandoned to allow Fenton’s Restaurant to fill the glass-covered interior space as well as the old house,€ McHugh wrote.
Well, I am no NIMBY, but I would be very sorry to see this building go...
let's see if the image attached ... if not, here is google map of the address:

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src=",+Toronto,+Ontario&amp;layer=c&amp;sll=43.666749,-79.384968&amp;cbp=13,15.06,,0,-16.36&amp;cbll=43.666499,-79.38521&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=ca&amp;sspn=0.006295,0.006295&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=2+Gloucester+St,+Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario+M4Y+1L1&amp;ll=43.666749,-79.384968&amp;spn=0.000487,0.000862&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;panoid=k8GH1-xjwMZgtE-iLe9vBA&amp;source=embed&amp;output=svembed"></iframe><br /><small><a href=",+Toronto,+Ontario&amp;layer=c&amp;sll=43.666749,-79.384968&amp;cbp=13,15.06,,0,-16.36&amp;cbll=43.666499,-79.38521&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=ca&amp;sspn=0.006295,0.006295&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=2+Gloucester+St,+Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario+M4Y+1L1&amp;ll=43.666749,-79.384968&amp;spn=0.000487,0.000862&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;panoid=k8GH1-xjwMZgtE-iLe9vBA&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>
This is one of the finest heritage buildings on Yonge street - one of my favorites - and they want to redevelop the site for a condo :confused: :mad:
Well the City let the Edison crumble and eventually burn down, why not wipe out other beautiful building on downtown Yonge. This city is really starting to SUCK.

Here's a picture that I took of the building in the summer of 2009

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

I agree this is WRONG. And DT is right... if this happens I would deffinately say the City is starting to SUCK.... I might be OK with it if The building became the base of the new Condo kinda like the building underneith Shangri-La or the building under BA Centre... But just knocking it over should be a crime.... This might be a unwarrented fear, but I fear that because FORD just wants to see development downtown and only downtown, we are going to have a lower standard about what passes at CITY HALL.. (BTW I do realize some shitty things happened under MILLER)
How are they going to do this when condo units already exist in the Masonic Building. What if some of the owners don't want to sell?
No need to worry, stock market crashing today, I would wager that most likely less than half of what is proposed for Toronto will get built in the next 10 years. This next dip by some estimates will make Lehman going under look like child's play.
Dammit :(

I really hope this turns out as well as Five St. Joseph.
Last edited:
They'd better not touch the Masonic Hall.

I would be surprised if the city would allow it. It is listed as a heritage property.

The back where the restaurant is seems to be an add on, and the Club and Pizza place are in a refitted historical-looking house. I could see this part of the site as the part they are targeting for demolition.
The problem here is, I imagine any company going through all this trouble would seek the maximum height allowable, which given the new norms popping up on Yonge might fall at around fifty or sixty floors or so. This would loom unconscionably over the Temple building, and likely wreck the existing gateway to Gloucester, which, with it's low-rise buildings and mature trees, is charming in scale, relates to the immediate neighbourhood to the east, and is a relief from Yonge.

The interior of the Masonic Hall might also get further carved up and subdivided to maximize the number of units and profits. God forbid we get some monstrous mishmash like the one planned on Grenville.
No one hold me to its hearsay............

But I believe that what is proposed to to demolish the building to the east, not the principle heritage property.

I believe everything up the laneway is assembled.

The proposal involves some sort of tower tucked in.

If I'm wrong and this turns out to be a threat to the principle heritage property...I will very very irritated.