AlvinofDiaspar said:
Nope, there are quite a few people including her into their tweets re: Stollery's.

AoD
Click to expand...

I just checked again, two tweets 6 hours ago and then 2 days ago. I'm a very casual twitter user (Facebook is my game), I follow her @kristynwongtam - she must have another account, maybe this is her election account?
 
adma said:
Why pointless? Failures and the nature thereof serve as lessons for the future.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the city doesn't seem to be learning from its mistakes or doesn't have the resources it requires to do so. Apparently, nothing is being done, other than scrambling at the last minute, to make sure there is a process to protect what could be considered heritage before demolition permits are issued.
 
Bayer said:
I agree, but the city doesn't seem to be learning from its mistakes or doesn't have the resources it requires to do so. Apparently, nothing is being done, other than scrambling at the last minute, to make sure there is a process to protect what could be considered heritage before demolition permits are issued.
Click to expand...

There are a bunch of things the city could do...

Mandatory review - with no demolition until complete - when selling any building over 50 years old
Mandatory review now - all buildings over 75 years

They could also make it a precondition before selling that the owner pays for a review for buildings over a certain age.

Likewise there could just be a longer delay on demolition permit approval, but this doesn't resolve issues with buildings that are left to decay due to the owner wanting them gone.
 
I find the method of demolition all the more curious considering what was being said, in this Toronto Star article from October 2014:

“He builds a quality building and he’s a gentleman and there’s no fuzz on the thing,” said Stollerys president and chief executive offi[cer Ed Whaley. “It’s a straight deal: cash and that’s the end of it. No game playing.”

It’s quite a coup for 43-year-old Mizrahi, who has named the future project “The One.”

“It came down to what was in the best interest of no longer just themselves, but what would be in the best interest of the city and the community and who would take on that moral responsibility going forward,” he said of his nearly 11-month negotiations with the store’s owners. “It was very important and it was the basis of one the reasons of the sale that those values were preserved.

“We are developers that look at collaborating with the city, collaborating with the community, collaborating with all stakeholders in order to create something that’s going to be a gift back to the city.”
Click to expand...

I don't call shoving a crowbar to, and destroying potentially worthwhile architectural details on what is otherwise an obsolete building "moral responsibility" or gentlemanly. The actions thus far is certainly a case study in collaboration.

http://www.thestar.com/business/rea...pments_buys_stollerys_at_yonge_and_bloor.html

AoD
 
Last edited:
I don't know if the age of the building is always a relevant factor, it seems to me more recent buildings could also be considered "heritage". But regardless of the value of the building in question, the fact that it is being demolished before any specific development is proposed is a concern. I remember the corner of Yonge and Dundas being boarded up for a decade before a certain sheet-metal, propeller-adorned abomination was built.
 
adma said:
Look: whatever *any* of you think re the building's heritage worth or whatnot, to advocate this method of addressing the issue in an "I'd do it, too--it's worthless and in the way, so who the eff cares if it's jackhammered" fashion...you really need sensitivity training. Either that, or Toronto doesn't need jerks like you.
Click to expand...
lol sensitivity training? You're talking as if someone died or was sexually harassed or something. It's just a building, and not even that nice of a building.
 
Last edited:
wolfewood said:
Even if Mizrahi intends to deliver on everything he promises this is slimy and shitty behaviour that illustrates exactly why developers shouldn't be trusted with city building at all. Not because he knocked down Stollery's but because he did so in such a shady manner.
Click to expand...

I think they should give out awards to developers that save us from bad facadisms.
 
Bayer said:
I don't know if the age of the building is always a relevant factor, it seems to me more recent buildings could also be considered "heritage". But regardless of the value of the building in question, the fact that it is being demolished before any specific development is proposed is a concern. I remember the corner of Yonge and Dundas being boarded up for a decade before a certain sheet-metal, propeller-adorned abomination was built.
Click to expand...

Aside from the building directly south of the former Edison Hotel (it was a junk electronics shop in the end) there was nothing of significance that was demolished on this block, though it did sit empty, boarded up and full of weeds for the better part of a decade. As will this collection of properties for the next few years, just like what happened across the street. There's no doubt this weekend's chipping away and removal of anything significant from the facade following the green light to do so on Friday is developer sleaze at it's lowest - no matter what your opinion of the building.

waterloowarrior said:
https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=@kristynwongtam&src=typd

they are mentioning her (including her twitter handle in their posts), not replying to her earlier tweets
Click to expand...

Thank you, I see it all when I click on your link, I don't understand why my twitter app. on iPhone doesn't show any of that. Strange. That's my view on twitter of her most recent tweet, I'll get a lesson on this from my roommate later.


kwt_twitter.jpg
 

Attachments

  • kwt_twitter.jpg
    kwt_twitter.jpg
    53.3 KB · Views: 999
Last edited:
freshcutgrass said:
I think they should give out awards to developers that save us from bad facadisms.
Click to expand...

Who says I wanted a facadectomy? I said in this very comment that I'd be fine with something actually getting built here but we have nothing to go on but Mizrahi's wild promises. Even a rendering, which is still a wild promise until sales begin and permits are issue, would have made this a little easier to stomach.
 
georgevicbell said:
There are a bunch of things the city could do...

Mandatory review - with no demolition until complete - when selling any building over 50 years old
Mandatory review now - all buildings over 75 years

They could also make it a precondition before selling that the owner pays for a review for buildings over a certain age.

Likewise there could just be a longer delay on demolition permit approval, but this doesn't resolve issues with buildings that are left to decay due to the owner wanting them gone.
Click to expand...

Reviewing, listing, and designating buildings is an intensive process with a lot of legal timelines and criteria. The city doesn't have the resources to review hundreds of thousands of buildings, and doesn't have the power to delay demolition beyond the timeframes the province has set up, or add pre-conditions to private sales. Even if they monitored sales, developers could get around this by demolishing as a condition before the sale, and even if you caught it after the sales, there is still only a 15-30 day timeline to bring it to Council after the demolition permit is received.

Besides asking the province to change legislation (ultimately to extend demolition control to commercial buildings), perhaps the City could just do a bulk heritage listing of all properties over a certain age, with a generic description of the heritage value. That way the time for demolition would increase to 60 days for any property on the list, giving enough time to review the property and flag it for Council if necessary. I don't know if it would survive a legal challenge, and it could be annoying for anyone with an older building with little value, but it might be a blunt instrument that could work.
 
Last edited:
Lenser said:
...at the very least, there should have been careful salvage of certain elements. Instead, we get this disgusting butchery.
Click to expand...

What specifically would you propose doing with these elements? Do you think anyone would really want them?
 
11 Bloor St W also coming down (or is this the same building?)


Application: Demolition Folder (DM) Status: Permit Issued

Location: 11 BLOOR ST W
TORONTO M4W 1A3

Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 15 101609 DEM 00 DM Issued Date: Jan 16, 2015

Project: Retail Store Demolition

Description: Proposal to demolish existing 3 storey retail building.
 
Last edited:
It's the small building the other side of the laneway next to H&M
 
I really doubt the developer will keep this lot empty for quite long. This is one of the most prestigious intersection corners in Canada and Mirzahi seems like the type of person to respect that and not convert it into a parking lot anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top