Unless I have read this wrong, KWT's move is specifically meant to prevent the building coming down before they are ready to go with the replacement. No one wants a temporary parking lot on the site, and at the moment, the City's bylaws allow commercial buildings to come down without too much trouble. Nothing more than that. Accusations of money grabs etc., are ridiculous. The City will get a pile out this building in Section 37 benefits, believe me, but this move won't affect those negotiations.

42
 
^if that is all it is, thats fine. What I saw made it seem that she wanted to designate the building, which would require some sort of historic retention of it. Not ideal on this corner.
 
interchange42 said:
Unless I have read this wrong, KWT's move is specifically meant to prevent the building coming down before they are ready to go with the replacement. No one wants a temporary parking lot on the site, and at the moment, the City's bylaws allow commercial buildings to come down without too much trouble. Nothing more than that. Accusations of money grabs etc., are ridiculous. The City will get a pile out this building in Section 37 benefits, believe me, but this move won't affect those negotiations.

42
Click to expand...

Of course accusations of money grabbing are ridiculous but how else would these posters justify their visceral hatred for KWT?
 
wolfewood said:
Of course accusations of money grabbing are ridiculous but how else would these posters justify their visceral hatred for KWT?
Click to expand...

Not true, I've met her and like / respect her. I suppose the risk of a parking lot is real if sales stalled or the economy went off a cliff.
 
Exactly. We'd all be screaming like hell if we ended up with a parking lot here for any length of time. Can you imagine One Bloor East opening and there being a surface parking lot across the street from it? Right now I'm picturing Wallace Shawn screaming 'inconceivable'!

42
 
interchange42 said:
Unless I have read this wrong, KWT's move is specifically meant to prevent the building coming down before they are ready to go with the replacement. No one wants a temporary parking lot on the site, and at the moment, the City's bylaws allow commercial buildings to come down without too much trouble. Nothing more than that. Accusations of money grabs etc., are ridiculous. The City will get a pile out this building in Section 37 benefits, believe me, but this move won't affect those negotiations.

42
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I read it as well.
 
Benito said:
That is exactly how I read it as well.
Click to expand...

Well i read it different, I dont buy the parking lot theory,

Councillor hoping heritage status can save Stollerys from demolition
Wong-Tam has directed heritage preservation staff to study whether Stollerys is worthy of heritage designation. That study will look at whether the building offers anything that deserves to be saved.
The study wouldn’t immediately save the building from demolition. But it would force the developer to take a possible heritage designation into any future development proposals.

Tam said in an interview Wednesday.
“We also know that there is no application that’s been submitted for redevelopment or rezoning and there is no building permits issued, so what’s the hurry? Why do you want to take down this building so quickly and leave us with a scar on the mink mile?”
More.....http://globalnews.ca/news/1773383/c...ge-status-can-save-stollerys-from-demolition/

Come-on, we all know why...its a no- brainer

By the way, id rather see a parking lot there before the development commences, than a bunch of boarded up buildings:eek:
 
TheTigerMaster said:
How do you guys feel about giving this building heritage status? Is this worth preserving?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it is worth saving. And I think this is a case where the 2 storey facade might really be the only thing worth saving though. It is art deco, which is not a huge commodity in the city.

I used to live in the University Apartments building nearby and in researching that building discovered that the architecture firm of this building was the same, Stephen B Coon & Sons. They also did the co-op at 2 Sultan Street.

They did a few others at this time too: http://www.tobuilt.ca/php/companies_to_buildings.php?search_fd0=1886

Culturally, Stollery's was there a LONG time and is historically significant for that reason. That is a significant part of Toronto retail history and for the neighbourhood. I am certain there will be a plaque here regarding their history in any case.
 
Obviously KWT has a different agenda here, and that is to preserve a building at least until redevelopment starts. This is about saving the city from another blight on the corner of the highest profile intersection in the city (arguably). This is about the developer wanting a surface parking lot or nothing at all here for potentially many years until this development starts, at least that's what I take from it. I think those arguing for the parking lot over the current building are way off. Also I agree with Greenleaf, there is some merit to having the 2 storey facade left alone. I think it might look quite nice wrapping around the front of a new development here. Also, one article mentioned Mizrahi's admiration for the older architectural styles, and if that's the case, it might work. (Not saying I think its the place for gargoyles and flying buttresses, but the facade could work on something with an art deco flavour, and might play well off of uptown as well.)

Also if we were to have a parking lot here, and the market tanks,(like it very well could for multiple reasons,) who knows how long we will be stuck with it.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Well i read it different, I dont buy the parking lot theory,

Councillor hoping heritage status can save Stollerys from demolition
Wong-Tam has directed heritage preservation staff to study whether Stollerys is worthy of heritage designation. That study will look at whether the building offers anything that deserves to be saved.
The study wouldn’t immediately save the building from demolition. But it would force the developer to take a possible heritage designation into any future development proposals.

Tam said in an interview Wednesday.
“We also know that there is no application that’s been submitted for redevelopment or rezoning and there is no building permits issued, so what’s the hurry? Why do you want to take down this building so quickly and leave us with a scar on the mink mile?â€
More.....http://globalnews.ca/news/1773383/c...ge-status-can-save-stollerys-from-demolition/

Come-on, we all know why...its a no- brainer

By the way, id rather see a parking lot there before the development commences, than a bunch of boarded up buildings:eek:
Click to expand...

You honestly think these buildings would stay empty and be boarded up???
 
I'm very sympathetic to heritage issues in this city but designation here would be wrong and might actually do more harm than good in that waging preservation battles over every and any insignificant building diminishes the impact when there is a solid case for/need for protection. Let's not cry wolf, in other words!

Also, let's not forget that heritage is an ongoing and evolving asset. Compromising the potential of a new development through mediocre façadism or preserving an insignificant building at the cost of something that might be a truly great building is damaging to the future heritage of the city.

Finally, we must consider context. In a differently scaled location it might be highly desirable to preserve this building. Not at Yonge and Bloor though. This intersection is worthy of far more than this insignificant if moderately charming building offers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top