salsa said:
I feel that they should have at least saved this part of the facade, and put it somewhere in the lobby of the new tower.
Click to expand...

Why?

This is neither a good piece of art, nor is entrenching any sort of shrine to this menswear store of any significance.

Perhaps the owners of Stollery should have had it peeled off so they can mount it in their den or something. That's the only appropriate use of this that I can see.

Like I said...we are wasting time on something not worthy, while dropping the ball on things that are. But that's what happens when you elect idiots who hire other idiots as bureaucrats to do this stuff on our behalf.
 
Uptowner said:
on balance this demo is worth it if we are to get a great building.
Click to expand...

This factor only comes into play when the building facing demo is of significance. And this building has no value in this area. The only factor to consider here, is in the general area of city building. We should make sure that whatever is replacing it equals or adds value in terms of this city building. And even without details of what will be replacing it, we know the scale alone will fill that purpose.

The city never seems to factor in (or even understand the concept of) architectural excellence, so that's just gravy. And if one is looking to save money on mediocrity, they don't hire expensive, world renowned architectural firms.

In any event, Stollery will not be a hard act to follow.
 
I like the idea of displaying the Stollery stone somewhere on site as an interesting relic. I wouldn't enforce it or anything. It would just be a nice little touch that 100 years from now would intrigue future visitors. Little gestures like this, or the eventual mounting of the Sam's sign in Dundas Square, or the old shoreline art installation at the Berczy help to document the ongoing/evolving heritage of Toronto without hampering progress by necessitating the preservation of mediocre buildings.
 
TrickyRicky said:
^I don't think it is artistic quality that matters to people. I think it is just that old stone or wood work etc. were endowed with what most people feel is personality and they feel connected to it. Our examples here in Toronto are relatively poor by European or even American Standards but the fact that so many people still care about this "low quality" stuff here in Toronto is a strong critic of contemporary architecture. Great examples of contemporary architecture are endowed with an overall feeling or expression but it is still mostly just made up of junk material that has no personality and no one cares about. Where natural materials such as wood or stone are used at least we get a sense of the natural expression and personality of the material.

I can appreciate a Foster building for instance if it has a strong sense of form and expression and I think most people would agree; However, the vast majority of people feel instantly a connection with natural materials, and historical architectural details that invoke the idea that someone's hand, time, and labour went into creating it.

I am not making an argument for historical preservation of the building in question here. I am just making an argument against dismissing even mediocre historical detailing as significant. Even mediocre architectural detailing is significant because no one puts the time, money, and effort into creating it today.
Click to expand...

Good points, and I know you aren't making the case for preservation, but there aren't any natural materials in this instance. Stollery's looks like concrete and glass as far as I can see. Im not even sure there is any stone.
 
Salsa's example of the Stollery stone above is a perfect example. It's not like it's high art but if only we were so luck as to have an inventory of historical architectural details that render that stone worthless.
 
junctionist said:
The Mirvish-Gehry project will be 305 metres.
Click to expand...
Which just barely qualifies, even if it proceeds as currently planned, which is a big "if". As Chester Copperpot rightly advised, I won't be holding my breath for 1 Bloor W. to exceed low expectations in terms of height, but hopefully the design is at least eye-catching.
 
Does the Stollery store have more cultural or historical value than the Sam the Record Man signs? I would argue it doesn't. Sam the Record Man was an incredibly cultural touchpoint for Canada's entire music industry. Stollery's was what? "There once was a store here that represented protestant, WASPy Toronto at its best. It is no longer here. "

The sign above is interesting, I suppose, but if we're saving the deer and stollery family name - are we implying that the buidling was not of historical value, but the brand was? What was Arthur Stollery's impact on Canada (he actually had a significant one - but his impact was more related to property development and oil and gas, as opposed to retailing). Perhaps the insignia could have been repurposed - but then what are we memorializing here? The store? The store doesn't represent anything to anyone (how many people on this forum stepped foot in there?) If we don't care about the deer/insignia but we feel the need to memorialize the building - then what are we memorializing a sorta shitty 1920's retail building?

I don't think there is cultural value of the Stollery store and the building doesn't warrant heritage status beyond a knee jerk, "we totally destroyed all of our good old buildings in the sixties and seventies (BOard of Trade Bldg and Original Tor Star Bldg) so now we're afraid of losing anything second rate."
 
I recognize how iconic the Sam's sign is to many, but it isn't even the original Sam's sign, it's a mid to late 1970's plastic illuminated and neon replacement of the original sign at the flagship 347 Yonge location. At 349 Yonge - a mid 1980's add-on (formally Steele's Tavern/Thrifty's store), produced an identical sign as 347 Yonge, and the third add-on (1991) at 341 Yonge (formally CIBC) yielded more signs. Stollery's was one of the city's oldest menswear stores, on that site for over 100 years in a unique building, not often duplicated. I suspect the upgraded windows at street level and the unfortunate third floor add-on took away from people seeing the value of what the building was. I for one would have liked to see this and several other facades added into the design of the condo, creating future retail spaces within, while still retaining some human scale and history along this section of Yonge Street. Several worthy buildings were erased across the street, some charm on the west side would have been left some history of this intersection behind.
 
pw20 said:
Does the Stollery store have more cultural or historical value than the Sam the Record Man signs? I would argue it doesn't.
Click to expand...

I take your point. I think there is much in what you say though being a major cultural reference point surely isn't necessary to save a building from demo on heritage grounds. Anyway, I think that most people unhappy with the designation and preservation regime would not want to comb through past decisions until you find one that would seem to authorize a current demo action. Surely almost any building could be in peril if that was your standard. For many they would want to improve from the way things have been done in the past. The public needs more convincing.

Also, part of the weariness may come from the fact that there was a last minute dash to get it heritage status and it all seemed so amateurish. I can see how it might make some people reluctant to think there are not any other problems with the whole situation and therefore want to pump the brakes a little. After all, a building from the 1930s is exceedingly rare in this city. At the very least it's demo could be used as a bargaining chip to get more out of the developer (i.e. you can demo it only if you build to 420m, or something). :)

Seriously, though, had the whole process been seen to be utterly professional I doubt this would have even registered with me and quite a few others.
 
pw20 said:
Does the Stollery store have more cultural or historical value than the Sam the Record Man signs? I would argue it doesn't. Sam the Record Man was an incredibly cultural touchpoint for Canada's entire music industry. Stollery's was what? "There once was a store here that represented protestant, WASPy Toronto at its best. It is no longer here. "

The sign above is interesting, I suppose, but if we're saving the deer and stollery family name - are we implying that the buidling was not of historical value, but the brand was? What was Arthur Stollery's impact on Canada (he actually had a significant one - but his impact was more related to property development and oil and gas, as opposed to retailing). Perhaps the insignia could have been repurposed - but then what are we memorializing here? The store? The store doesn't represent anything to anyone (how many people on this forum stepped foot in there?) If we don't care about the deer/insignia but we feel the need to memorialize the building - then what are we memorializing a sorta shitty 1920's retail building?

I don't think there is cultural value of the Stollery store and the building doesn't warrant heritage status beyond a knee jerk, "we totally destroyed all of our good old buildings in the sixties and seventies (BOard of Trade Bldg and Original Tor Star Bldg) so now we're afraid of losing anything second rate."
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit much to consider the Stollery's store historic in any strict sense of the term. Its existence at Yonge and Bloor did endure for an extraordinarily long time, however, where it has been a part of the shared cultural landscape for literally generations. This is very significant in terms of a broader heritage point of view. It tells a story about the evolution of the city, a story that is fading into memory, i.e. that of 'protestant, waspy Toronto at its best' as you put it. In this sense is it really all that much different than the Sam's signs?

Toronto will survive without preserving these stories (and i'm not talking about the bricks and mortar necessarily) but it is a hell of a more interesting place if it does preserve them. Most of the places in the world we like to visit do tend to do this, to one degree or another.
 
I think replacing this building with a worthy successor will not be difficult. That corner could use something far more 'substantial'.

I'd rather preserve Sam's than Stollery's as a landmark.
 
Last edited:
freshcutgrass said:
I don't think you get it it....these aren't good quality carved limestone bits, and dating from 1930 doesn't change that. Why would you want to save them and pin them on something?

I'm all for this sort of thing, but you can't just expect people to preserve every piece of junk ever constructed. It would appear that the problem seems to be that people can't discern between junk and quality. I understand that sometimes buildings aren't of significant architectural value, but are of significant historical value...not the case here either (unless you think selling over-priced Barbour coats are of significant historical value).

The 1845 William Thomas (St. Lawrence Hall, St. Michael’s Cathedral) facade in the galleria is both high quality and of historical significance...the 11 facades of BCE Place are the few survivors of the fire of 1904.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, I probably GET IT more than you might presume. I'm born and raised in this city. I've watched any sense of our history being demolished by many devolopers, as I approach retirement. That little bank facade in BCE Place brings me a sense of warmth and joy for the past. If we can't alter development at least, we can preserve something that harkens back to a different era. I don't think you understood what I was suggesting. I thought that it would be great to retain and conserve the arched windowed walls on the main level and use them internally as store entrances for whatever retail may go there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top