greenleaf
Senior Member
Context. Those went through years of process to determine that the costs were too great to keep them. Stollery's was wrecked overnight at one of the city's most prominent intersections.
Also, there is no Dickinson stone. =p
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
Context. Those went through years of process to determine that the costs were too great to keep them. Stollery's was wrecked overnight at one of the city's most prominent intersections.
Also, there is no Dickinson stone. =p
doug
Active Member
To refurbish it would have been too expensive and resulting in completely gutting it and rebuilding it to meet current building codes.
khris
Senior Member
Oh weird. I thought one was being left.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
It was going to until further study showed that it would not be financially prudent or historically accurate to do so.
khris
Senior Member
Oh. That's unfortunate. Thanks for the info.
androiduk
Senior Member
Le Chateau has closed.
Tewder
Senior Member
Most here are on record stating they understand that Stollery's should go, even the more preservation-friendly among us. The hoopla is a reaction to the way it was done though, raising several concerns:
- Concern that the demolition was hasty, that there will be an empty lot sitting here for years
- Concern about the true intention of the developers, that they rushed to demolish and yet we haven't even seen the design concept of what will replace it.
- Irritation that some architectural features weren't salvaged (for use on site here or elsewhere). The fact that some here don't value any of these things (clearly) doesn't mean they do not have value.
A little more information and openness would have gone a long way to easing the process of losing a long familiar part of the urban realm here... not to mention would have lent a little more credibility to the developer who does arguably remain a bit of a question mark when it comes to the type of development they are promising. It's not like we haven't seen the ol' bait and switch before.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
Indeed Hue's is definitely the more aesthetically admirable structure. I definitely like that building much more than stollery's. That facade I would hope could be pasted onto the south portion of the yonge street facade of Mizrahi's Mystery.
I think it would nicely anchor the heritage facades of yonge street before the expose of modern architecture encountered on all four corners at bloor.
devjohnson
Active Member
Man, so sad. I used to work at that location for two years. :'(
Shame the company is struggling hard right now.
adma
Superstar
Keep in mind that it might be simply a 20s version of a common technique now, i.e. demolish the part to be rebuilt, allow what's left to operate as a "temporary Stollery's", and then when the new is finished, demolish the rest of it to make way for the Bloor widening...
adma
Superstar
Okay: I'm back.
And really: I feel that a lot of the issue here which spurs the sneers from others is that the kind of comprehensive understanding of pre-existing urbanity that I've long advocated really works against the vested interests of those "in the field", whether it be development, design, real estate or construction--too much kid-gloves love of and bonding with the old as a threat to their livelihoods and bottom line, et al. (And a bruise to the ego, to boot.)
That is, a lot of you may be familiar with my "road trip" analogies of urban appreciation, i.e. better Route 66 than the Interstate, better the old King's Highways than the 400-series, et al. But however heartfelt they are--here, it's wasting energy on a crowd that'd much rather fly by Porter.
And unfortunately, I don't speak "much rather fly by Porter" lingo.
hawc
Senior Member
I would call the facades of some historical buildings in Paris 'quite impressive'. I wouldn't call Hue's 'quite impressive'. It's oldish and it's Toronto and it's nice, and it'll be shame when it's gone, but it's hardly 'quite impressive'. And in its current state it's actually kind of garish and cartoonish.
67Cup
Active Member
No, it doesn't match Paris, but with some TLC, it would be quite attractive. For me, however, the question is not really about this particular structure. It is about the Victorian and Edwardian streetscapes of my native city. (My IPad tried to turn that into "street apes" by the way). At some point, structures that are not individually distinguished become more valuable simply because they represent those vanishing streetscapes. I am not claiming that we have reached that point with this building. I am persuaded that it is time to think about the general question, however.
buildup
Senior Member
We should try to protect fine structures (like the old hotel owned by the Lalani's that burned) and continous strips of modest but interesting structues (like 5 St Joseph's pieces on Yonge). So anywhere on Yonge that we currently have collection of Victorians we shoul move to protect them even if they are currently hidden under IEFs
Tewder
Senior Member
Yeah, much of the frustration/overreaction here arises from the incoherency of heritage practices in the city. It may be similar elsewhere, but 'elsewhere' probably isn't experiencing the tremendous pressure for development and intensification that Toronto has been/is.