[ShonTron]

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.

Pretty much the same reasons why I support a heritage designation.

I don't think Stollerys is worth keeping as-is, but have a blight similar to the south-east corner or Yonge/Gould or the infamous blue hoarding at Yonge and Dundas is a real fear if a demolition permit is issued before work is ready to start on the new replacement. It also gives the new development opportunities to incorporate any heritage features from the current building, which has its charms.

I don't think the Waverly Hotel/Silver Dollar Room building is neccessarily worth saving either; but the heritage desingation is good as gives the city leverage to fight the developers on a bad proposal (the developers are bad people too, IMHO) while recongizing the heritage of the site. (Which given an appropriate redevelopment, can be marked with an interpretive plaque, for example.)

 

[Tewder]

Is heritage designation really the right tool to use though? Again, we risk crying wolf if we try to preserve everything and anything, especially when not specifically for heritage reasons (i.e. to achieve other objectives).

Are there no other tools to deal with a worst case 'empty lot' scenario? Could a developer be made to provide a green space or landscaped public space until construction hoarding goes up (and hoarding could only go up when construction is imminent)?

 

[junctionist]

I think it's important to preserve the facade. An experienced architectural firm like Foster can do a good job of integrating it with a new tower. Heritage facades remind us of what we've done well in the past and inspire designers to make architecture better than before. Without heritage architecture intact, it feels like we're just building bigger buildings in the latest style as opposed to actually building more sophisticated buildings as a more developed metropolitan city.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think it's important to preserve the facade. An experienced architectural firm like Foster can do a good job of integrating it with a new tower. Heritage facades remind us of what we've done well in the past and inspire designers to make architecture better than before. Without heritage architecture intact, it feels like we're just building bigger buildings in the latest style as opposed to actually building more sophisticated buildings as a more developed metropolitan city.

I disagree - this isn't even an example of what we've done well in the past. It's an awkwardly proportioned and detailed structure that limits the potential of the site and the opportunity it offers for high quality architecture for what is a key intersection overwhelmed thus far by mediocrity. Personally, I think the case for saving at least some of the structures along Yonge, in a way that allow the development to transition to what should ultimately be an HCD is far more compelling than saving the Stollery building.

AoD

 

[Bloor101]

I still don't understand why it has to be demolished without a proposal even being submitted yet. The idea of walking by a boarded up lot or worse a parking lot for the next few years is depressing. What happens to all the retail next to it? That gets demolished too for nothing while we wait?

 

[greenleaf]

From the city archives:

1912:

1922:

1923:

1928 ("A note [with the photograph] says the property was sold to Stollery for $400,000.00."):

1929 (the building as we know it):

Late 60s/early 70s:

 

[greenleaf]

The photos paint a more complicated picture. The original building was butchered with the weird partial facade on the Yonge St side.

ETA: anyone want to dig in the archives and look at the changes that were made to the store in 1940? "File contains plans and specifications for alterations to the store building, located at 9 Bloor Street West and 786-788 Yonge Street, for Mr. Frank Stollery. Elevation views, floor plans, and structural and architectural details are included."

 

[maestro]

UofT residence doesn't look so bad brand spanking new

 

[interchange42]

The pre-1929 building was quite handsome. What's there now is pretty much sentimental architectural tripe.

42

 

[freshcutgrass]

I still don't understand why it has to be demolished without a proposal even being submitted yet.

Property with no buildings on them are charged considerably less property taxes. Parking revenue is gravy.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I think it's important to preserve the facade.

I agree....save the rose-pink mirrored third floor...but ditch the first two floors of spanish-deco trash.

An experienced architectural firm like Foster can do a good job of integrating it with a new tower.

I would be too embarrassed to ask them to do it for fear they would quit on principal.

 

[junctionist]

I wouldn't ask them; I'd require it. It's attractive building with carved stone details. It reflects the Uptown character that Yonge and Bloor had for a long time--it was the edge of urban Toronto. It needed a little spice for all those arriving in streetcars from throughout the region--hence the Spanish influences. Problematically, the old built form that reminds us of that time will soon be wiped out. It's worth keeping that layer of history. It makes the city more interesting.

 

[arvelomcquaig]

I wouldn't ask them; I'd require it. It's attractive building with carved stone details. It reflects the Uptown character that Yonge and Bloor had for a long time--it was the edge of urban Toronto. It needed a little spice for all those arriving in streetcars from throughout the region--hence the Spanish influences. Problematically, the old built form that reminds us of that time will soon be wiped out. It's worth keeping that layer of history. It makes the city more interesting.

I concur. And demolishing without a proposal is obnoxious. If a developer wants to demolish a historical structure, she/he should at least have to tell us what she/he is going to put in its stead to first justify its demolition.

 

[Tewder]

I concur. And demolishing without a proposal is obnoxious. If a developer wants to demolish a historical structure, she/he should at least have to tell us what she/he is going to put in its stead to first justify its demolition.

There's a difference between a building being 'historical' and a building having heritage qualities. If this building were historic in any way there would be a credible reason to preserve it but to my knowledge this is not the case.

As to demolishing without a proposal this is a different issue than enforcing preservation. I agree that it would be unfortunate to risk an empty lot here for an extended period of time but i'm just not sure what can be done about it. It just doesn't seem right to force preservation for this reason.

Heritage preservation is extremely important for the city, and for all the reasons Junctionist describes. We do have to consider context though, and here we have an unremarkable (though charming in its way) and grossly under-scaled building at a major intersection that is surrounded by subway lines and towers. If we are considering context, Stollery's would have to be a pretty important building to deserve the enforcement of this incongruity.

Without heritage architecture intact, it feels like we're just building bigger buildings in the latest style...

Ironically this is how heritage does evolve. Paris wouldn't be Paris if it didn't destroy many medieval buildings, and New York's beloved deco towers replaced earlier structures... At some point a culture will collectively determine that a particular stage in heritage evolution is significant enough to preserve within a specific context. This just is not the case with the stubby Stollery building, and certainly not worth risking the future heritage potential of a new significant building at this location.

 

[adma]

The pre-1929 building was quite handsome. What's there now is pretty much sentimental architectural tripe.

Well...that's a little unfair. It's Commercial Deco-Byzanto-Romanesque, and as such no more "sentimental architectural tripe" than most any other (and mostly now long-gone) of the refrontings that Bloor's 20s widening sparked. And it's also unfair to judge it from the glass penthouse and added Yonge bay--hey, pragmatic Pomo-era additions which, this being the Pomo era, knew well enough to leave the original alone, regardless of whether it was "technically" heritage.

And, when all is said and done, who's to say that elements of Stollery's can't be incorporated elsewhere...