am29 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most prestigious intersection in Canada? Really? Have you been there?
Ya, he has a lot of respect by butchering a building over a weekend, beginning the day after he receives a permit, knowing that the building is subject to a heritage study. But he doesn't think the building is heritage worthy - so we'll go with his expert and unbiased opinion.
You know the property on the other corner was a dirt lot after demolition for what, five, six years? Yes, there were different factors at play there. And there are different players to factor here.
 
am29 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do realize he can't just throw a building up out of thin air right? Mizrahi has no permits, no sales and not even a rendering showing what might possibly be his vision for this site. All he has is a lot of hot air. This lot will guaranteed be empty for at least a year, probably two and possibly far more if all the talk of Foster and giant condos is smoke and mirrors. A building of the scale Mizrahi claims he wants to build takes a long time to set up, let alone build. And this is without accounting for the reality that Sam Mizrahi is a minor developer who has never built more than 12 storeys in a single project suddenly trying to build 65-75 with a world renowned architecture firm. He's almost certainly going to make mistakes or forget/not think to account for issues that a more seasoned developer wouldn't think about. Anyone who thinks that it's a 100% thing that Mizrahi will build a 75 storey building on this corner is deluding themselves.
 
buildup said:
What specifically would you propose doing with these elements? Do you think anyone would really want them?
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the Guildwood Inn and the architectural details that were rescued from various demolitions in decades past and resurrected/preserved on the grounds there. Admittedly many of these architectural installations are of a grander nature but there are also smaller bits of lesser stonework scattered across the grounds, which nonetheless add to the overall effect.

I believe that, had the developer given notice, there would have been certain parties willing to carefully remove the more decorative period elements and recontextualize them, either in the manner of the Guild Inn or in another building altogether. Their wholesale destruction just struck me as wanton and mean-spirited.
 
The demolition made it onto the Star's front page this morning and I just heard Matt Galloway on Metro Morning talking about Twitter traffic over the matter. Great approach for kicking off the project.
 
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...

Your proposal is beyond ridiculous, not to mention the tax payers money that would be spent looking at buildings that are between 50 and 75 years old, your talking about the majority of buildings in Toronto.
 
It does not matter what you think of him, condo sales in Toronto are driven by 80%+ investors. They could give less of a damn what people think of him as long as they get a return on their investment. Thinking otherwise is foolish.
 
While I don't like to see a building go in this fashion.... the city had 112 years to designate the structure. While I'm concerned by the speed the proponent is taking the building down and the method in which it is coming down, I think any anger should be directed to the city... there seems to be a pattern in which heritage designation is only considered once a proponent has assembled land or put in a development application. Essentially last minute maneuvering by the city to "change the rules" of the game once a project has already been set in motion. If anything that is sneaky and unethical... if a property is deemed to have historical value, motions to preserve it should occur long before a demolition permit is applied for (especially in such a prominent location - I don't think it would be a revelation to anyone that the structure's days were clearly numbered in this development boom).

The city shoulders responsibility in this case of only taking action after land assembly and permits were applied for. If it was serious about preservation, action should have been taken years ago. Changing rules when a process has already started is a terrible way and borderline unethical way of conducting business.
 
Mike in TO:

I don't disagree with the developer demolishing the structure - heritage designation an unsuitable outcome for the site anyways, and the attempt by the city to get involved in this late stage is a pointless Hail Mary (for public consumption). To me, at issue is how the demolition had occurred - by the way of selective destruction of architectural details, presumably to make the process irreversable. This is a truly excessive response that does not engender goodwill. Also, we do not know if the proponent have approached city officials or even members of the public regarding selective preservation either.

I think the photo of using a crowbar to chip way architectural details is a rather powerful, albeit extremely unfortunate image.

AoD
 
Last edited:
buildup said:
What specifically would you propose doing with these elements? Do you think anyone would really want them?
Click to expand...

I could see the more sculptural pieces being a quick sell as architectural salvage. The stone panels would sell as well.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Also, we do not know if the proponent have approached city officials or even members of the public regarding selective preservation either.
Click to expand...

I approached KWT and HPS to list or designate it over 2 years ago. KWT put me in touch with staff at HPS and I was asked to submit a form to put it in queue for research. I never received a form or told how to get one, got busy doing other things, never followed through.
 
greenleaf said:
I approached KWT and HPS to list or designate it over 2 years ago. KWT put me in touch with staff at HPS and I was asked to submit a form to put it in queue for research. I never received a form or told how to get one, got busy doing other things, never followed through.
Click to expand...

Which makes her move to designate the building at this late stage all the more curious. I suspect this is a fait accompli even before the demolition.

AoD
 
I agree with Mike in TO's take on it. Blaming the developer here feels reactionary, it's not their responsibility to assess what's heritage or not, it's their responsibility to maximize a return on investments. They likely sensed a long and drawn-out issue here was looming - in other words a costly one - and decided to act fast to nip it in the bud. I can't say I like the way they did it but it sure was effective! The real issue remains as it ever was, which is to say a lack of commitment to heritage preservation in terms of assessing/identifying and protecting/enforcing true heritage structures.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top