SP!RE said:
Having worked in tourism at that corner for a few years, let me tell you, I personally know hundreds of thousands of people (from all corners of the globe) who disagree with you.
Click to expand...

If you've observed the Square over the same period of time that I have, you'll have noticed, then, that it's usually not the Square that draws tourists, but the corner of Yonge and Dundas itself. It's the hub of life and activity at the confluence of two of Toronto's major throughfares that creates TO's downtown "heart", and the Square is more of a corporate afterthought attempting to capitalize on that activity.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the Square's tourist appeal. In the summer I spend many a lunch hour sitting in its chairs, enjoying the sun, being a tourist myself. I do believe, though, that what the corner of Y&D originally brought to the city of Toronto was not considered from an urban planning perspective when the Square was designed. Have a peek at this really terrible photo:


Dundas Square, empty, in the midst of the celebration of the decade by tapesonthefloor, on Flickr

That was taken at the height of celebrations for Canada's recent gold win in men's Olympic hockey. This is the biggest celebration the city of Toronto will see for a very, very long time. The Square, which might've been the obvious place to celebrate, is completely ignored. People formed a solid mass of humanity along Yonge from Queen to north of Dundas, and yet they almost consciously avoid spilling over into the Square. Never forget that the heart of TO's downtown is Yonge, and not the empty space built to capitalize on it.
 
I should also add: regardless of how you feel about this building in particular, or Toronto's historical structures in general, don't you feel this "neighbourhood" has lost enough already? To arson, to Ryerson's institutionalization of Yonge, to demolition by neglect, we're losing another unique aspect of Toronto by inches, and it's happening so gradually that we barely notice its progress. We will miss these buildings, someday.
 
There are major celebrations, concerts and festivals that occupy the entire square all the time. It's hardly ignored or unused.
 
Exactly, but given that there are planned events, it is a useful, and not pointless space.

Anyways, this thread probably isn't the place to create a debate on such things.
 
tapesonthefloor said:
They have no intention of retaining 258 Victoria.



The brown building (258) will be demolished completely, as will its two-storey neighbour (the one containing Onyx Barbers). Removing 258 would be a shame, of course, as it contributes significantly to the character of the area, and is a dying breed of building in Toronto's downtown.


258 Victoria - to be demolished by tapesonthefloor, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I'm sure that somebody here can fill me in on why this wouldn't work.... but, why couldn't the city trade off height in exchange for the preservation/retention of buildings deemed important? In this case why wasn't the city in talks with any potential developers, making it clear which buildings would have to be left alone, but also making it clear it would make it worth their while in height? Doesn't everybody win? Wouldn't any serious developer have taken these buildings into account when going into the design stage? Or is it that we are now concerned about shadows in Junkyard Square (aka Yonge/Dundas)?

As for the square, it seems to function quite well in summer but hey this is Toronto and guess what? We get winter! The city takes almost zero advantage of it at almost any other time of the year, except for as a convenient space to store garbage and tables and such.
 
Tewder said:
I'm sure that somebody here can fill me in on why this wouldn't work.... but, why couldn't the city trade off height in exchange for the preservation/retention of buildings deemed important? In this case why wasn't the city in talks with any potential developers, making it clear which buildings would have to be left alone, but also making it clear it would make it worth their while in height? Doesn't everybody win? Wouldn't any serious developer have taken these buildings into account when going into the design stage? Or is it that we are now concerned about shadows in Junkyard Square (aka Yonge/Dundas)?
Click to expand...

In the eyes of the developers, retaining the two north-facing heritage properties is already a compromise, and the city has never considered retaining 258 Victoria a priority. At Council meetings, the major priorities were the location of parking entrances, the work required on the HNR Building to bring it up to code, and the height of the condo.

If the retention of 258 Victoria is something you feel strongly about—or, if you at least feel we should stick to protecting our heritage-listed properties as part of a greater concern for the loss of the effectiveness of our urban policies, if you'll pardon the mouthful—I would suggest contacting Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam ASAP as this matter grows more pressing by the day. She can be reached here:

councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca

...and she is very sensitive to heritage issues. She has organized a working group to study the future of the area post-Empress, and now might be a good time for a bunch of us to insist that 258 Vic be a part of that discussion.
 
Last edited:
More height to encourage the developer to retain 258 Victoria isn't much of a carrot as the site would be incredibly narrow. This does reflect why we need a complete inventory of our building stock although I'm not convinced 258 Victoria would qualify for heritage status.
 
maestro said:
More height to encourage the developer to retain 258 Victoria isn't much of a carrot as the site would be incredibly narrow. This does reflect why we need a complete inventory of our building stock although I'm not convinced 258 Victoria would qualify for heritage status.
Click to expand...

I think the idea above was to incorporate the existing structure into the base of the new building. Given that, it wouldn't have to be particularly narrow at all. The developer simply wants as much new building facing the street as possible, and it doesn't want to have to study the structural integrity of 258. This is corporate hubris. Again, we've already lost too much in this area to allow such cold, calculated intent to guide the development of our streetscapes.

But that's just me.
 
Yes, but it helps knit together the streetscape into a more coherent form. Are you saying that developers can't afford to even put aside some money for the building?

Anyways, this is an excellent example where facadism or a new structure mimicking the old would be a perfect fit.
 
Automation Gallery said:
For goodness sake, this thing is only an old derilict factory warehouse with very little heritage significance..:confused:
Click to expand...

Didn't you know? Most people on this forum will consider a 10 year old junk yard an important "heritage structure" that helps give more character to the streetscape. It boggles my mind how a new development replacing an older development is ever a bad thing (unless of course the said older development truly has a historically important role).
 
ahmad.m.atiya said:
It boggles my mind how a new development replacing an older development is ever a bad thing (unless of course the said older development truly has a historically important role).
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain this to me: are new buildings better than old buildings? Is it the "newness" factor? Or do you just really love seeing buildings under construction; so much that you don't care what building was there or what building will replace it - you just want to see a construction site in action.
 
If they are keeping two buildings, and destroying the 2 storey one, which are the two buildings they are keeping? HNR is one obviously, but the only other one there would be the brown one. So which is the other one they are keeping?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top