[PinkLucy]

They said that they have the permits to put up the hoarding (which is up) and that they are going to progress as far as possible each step along the way while waiting for approvals for the next step, if that makes sense. There is apparently a lot of clean up to do inside the building including removal of lead and asbestos and items that have been stored there; it sounded like that would be getting started ASAP.

 

[Rebecca - HT]

It all depends on HPS, there won't be work happening because it's not a listed building, its designated. Until their decision goes through Council, nothing is going to happen.

 

[boris]

I was there at the meeting as well, which was very well attended. I'm glad the best possible outcome was achieved - some token "facadism" for the pinkos, but the goal remains to be a big, modern and brash grocery store/retail emporium. I particularly liked the renditions of the interior showcasing giant fonts and signage that are completely in contrast to the exterior 19th century bordello look.

The timeline is around 2-3 years, which is unfortunate as I would have hoped they could have actually demolished the whole thing and built a Loblaws in its place within a shorter amount of time - but it's okay nevertheless.

...hmm "pinkos" - so what are you Maurice - right wing "blacko"? I tought we had finished with your kind 50 years ago in Europe.

 

[adma]

Uh-oh, Godwin.

Though come to think of it, "exterior 19th century bordello look" pretty vividly demonstrates Maurice's pig-headed, contemptuous illiteracy re architectural history. So, to think of him as being to heritage as Mel Gibson is to race and gender relationships isn't far from the mark...

 

[Peepers]

And there is very little point to keep the features of a structure when the building no longer exists. Facadism is not encouraged by any means, it has no respect for the original scale, space and design of the original buidling.

I do not understand why there is this big hang-up over so-called "facadism". One of the most historically important buildings in the World - the White House in Washington was completely gutted on the inside during the Truman administration and rebuilt using modern materials. Only the original four walls were left standing. The drastic rebuilding was necessary as the main structure was found to be unsound.

Here are some pictures of the gutted White House interior:

http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/special/renovation-1948.htm

 

[grey]

...hmm "pinkos" - so what are you Maurice - right wing "blacko"? I tought we had finished with your kind 50 years ago in Europe.

It's more like Ayn Randian self-interest, the pursuit of which keeps him trapped in this thead only, so we should consider ourselves lucky, I guess.

 

[Maurice]

...hmm "pinkos" - so what are you Maurice - right wing "blacko"? I tought we had finished with your kind 50 years ago in Europe.

It was hyperbole kids.

You do realize that what we're talking about is private property right? I don't understand - if you don't like how the outside of the building looks, don't shop there. Simple! I say you should start a boycott of all non-heritage buildings!

Let's put on our best vintage clothing, hipster glasses, warm soy-latte and march at the injustice of facadism!

 

[Maurice]

It's more like Ayn Randian self-interest, the pursuit of which keeps him trapped in this thead only, so we should consider ourselves lucky, I guess.

And what exactly is wrong with self-interest? And especially when we're talking about "self-interest" in the context of a private building's exterior? Wow - you're really making the world a better place with your advocacy there.

Heritage buildings are a luxury - get over it. If there was a market for it, there would be more heritage buildings, if there isn't there won't be.

 

[Maurice]

Uh-oh, Godwin.

Though come to think of it, "exterior 19th century bordello look" pretty vividly demonstrates Maurice's pig-headed, contemptuous illiteracy re architectural history. So, to think of him as being to heritage as Mel Gibson is to race and gender relationships isn't far from the mark...

Actually, I bet if you put up a public poll with a picture of the exterior and had the question: "Take your best guess as to what this building is used for: 1) Food Bank 2) Grocery Store 3) 19th Century Bordello", option 3) would win in a landslide.

The public cares about architectural history about as much as much as global warming - everyone thinks its a good thing in concept, but no one is ready to pay for a carbon tax.

 

[grey]

I don't understand - if you don't like how the outside of the building looks, don't shop there.

Heritage buildings are a luxury - get over it.

This Loblaws is going to have heritage facades. Get over it. If the architecture creeps you out so much, don't shop there.

Actually, I bet if you put up a public poll with a picture of the exterior and had the question: "Take your best guess as to what this building is used for: 1) Food Bank 2) Grocery Store 3) 19th Century Bordello", option 3) would win in a landslide.

The public cares about architectural history about as much as much as global warming - everyone thinks its a good thing in concept, but no one is ready to pay for a carbon tax.

I don't think so. Heritage Preservation is a democratic process. Elected councillors sit on the board and community groups take part in the heritage planning decisions that affect them. Public meetings and consulations are held. The reason the process of designation and protection exists is that communities care about the history of their neighbouhoods. Like it or not, you are part of a community that has decided this building is worth saving. If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't live there. Or maybe you should take a more active role in the development of your neighbourhood. Fort York is a pretty big deal. You'll have many opportunities to voice your disapproval at the inevitable series of public meetings to come. Why waste your time complaining to an internet forum devoted to the appreciation of urban planning and design?

 

[Maurice]

I don't think so. Heritage Preservation is a democratic process. Elected councillors sit on the board and community groups take part in the heritage planning decisions that affect them. Public meetings and consulations are held. The reason the process of designation and protection exists is that communities care about the history of their neighbouhoods. Like it or not, you are part of a community that has decided this building is worth saving. If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't live there. Or rather than complaining to an internet forum full of topic-specific advocates, maybe you should take a more active role in the development of your neighbourhood. Fort York is a pretty big deal. You'll have many opportunities to voice your disapproval at the inevitable series of public meetings to come.

You're absolutely correct about Heritage Preservation being a democratic process and one should take an active role in their local government to voice their disapproval at forcing a particular exterior look to a private building. My point however was that the majority of the public could care less. I'm sure polls would say that people think that heritage building preservation is "important" - but if you were to, for example, tie it to a specific tax or toll, then I think the answer would be very different.

Look, I was there at the meeting, the building is in ruins and is basically filled with animals, feces, garbage and asbestos. I get that there are Heritage laws etc - but this is a privately owned building, that presumably pays property taxes - it should be up to the market, and the owners of the building to decide what they want to do with it.

The market will decide in the end what happens - whether we like it or not, and whether there are Heritage Buildings laws or not. It's just a matter of time.

 

[FAC33]

Look, I was there at the meeting, the building is in ruins and is basically filled with animals, feces, garbage and asbestos. I get that there are Heritage laws etc - but this is a privately owned building, that presumably pays property taxes - it should be up to the market, and the owners of the building to decide what they want to do with it.

The market will decide in the end what happens - whether we like it or not, and whether there are Heritage Buildings laws or not. It's just a matter of time.

I disagree that deciding the fate of historic buildings is, or should be, a purely market-driven process. The reality is that each time this kind of project comes along, the ideal solution is one where the demands of the market are balanced with the value of the building as a historic property. A good example of this process is Old City Hall. Eaton's intially claimed that what would become the Eaton Centre could not possibly succeed without tearing down Old City Hall, leaving just the tower. However, public outcry saved the building, and subsequently the mall has done just fine without the land it would have gained. So the market alone does not--and I would argue should not--drive the decision as to what should be done with this kind of property.

Obviously, this is a different scenario than Old City Hall--it's not centrally located, and it was always a warehouse on the edge of downtown, not the symbolic heart of the city. Loblaws clearly has some interest in the historic value of its building and recognizes its worth, but doesn't think the interior bears preserving. They might have the right mix here, although without a better understanding of what the interior currently looks like and what it would actually cost to make it usable, it's difficult to say for sure. Reuse is not always possible in every case, but I do like to see due diligence rather than outright dismissal. Did they provide any sense of what it would have cost to adapt the building rather than gutting it?

 

[Dan416]

Are there any renders from this meeting?

 

[Maurice]

I disagree that deciding the fate of historic buildings is, or should be, a purely market-driven process. The reality is that each time this kind of project comes along, the ideal solution is one where the demands of the market are balanced with the value of the building as a historic property. A good example of this process is Old City Hall. Eaton's intially claimed that what would become the Eaton Centre could not possibly succeed without tearing down Old City Hall, leaving just the tower. However, public outcry saved the building, and subsequently the mall has done just fine without the land it would have gained. So the market alone does not--and I would argue should not--drive the decision as to what should be done with this kind of property.

Obviously, this is a different scenario than Old City Hall--it's not centrally located, and it was always a warehouse on the edge of downtown, not the symbolic heart of the city. Loblaws clearly has some interest in the historic value of its building and recognizes its worth, but doesn't think the interior bears preserving. They might have the right mix here, although without a better understanding of what the interior currently looks like and what it would actually cost to make it usable, it's difficult to say for sure. Reuse is not always possible in every case, but I do like to see due diligence rather than outright dismissal. Did they provide any sense of what it would have cost to adapt the building rather than gutting it?

My argument is that in the long-term, whether we like it or not, the market-realities will govern the land (and by extension the building). On the other hand, you are right that I'm pretty sure Loblaws does see some value in retaining some semblance of the outside and that is the real reason they're entertaining the idea - not because there's a huge grass-roots movement (similar to the City Hall example you mentioned).

I might be wrong, it was hard to hear all the questions, but I did not hear them giving a sense of the cost of adapting the building. The impression I got was that it was beyond repair for the most part and deteriorating quite rapidly.

It is interesting to hear the passions that are invoked though for what is essentially a private building. Doesn't anyone here think the old facade just looks plain ugly? In the same way that women's body suits of the 80's look now?

 

[PinkLucy]

Are there any renders from this meeting?

There was a slide show. I don't know if it's accessible anywhere.

Loblaws didn't give exact dollar amounts but did say that when they did the original plans, they were going to restore/reuse the building. However, since that time, the deterioration has become much worse so their original plans are no longer feasible. They did say that removing, restoring and rehabilitating the bricks/facade is extremely expensive but they believe it's what should be done to meet the needs of both the historical aspect of the building and their desire for retail space.

They didn't name the consultants except for the company that would restore the bricks.