They talked about the issues of the first floor being above grade and the large sewer line beneath the building. They said that these factors made the space very difficult to utilize for the purposes of a supermarket, although they had made some plans a couple of years ago with workarounds. Now, however, they said that the condition of the building does not allow them to proceed with those plans and they have reconfigured the project based on the current condition of the building.

...and of course, how convenient they'd stall until the building's condition became too poor to implement the plans. This is nearly as bad as the Empress Hotel situation. Who wants to start a betting pool: how long until the warehouse "accidentally" goes up in flames?
 
I'll take the facadism offered here over what happened to the Empress anyday.
 
The presentation indicated that the facade was in very poor condition and that the internal structure is not satisfactory in accommodating a supermarket.

Does the heritage protection code not require land owners to maintain some level of upkeep? Or is that asking too much of the poor private sector? Any rehabilitation costs are 100% their own fault for allowing it to deteriorate in the first place. The building was listed over 20 years ago! Why do these things never seem to matter until the owner decides to build something on the property?
 
Last edited:
The City refused their initial application, so I don't think Loblaw ever wanted to restore it. In fact they filed to the OMB, but it never went anywhere.

There needs to be better tax incentives, that really falls to the province and feds though. Of course, not gonna happen.

There are by-laws to enforce restoration, but the City doesn't have the resources to use them. It takes a great deal of time and money to fight owners. Heritage needs its own enforcement officer - the amount of fines in the HCDs alone should be worth it.

And then unlike other cities a designation means it can't come down - it can't be appealed, there is no such thing as an OMB. Owners deal with it.

Too much stacked against keeping a building like this up, if the owner wishes to discard it.
 
I concede both your points here - yes, I agree that rights are different for chattels and immovables, and, that the burden of proof always lies with the asserter. On point one, even though we're talking about real property - we are essentially debating the role of local government in describing to an owner how the outside of their building should look, based on an inherent assumption that preserving/maintaining the look of the building serves a public good. I guess where it gets difficult for me, is when that "public good" is really based on "aesthetics" as opposed to say "public safety".


To reuse your words from earlier in this thread, heritage architecture is resource, a finite resource. What it is not is a commodity. It has no value to a developer who can obliterate it at no or little cost. That's why the heritage registry exists. This building does not have any monetary value that can be expressed in economic terms its developers. It has to be forceably imposed by government. This isn't about aesthetics, it's about our common heritage that is of finite and shrinking supply.
 
Does the heritage protection code not require land owners to maintain some level of upkeep? Or is that asking too much of the poor private sector? Any rehabilitation costs are 100% their own fault for allowing it to deteriorate in the first place. The building was listed over 20 years ago! Why do these things never seem to matter until the owner decides to build something on the property?

It's clear that the facade is not at any risk of imminent collapse. At the same time, removal of the internal structure, while bracing the facade, appeared to be too risky given some of the deterioration. To that end, Loblaws apparently opted to catalogue and then take down the facade for cleaning and eventual reconstruction. They are doing all of this at their own cost.

As was noted earlier, there is a very large sanitary line running underneath the building that is impossible to remove. The internal structure does not lend itself to being reused for use of supermarket. I suppose that for some, keeping the internal structure is a must in terms of heritage ideals, and in certain instances with other buildings this cannot be denied. However, given that this particular building was essentially a warehouse structure for a portion of its active life, repurposing the site for retail and office use - while at the same time managing to retain the exterior facade - seems like something of win in my mind. I'm sure that some of the heritage idealists here may flame me for saying this, but as neither they nor I have any control over the outcome of a development that we don't own or control, Loblaws will do with the building as they see fit. If that means that they will successfully try to preserve a portion of the facade, good on them for doing that. The heritage listing of a building does not absolutely prevent any structure from being totally demolished.

I'm quite sure that the cheapest approach would be to knock the entire structure down and start from scratch, but that doesn't appear to be their intention at this time.
 
Maintaining the facade is one approach, but the reality is that we are presently allowing, or even promoting the demolition of the past. In this case the building has been left to rot for well over a decade, with little or no intention of preserving the structure. Sure we can argue that preserving the facade is a benefit and is "a better than nothing" result, but is that all buildings are about is their facades? I argue no. It is not as simple as saying that we have no choice in the matter, because we most certainly do. Pushing for more stringent heritage laws and enactments will deter owners from taking this neglectful approach. As has been stated by previous commenters in this thread, if there were more incentives, tax breaks or other such mechanism in place which would make restoring these gems an opportunity rather than a detriment, then we would be much better off.

Naturally there are always going to be elements of buildings which cannot be restored and that is where new interventions must be taken, but let's call a spade a spade, and recognize that Loblaws is here to make money and if they can win some public support for maintaining a wall or two, while demoing the rest, then they will do just that. The interior spaces are always the crux, as most developers will want a blank slate and refuse to adjust their schemes to a more innovative approach to design and planning. This situation is no different here. Loblaws, loves he location, but most likely hates the fact that they have this building to contend with. Enter process of neglect and let it rot and fall apart and eventually no one can do anything except watch as time and weather take their toll.

So before we start singing the praises of the Loblaws corporation for its extreme generosity in saving a facade or two, let's review the fact that we are allowing and promoting the hallowing out our past.
 
I'm supposing an issue here is how the heritage (or at least, the casual-heritage-buff) paradigm has shifted over the years. Like, it's hard for me to imagine that Loblaw would have "done a Maurice", declared the joint to be junk and clear-cut the site *totally* in the 1990s; but that was when preserving a facade was a more acceptable half-measure--basically, it'd be applying the same approach here as the ACC did to the Postal Delivery Building. But now, we're running into an increasing sentiment where even *that's* not enough--that is, the kinds of anti-facadectomy onetime-hardcore-preservationist warnings that go back at least into the 80s have trickled their way into the mainstream.

Granted, Loblaw has already created epigrammatic fuel for the anti-facadist fire nearby at Dundas+ Lansdowne, with the No Frills token retention of the 1930s NCR factory facade...
 
The mainstream armchair preservationists probably have more examples of facadism to draw upon since the ACC and are unimpressed.
 
By me, Feb 6

5427532246_71351475f1.jpg
 
Agreed ... Beautiful building..especially for a warehouse. It would be such a shame to lose it. That was taken around midnight on Sunday. I stopped and stared at it while stumbling by on my way home from a Superbowl party and was struck by its street presence... Grabbed my camera and tripod and trudged back there in the snow to get a couple pics. Not bad for drunken photography but admittedly, it was a bit crooked and had to straighten it.
 
This is from The Bulletin, today. (Presumably in the March print edition).

After waiting for more than a decade, residents living near Bathurst and Lake Shore will finally get a neighbourhood Loblaws grocery store—in 2014.
More than 100 residents spilled out of a meeting room and into the hallways at the Harbourfront Community Centre on Jan. 31, eager to hear the plans for the heritage-desginated building at 500 Lake Shore Blvd. W.

Few objections were raised by area residents except for the proposal of a glass parapet, which will allow natural light to enter into the building, being a danger for birds. City planner Lynda Macdonald told neighbours that there are specific rules builders must abide by to protect the bird population and they will be enforced.

Another concern was Loblaws following suit of other Downtown grocery stores having higher than average costs. “Obviously we will be lower,” Fatica quickly quipped, causing the crowd to burst into laughter.

The building, which was originally built in 1928, will be dismantled and the facades at the south, west and part of the east, archived, clean and returned to their original positions. This dismantling is out of line with the previously-promised retention and reuse of the existing structure included in the original application to redevelop the site.

Mario Fatica, vice president of planning development and approvals for Loblaw Properties Limited, explained that the removal of the facades is the best option since during remediation the sections will be repaired and conditioned so maintenance will not be an issue in the future.

“From a feasibility point of view it helps us out tremendously in maintaining the building going forward in the future,” stated Fatica. “That’s the one consideration that is a positive for Loblaws. It can be resurrected in such a way that we will not have maintenance issues going forward.”

One planning community member in the audience noted, “It’s not that the building can't be salvaged, it simply cannot be converted into a supermarket space due to the nature of the internal structure. If you have a building that can’t be repurposed, what is supposed to become of it? Unfortunately, wishful thinking doesn't do much in that regard.”

He added, “The facade is in very poor condition, but the brick and Deco elements will be catalogued, dismantled, cleaned, stored and rebuilt as the site is redeveloped. In essence, a portion of the building is going to be salvaged and the character maintained. There will be additions behind and on top of the structure in order to allow for internal loading space, more stores beyond Loblaws, some office space and parking for 414 vehicles.”

“From what I saw,” he concluded, “the presentation suggested a very reasonable effort in maintaining some of the key historic features of the structure, while at the same time providing for some much needed supermarket space for the area. Studies presented suggested that some 65% of the weekday shoppers would arrive on foot—no doubt from the numerous condo residents who continue to populate the area.”

The building will house a grocery store, with space slotted for an undisclosed but common retailer coupled with many Loblaws stores, a Joe Fresh, and Loblaw corporate offices.

Bike racks have also been implemented into the design along with four levels of parking for 414 vehicles. To keep noise to a minimum, the truck loading docks will be constructed in an enclosed area.

The countdown to construction has begun as hoarding has been erected around the grounds and as soon as the last of the by-laws have been approved and the inside of the building cleared of contaminants and garbage the outside walls will be taken down.

“A lot of things have been left in the building over time that have to be removed,” Fatica commented. “Then there are things like lead, there’s asbestos, things that were typically found in buildings that were quite dated.”
 
That article does not note that HPS has not given their recommendation, and Adam Vaughan has stated that they are not cool with it. So expect this to possibly go to the OMB, unless Council disagrees.
 

Back
Top