Good analogy Bruvyman :)

Rebecca -- it may not be meant to be torn down and rebuilt, but what if it truly isn't salvageable? What then? I understand your frustration that the building has been neglected, but if that neglect (or other causes) has left it in an unusable state, what's the right answer? Leave it to continue to fall down or the approach Loblaws is suggesting? If the building is as bad as they say, they could just put up a shiny new thing (I wouldn't want that), but they do seem to be willing to acknowledge the building's history through their approach.

All of that is moot of course, if the building is salvageable, but I'm just asking ... what if it's truly not?
 
Let me ask you this PinkLucy - do you think Loblaws should be accountable if it is in rough shape and they have to tear it down?

And don't you think its shitty for anyone - and we don't know about this site yet - to let a heritage building collapse and to profit from its demise then?
 
Ugh, I'd typed a response and then hit a wrong key and it all disappeared ...

I don't know if Loblaws should be held 100% accountable. They didn't always own the building; they sold it and then repurchased it. So should the other owner also bear some responsibility? They also presented plans whicih weren't accepted so time was ticking while they waited for approvals. Should they have done more maintenance during that time? Probably.

Did they deliberately let it collapse? I don't know. Can neglect be proven? If so, then yes, they should bear some responsibility.

But there are a number of things going on here. Yes, we should look at what happened, learn from it and try to ensure some accountability. But we also need to move forward -- in which case, as I asked, would you prefer facadism that at least provides a nod to heritage or total destruction and something new and modern? And yes, we need to work to ensure that it doesn't happen to other buildings.

One of the things the Loblaws rep said, and I do believe it, is that what they are proposing is very expensive. So while they need to be accountable for any neglect, should they also not be acknowledged for trying to salvage something, at a high cost, rather than taking the easier and cheaper route of a total knock-down?

There are a whole lot of gray areas here, it's not straightforward and we're all working with only partial information, and in the meantime, the building continues to deteriorate and nothing is moving forward -- not saving a heritage building, not restoring it, not building a facade, not providing needed retail in a new neighbourhood. It's all just stalled and that's simply a lose-lose situation.
 
PinkLucy said:
AG, when I was in Italy, people I met bemoaned the need to maintain heritage buildings "as is"; they said they had enough old, falling-down, patched up buildings!
Click to expand...

I agree..sorry what i meant was that heritage preservation in most of those euro cities is a 24 hour job.:):cool:
 
Rebecca - HT said:
Gristle,

We can argue about this in circles, but at a time when its the heritage side that ultimately always has to make the sacrifice, you have to understand why the heritage community would be weary. There is always a reason why a heritage building should come down - there needs to be a grocery store, not energy efficient, doesn't fit into the design, a homeowner wants to build a new home, its too expensive, there's a need for a condo/office building - and quite frankly, we've heard it all. Its Loblaw that wants a grocery store, in their dimensions, with their design, on this site.
Click to expand...

Rebecca, I am not arguing that a heritage building should automatically come down. I am pointing out that a necessary repurposing of a building may require that it be augmented in order to allow it to be used for new activities. What you appear to be saying is that the building should be left as is for the sake of the building's designation. Ultimately, with respect to this proposal, there is no need for a designated warehouse building in the area because it is no longer a commercial/industrial district.

Times change, and so do the uses of the building. That must be taken into consideration.

In an ideal world, an exacting set of heritage and preservation rules could be applied to all structures deemed to be worthy of saving. Unfortunately, not all buildings are the same. Some can be easily repurposed to be used as unique office spaces, studios or lofts; but typically these uses were never in mind when the structure was originally built. That alone represents a deviation in the building's "heritage" as it relates to why the building was put up in the first place. The building that Loblaws proposes to turn into a supermarket probably functioned well as a warehouse, but that warehouse structure may not be suitable for other uses. What Loblaws is offering is a compromise wherein the remarkable aspects of the structure (its exterior) are retained and preserved, and the less remarkable interior warehouse structure is removed and rebuilt to accommodate new activities.

I fully understand the uses or precedence in the manner that you have mentioned. The OMB is a singular exponent for the blind use of this approach. But at the same time, with respect to heritage preservation, the retention of all, or parts, of a building may need to assessed on the basis of where the building is and how it can be reused. In other words, there is a necessity for better case-by-case studies that respect the fact that not all heritage buildings are going to be the same. In the right circumstances, such an approach may actually help in the preservation effort.

Of course the report by Loblaws is one that outlines and promotes its efforts, and therefore reflects what that corporation sees as sufficient in respecting the preservation of that structure. That doesn't mean that it is beyond criticism, or free from questions as to why they can't go a little further in protecting significant aspects of the building. At the same time, a response that would seek to completely block any changes whatsoever is likely to result in a derelict structure being left to deteriorate in a part of the city where a very high demand for additional large retail space could help in preserving elements of a notable building.
 
Advantage Gristle? Seriously? To be perfectly honest, how far off is a Loblaws store from a warehouse? They need a big open space to put rows of food and goods in; a warehouse is a big open space to put foods and goods in storage. I agree with Rebecca on this and have to say that this building and it repurposing by Loblaws are actually a good suit. Okay so it is not perfect, work with it and make it work for you.

Philip Goldsmith a highly esteemed preservation and heritage architect from Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd Architects here in Toronto said similar words when dealing with 98% of all heritage building owners:
there is always a reason why a heritage building should come down - there needs to be a grocery store, not energy efficient, doesn't fit into the design, don't know anything other than a bare box with windows, a homeowner wants to build a new home, its too expensive, there's a need for a condo/office building, all we really want is a box with windows.

Its up to us to look at the advantages of repurposing buildings and push for this while making use of what is already existing - if the glove to don't fit, try another glove! In other words, if the purpose for the building isn't suitable then move on. I DO understand that this is probably somewhat of a pipe-dream here in this backwater city of ours, but let's face it, developers have free reign and pretty much anything goes for them. Yes, they will maintain a facade or two and thus proclaim that they did their best to preserve what they could and aren't we proud they did.

I regret to say that I am not as adma puts it a hobby preservationist or a preservationist when its cool to be, but rather someone who actually is concerned about how we end up shaping our city. This place/city is overwrought with banal condominiums that sprout up on every vacant piece of land and we are loathe to give a s**t otherwise. Toronto breeds contempt for anything above average, so why should we expect anything more for an lonesome and abandoned warehouse? Even if it is one of only a handful of remaining Art Deco pieces in this city.

So again how is a warehouse really that different from a Loblaws store now?

p5
 
Last edited:
To be honest, this discussion should be viewed through the extra-heritage prism of politics and legalese, etc.
 
If the glove to don't fit, try another glove
Click to expand...

I don't think I even need to say more, than what p5connex has stated. Thank you.

In think in this particular case the issue is retaining the features through tearing down the structure and rebuilding them. Designated buildings should not be dismantled, unless they absolutely have to be as a last case scenario.

Who said anything against retaining features? For heritage to survive, it's taking the past into the present and breathing new life into structures. It's the way this is being done is the problem.

In a city especially like ours you think that the heritage community is very all or nothing, and that would be right. If this was another city that had a better record on heritage preservation maybe we wouldn't be so adamant. But if you give this to an owner of a designated building, it opens the doors to others to do the same. It is that simple. Exceptions become the norm, in a city that doesn't plan very well like Toronto.

You have to understand that when designation is increasing becoming useless we are fighting tooth and nail to protect its legitimacy.

And I don't think people here understand the work it takes to put through a designation. Because designation is so contentious, it requires very detailed reports and a great deal of work by HPS staff to avoid it being appealed at the Conservation Review Board. Once the report is even finished, it still has to go through three steps - the Preservation Board, local Council, and Council. It takes time, energy and resources. To give you an idea, there can be approximately 40 designations done in a year. There's 100 waiting for a backlog. It pains me to see a building that required a lot of blood, sweat, and tears be discarded, if its a case of there not being vision and willingness to see new life. I don't buy any argument from a developer that this is the best that they can do - why would they in a city like ours, they don't need to. It's hard to see better examples of adaptive re-use especially from Europe, because what they say is "How can we make our development work with the existing heritage structure?" as opposed to "It's in the way."

I know people want a grocery store in this neighbourhood, and the owners are proposing retaining features, but this is a scenario that could impact the way heritage preservation is dealt with in the future. Any other owner can rightfully say "Well they did this, so why can't I?" In a city that has it's planning run by a provincial body that very rarely has someone with heritage expertise it is easy to see them ruling in favour of similar future projects, especially if there are examples to follow.
 
Last edited:
Rebecca - HT said:
I don't think I even need to say more, than what p5connex has stated. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Which part?

In think in this particular case the issue is retaining the features through tearing down the structure and rebuilding them. Designated buildings should not be dismantled, unless they absolutely have to be as a last case scenario.
Click to expand...

I think the particular case Loblaws made a presentation that showed the orientation of the interior structure is not at all suited to building a contemporary supermarket space, office space and parking area that they see as necessary for its repurposing.

Who said anything against retaining features? For heritage to survive, it's taking the past into the present and breathing new life into structures. It's the way this is being done is the problem.
Click to expand...

I mentioned the word "features." For a building to survive, it has to have some use. Since it is a physical structure, that structure has to be suitable for alternatives once the original (heritage-historical) activity is gone. The place can no longer serve as a warehouse. Warehouses and factories that have been converted to offices and living spaces are no longer factories or warehouses. Is the aim to preserve an empty warehouse building, or is preserving the exterior space the actual aim?

In a city especially like ours you think that the heritage community is very all or nothing, and that would be right. If this was another city that had a better record on heritage preservation maybe we wouldn't be so adamant. But if you give this to an owner of a designated building, it opens the doors to others to do the same. It is that simple. Exceptions become the norm, in a city that doesn't plan very well like Toronto.
Click to expand...

In fact Rebecca, I've made it abundantly clear that I do not think that the heritage community is all or nothing. I have cited general examples of where preservation took into consideration the repurposing of buildings - which included augmenting them. It is you and p5connex who appear to have taken the all or nothing stance on this building. You are absolutely opposed to any changes whatsoever. That's pretty adamant.

You have to understand that when designation is increasing becoming useless we are fighting tooth and nail to protect its legitimacy.
Click to expand...

I am quite aware of the state of heritage designation. At the same time, you have to be aware that the designation becomes undermined when extreme proponents argue that every structure recognized in that manner is somehow a like a museum piece. Cities are living places. While there is a necessity to making sure that designated buildings are preserved, there is also a need to recognize that each building must be retained on the basis of its specific qualities, and that retention sometimes requires changes to the structure. You could see success with respect to your aims regarding this building. It could be preserved in whole, and then sit empty because there is no need for a warehouse space with a large sanitary water line running through it.

And I don't think people here understand the work it takes to put through a designation.
Click to expand...

You are projecting that this discussion is an attack on heritage designations and preservation efforts. It is not. This is a discussion about a derelict warehouse building being repurposed. There are most certainly issues with what is being proposed by the owner, but it is clear that the position of doing nothing to the structure is untenable.

I know people want a grocery store in this neighbourhood, and the owners are proposing retaining features, but this is a scenario that could impact the way heritage preservation is dealt with in the future. Any other owner can rightfully say "Well they did this, so why can't I?" In a city that has it's planning run by a provincial body that very rarely has someone with heritage expertise it is easy to see them ruling in favour of similar future projects, especially if there are examples to follow.
Click to expand...

If you expect to win the war by this approach, expect to lose. Your issue is with the OMB - which I have cited on other threads as a significant problem for planning in this city (as in it undermines the effort). The time is now to remove that body from dictating planning and development in Toronto. However, if you plan to make your stand on this particular building, I think you might be in a loosing situation. Loblaws has modified its original proposal. It is aiming at securing the exterior of the building. Going to battle with them to make an "all or nothing" stand will likely end up with them going to the OMB. Losing on the basis of a trenchant and unyielding position will not help your cause that much. Showing good will, recognizing the limitations of a building, and proposing informed ideas for addressing contemporary repurposing will illustrate flexibility and responsiveness. If you lose then, no one can ever accuse heritage efforts of being extremist.
 
Last edited:
All of what p5connex said, all of it. He also stated that it doesn't have to fit it's original purpose - but it actually is one of the more ideal spaces to suit future use, for a grocery store. It can become anything it wants to be, and at no point did I state that it should be left to rot because they can't use the original building - it can be used for ANYTHING if there is the want to do so.

Gristle we won't agree because while you feel the heritage community has to adapt and be less flexible, the heritage community feels that we are always making concessions, and quite frankly, has had enough. Here we are being told again that because this development doesn't suit Loblaw's needs (and as you said that they state is need for repurposing), that is has to come down. You have to understand that to you this is a very specific case where the developer is at least trying to appease the heritage community, we should accept. To us it is one in an endless parade of bad planning decisions in regards to heritage conservation.

Facadism is not what the heritage community wants. It's pretty much a pat on the head and saying "There there, heritage people" It's used a lot here, more than other cities, as an acceptable compromise. It's become acceptable. As the heritage community accepts more losses due to a broken system, why can't lie down and continue to believe it's acceptable because developers don't have the will or vision to do better.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top