I heard them name ERA consultants but can't remember the other company. Did they mention something about the existing first floor being a few steps above grade at the beginning before the mic was working?
 
Yes; the entry ways are at street grade but then the floor is 3-4 feet higher. Clifford is the company that's doing the bricks -- did they mention another company too?
 
Maurice said:
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.
Click to expand...


Is this Don Cherry, just coming here to start s*#t? Don't take the bait.
 
Maurice said:
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?
Click to expand...

Maurice--remember that this is Urban Toronto you're posting in. Even among those who are willing to basically let the warehouse (the building proper, not the facades per se) go, you're looking at something like a 90%+ mandate against "just looks plain ugly". It's like waltzing into an art discussion forum and offering paint-roller/child-of-six arguments against Barnett Newman or Mark Rothko. And I'll betcha that even the bigwigs at Loblaw in charge of this "private building", Kid Galen and all, would think that you sound like a loudmouth vulgarian ignoramus, who probably learned about Urban Toronto via the Toronto Escort Review Board, or something...
 
adma said:
Maurice--remember that this is Urban Toronto you're posting in. Even among those who are willing to basically let the warehouse (the building proper, not the facades per se) go, you're looking at something like a 90%+ mandate against "just looks plain ugly". It's like waltzing into an art discussion forum and offering paint-roller/child-of-six arguments against Barnett Newman or Mark Rothko. And I'll betcha that even the bigwigs at Loblaw in charge of this "private building", Kid Galen and all, would think that you sound like a loudmouth vulgarian ignoramus, who probably learned about Urban Toronto via the Toronto Escort Review Board, or something...
Click to expand...

Wow, that Toronto Escort Review Board is bizarre. The general talk area is quite active too... just a bunch dudes with common interest in prostitutes who also like to chit chat about other stuff with each other too.
 
Automation Gallery said:
So now i get it ..the left wingers are all for heritage preservation, unlike the right wingers that just want it all knocked down and over with...Please :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I dunno if it can be broken down by "left-wing" vs. "right-wing". I'm sure there would be left-wingers who think things like poverty, a progressive tax code, properties rights etc. are more important topics of public discourse than how a private building looks on the outside.
 
adma said:
Maurice--remember that this is Urban Toronto you're posting in. Even among those who are willing to basically let the warehouse (the building proper, not the facades per se) go, you're looking at something like a 90%+ mandate against "just looks plain ugly". It's like waltzing into an art discussion forum and offering paint-roller/child-of-six arguments against Barnett Newman or Mark Rothko. And I'll betcha that even the bigwigs at Loblaw in charge of this "private building", Kid Galen and all, would think that you sound like a loudmouth vulgarian ignoramus, who probably learned about Urban Toronto via the Toronto Escort Review Board, or something...
Click to expand...

Lol - the Toronto Escort Review Board link is really funky. I actually live (rather will be living) in West Harbour City and was searching for more information about the potential Loblaws because the closest walking-distance-in-minus-30-degree-winter-weather grocery store is the On The Run at the Esso gas station. That's how I came across this board actually.

But your art gallery metaphor is actually supports the point I am making - that "Heritage buildings" (like Barnett Newman paintings) are a luxury item, which should not be subsidized in any way by the public. Moreover, it goes against, in my opinion (I realize, not necessarily the opinion of the law) private property rights.
 
Thank goodness we have organizations like Heritage Toronto, the Heritage Act, engaged citizenry and forward thinking City Councillors in old Toronto and not the likes of this guy above else downtown would evolve into big box retail hell by the end of the decade.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Thank goodness we have organizations like Heritage Toronto, the Heritage Act, engaged citizenry and forward thinking City Councillors in old Toronto and not the likes of this guy above else downtown would evolve into big box retail hell by the end of the decade.
Click to expand...

Or, rather, who are just plain philistine and feel resentful about the holier-than-thous who sneer at their philistinism--and who use "private property rights" as a smokescreen.

Look: maybe "most people out there" haven't a clue about heritage. But, most people out there don't have a clue about medicine or auto mechanics, either; doesn't mean we have to hold those who *do* have a clue in contempt...
 
Automation Gallery said:
So now i get it ..the left wingers are all for heritage preservation, unlike the right wingers that just want it all knocked down and over with...Please :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I see myself as a centre-right, but I support heritage preservation, and green roofs, development in the downtown, think Ford is a buffoon and Don Cherry needs to keep his opinions to hockey.
I feel like I'm riding the fence in Toronto.. :p
 
Maurice said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

I'm always amused by faux-libertarian positions that never stand beyond their author's navel gazing.

Every major city in the developed world routinely "rides roughshod" over the property rights Maurice suggests to be inviolable -- through zoning, heritage laws, design review boards, and other means. If anything, the inverse of his proposition appears to be the rule: ultimately the market appears to thrive with these in place.

He also makes ludicrously unsubstantiated assertions about the psychology and interests of "the majority of the public" and yet cannot be bothered to furnish even the slightest modicum of proof other than his own personal, contemptuous speculation.

Given the creepy mysogyny inherent in his now-deleted remarks, his fringe views and his inability to support them should be completely unsurprising.
 
adma said:
Or, rather, who are just plain philistine and feel resentful about the holier-than-thous who sneer at their philistinism--and who use "private property rights" as a smokescreen.

Look: maybe "most people out there" haven't a clue about heritage. But, most people out there don't have a clue about medicine or auto mechanics, either; doesn't mean we have to hold those who *do* have a clue in contempt...
Click to expand...

I think we disagree on the premise of this debate - in that, I believe "heritage" to be a luxury item (yes, similar to any visual art) - unlike something like medicine or even environmental/food safety laws. I do not hold those who do think heritage is important in contempt - I just don't think it is as important as some of the other areas of public discourse. I am all for the arts, and heritage and the like - if we as a society had unlimited wealth/resources. Unfortunately, we live in a finite world with many competing priorities - and all I'm saying is that Heritage should not be one of them. Now, if there was private support for it, then by all means, make buildings look any way that the "public" likes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top