Was browsing the city archives today and came across this 1987 proposal for the site... Obviously went nowhere, but always fun to look at models...

s1465_fl0088_id0016.jpg
 
Uh. this article pretty much just stole Gristle's post in this thread. See bolded sections:

DSC said:
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.”
Click to expand...


gristle said:
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.

In actual fact, 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, 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.
Click to expand...
 
g.money:

Thanks for that pic - I will take facadism over that Po-Mo piece of work anyday.

nhincompoop:

Shocking, lifting a posting word for word without even bothering to cite the source properly.

AoD
 
Rebecca - HT said:
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.
Click to expand...

I cannot understand how anyone could have issues with what is being proposed. We have seen in the past that the best results can be achieved by carefully dismantling a heritage building brick by brick, stone by stone, and resurrecting it around a modern structure. We are beginning to see this with the rebuilt Addison Cadillac showroom on Bay which looks good as new. You would think that the local Councillor would be championing this development instead it looks like the arrogant Adam Vaughan is trying to throw up road-blocks.:confused:
 
Is it not possible that Gristle wrote the article? That would seem the logical explanation.

EDIT: Just noticed that the portion that matches Gristle's post is a quote from a member of the audience. Did Gristle repeat in the thread exactly what he/she said at the meeting? I'm confused. Gristle, are you Kimberly Spice, mild-mannered reporter for the Bulletin, are you a quotable audience member or is Kimberly Spice just a plagiaristic copy cat?
 
Last edited:
Good question Bruvyman. The answer is that I did not write the article. While I attended the meeting, I did not have an opportunity to ask a question. The room was packed and I was trying to take notes. I did not copy the words of anyone else in the audience; I was trying to collect details from the Loblaws representative presenting (who's name I never managed to record due to hallway noise). Suffice to say, I am not Kimberly Spice, did not speak to Kimberly Spice, and have never met Kimberly Spice, but I do on occasion leaf through the Bulletin. I have not seen the article in question (other than just having read it here).

The quote that has been cited was written by me for this forum. I've never spoken to any reporter about this project. In so far as the quote appears to have come from here, at least it is accurately attributed to being from a person who was at the meeting. To the best of my knowledge, what is then missing is that the quote was sourced from UT.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, shoddy sourcing happens all the time. I once found quite a large portion of a paper I had written copied and reproduced in another paper with no sourcing whatsoever.

As for the building, passing by on occasion, I see signs that work is going on but just on a small scale. I expect it's the interior clean-out.
 
That is pretty lazy reporting indeed. Steal from UT and then sell advertising. Nice business plan.
S'Bus
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
g.money:

Thanks for that pic - I will take facadism over that Po-Mo piece of work anyday.

nhincompoop:

Shocking, lifting a posting word for word without even bothering to cite the source properly.
AoD
Click to expand...

The Bulletin is not known for impartial reporting nor, apparently, for original writing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top