Automation Gallery
Superstar
This is something that the city should have had under control?,
...word on the street is they have been left abandoned and in derelict condition for many years....oh well, good luck
- Thread starter Dr. Snoot
- Start date
...word on the street is they have been left abandoned and in derelict condition for many years....oh well, good luck
P23
Active Member
LOL that wong tam takes time out of her day to save some shitty warehouses instead of doing something about the multiple tent cities in her ward.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I presume she would want them adequately housed if the city and province would allow it.
Back more on topic though, while the subject at hand is the dubious nature the way this building is been knocked down, it's unlikely the only issue this councilor is having to deal with though. But I gotta feeling you know that already.
lomeri
Active Member
Glad @AlexBozikovic is coming to realize that the MZO was not issued over some high minded provincial goal of affordable housing, but corruption with the cover of affordable housing.
The heavy handed approach by the province says a lot. This development could have a lot of potential. Instead the buildings are being eliminated to make the property as cheap as possible for a developer that will be hand selected by the province. This is not how we build good cities.
The heavy handed approach by the province says a lot. This development could have a lot of potential. Instead the buildings are being eliminated to make the property as cheap as possible for a developer that will be hand selected by the province. This is not how we build good cities.
DSC
Superstar
Why exactly should the City have 'had it under control"? The City Listed the buildings as heritage in 2004 (as Provincially owned buildings they could not 'designate' them). The site was secure and the buildings appeared to be weatherproof. If their owner, the Province, did not want to do something with the site I fail to see what the City could or should have done. What started to happen with the MZO in December was that the Province unilaterally (with not even the courtesy of a heads-up) approved some (apparently) unplanned development on the site. This week's carry-on is the Province (again unilaterally with no warning) sending in the demolition crew. Since the Province has owned the site for decades it is VERY hard to see what the huge rush is - unless some 'friend' is calling in a favour and wants to collect whatever they think they are owned "right now'. This whole thing STINKS and REALLY needs to be stopped. Then the City, the Province and the neighbours can sit down and look at options for the site - these will undoubtedly include some residential units but could and should include some retained heritage.
Last edited:
WislaHD
Superstar
I'd like to point out that while many comments about projects express some form of disappointment, it is usually directed at the architecture or integration with the public realm, and not at the proposed redevelopment itself, proposed new uses, and overall addition to the city.
bilked
Senior Member
DSC
Superstar
It is interesting to note in the 4th photo above that the developer of the next door condos retained or rebuilt some sort of heritage hoist or ??? They clearly thought the areas heritage should be remembered!
unrealestate
Active Member
Will be so depressing if these just get knocked down. They have so much potential.
Towered
Senior Member
These buildings could house any number of interesting businesses that would benefit the neighbourhood - community centre, gym, craft brewery, art space/gallery, programmable event space, museum, restaurant, retail, etc. It would be a huge loss to lose them.
thaivic
Active Member
Stollery's had a demolition permit issued by the City.
DSC
Superstar
Yes, the City must normally issue demolition permits if a building is not listed or designated and is not residential. That's how Stolleries was demolished. (Listing was pending if I remember right.)
For provincially (and Federally??) owned buildings the City has no say and no City permit is required. THIS building IS listed so if a City permit was required it would only be issued after discussion and study - but no City permit is required!
Edit: ( I just wandered over to look.) The graffitist has spoken!
Last edited:
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
thaivic
Active Member
The city has done their job in listing these buildings and i agree that these buildings should be saved and repurposed ,unfortunately as you pointed out the city does not have any power to stop them from what they are doing, this site is not comparable to Stollery's, the building had been altered over the years and in reality it would not be very feasible to try to keep a little piece of the building , what they have done at 1 Yorkville,8 Cumberland and other numerous sites on Yonge St is the correct approach to try and integrate heritage buildings in a proper manner, the majority of buildings that the city has designated make sense but many also do not, IMO Stollery's was not one that needed to be saved.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
I agree these should be kept and worked into the new development, this movement that the City has against the Province and vice versa has got to stop and work out something