October 26, 2007
Is Nothing Sacred?
In the midst of Toronto's condo madness, it becomes clear that the only thing sacred is the almighty dollar. If a space can be broken up and parceled out, a developer will appear instantly to stake out the territory.
So it should come as no surprise that one of the most recent victims of this trend is a century-old neo-gothic church. Formerly known as Centenniel United Church, the building sits just south of Bloor on Dovercourt Road.
Banners on the building's face proudly proclaim them to be newly-appointed lofts starting in the 200s. On further reading, the signage directs one to visit the lofts' website, a stereotypical celebration of condo-selling dazzle, flash-laden and featuring techno-lite music throughout.
The site celebrates its 28 "contemporary heritage lofts," which include such authentic, church-y features as "original stained glass windows, original brick, steel trusses, cornice and vaulted ceilings up to 17 ft."
What better purchase for the upwardly-mobile Goth this Hallowe'en season than your very own slice of hallowed ground? Your scale-replica baroque crucifix has never looked better!
Concept photo source: Urban Realty.
UPDATE (10/28): The trend continues! Reader Mick sent in this photo, adding, "I noticed on Friday that the company that is condo-izing the church at College and Palmerston has started the process of getting it presentable for show...I go back and forth on whether or not I actually like what they are doing to it. On one hand, seeing the brick in its original colour is gorgeous. But in my heart, I think I prefer the sooty black grubbiness that preceeded the powerwash."
In the comments, Marc also notes the existence of The Abbey Lofts at Roncesvalles and High Park.
|
I think this is great - much nicer than the boring and ugly high-rise condos and loft style apartments being built elsewhere.
any reason in particular you're against this project? it's not like they're tearing it down and puting up a big ugly box in its place.
I actually think it's kind of cool.
I think it's a great way to preserve history. I would rather the church stay intact and serve another purpose than to have yet another shiny glass and steel "Monument to Capitalism" in its place.
But it is refreshing to see this particular blogger defend the Church.
these kind of conversions are becoming more common as congregations find their base moving away from downtown and property taxes put pressure on already stretched coffers...
Call me sacrilegious, but I'd buy one of those lofts in an instant. I mean, since nobody goes to church anymore, what's the harm in turning the church into super-sleek upscale lofts?
possible names... (depending on number of units in building)
The 12 A-loft-les
The 10 Condo-ments.
I'd also buy one of these lofts in an instant, if I had the cash.
Considering this project appears to preserve many of the church's outstanding architectural features, isn't this more about religion than "architecture, design"?
I don't find that former churches need to be treated with any more respect than other buildings (cue theological debates on the adoration and worhsip of objects!). The only reason I will show deference inside one is in respect to Christians, but once they no longer use it, it's just a building.
So much better than tearing it down. Go into some of these churches before they are converted; they are falling apart as the congregations don't have the money to do the most basic maintenance. I was in one at Pape and Danforth before conversion; it was a complete disaster and hazard. Now the congregation has a smaller space appropriate to their membership and the rest of the building is restored and maintained.
If nobody goes to church any more what do we do with these buildings? Buildings like this have great bones, huge amounts of embodied energy and another couple of hundred years of life if they are cared for.
Go to the site of this church and look across the street: there is a monstrous 60's highrise set in open space that is about to be filled up with more units.
The best reuse for a church is a nightclub, but I suppose this'll do.
There's another church turned lofts/condos at 384 Sunnyside Ave between Parkside Dr. and Roncesvalles Ave. Condos at "The Abbey" are more expensive (I think about 0.5 mil to one mil) but nice. I was walking by one day when they were having an open house.
This post probably did way more to help sell a few units than any advertisement the developer could come up with. If for no other reason than to dish out a little smack down to the snideness of some of the comments.
Condos=property taxes. Even your boy David Miller gets that.
The copy displays a level of respect for language that's typical of real-estate agents: it describes the design as including “a central atria”.
Oh, joy! I'll have another order of adult lifestyle community, with a side of Starbucks. A little something to graze on while we brainstorm about how to re-purpose the Kensington Markets, Parkdales and so forth into something a little more, well, world-class - Like Yorkville!
Change is inevitable, and can be wonderful. Shallow greed-head developers who want to turn every structure built before 1965 into "authentic lofts", a city government that envisions The Matador as a parking lot for the YMCA, and trust-fund hipsters who think REAL Boho is being able to stagger home from The Drake (or whatever Ho' is hot this nano-instant) are NOT the stakeholders who represent my aspirations for a vibrant 21st-century Toronto.
For everything I love about it, this town often reminds me of that insecure kid in school who spent so much time trying to be someone else that they never realized how cool they really were, just as themselves.
bardo, what are your aspirations for a vibrant 21st century toronto? complaining doesn't count.
I find it interesting that nothing in the promotional material for this condo stated that the final congregation was the Centennial Japanese United and Toronto Japanese United who had used the church since the late 60s.
I personally have a strong emotional connection with this building as I grew up within its walls and was a place where my community met once a week. I was heartbroken when we were forced to sell this wonderful structure. I would have liked to have seen it used as something that would benefit the community like a theater, music hall, etc. This, however, is my bias because of the attachment I have to the church. I have fond memories finding secret rooms, going up to the roof and hiding in the room behind the organ pipes. Since January of last year, I've greatly missed 701 Dovercourt, but I'm satisfied too see that the exterior will be kept from the wrecking ball.
As an interesting fact, the house just south of the church was where Lester B Pearson grew up in when his father was the minister of the protestant church next door. No baroque crucifixes there.
Hey Everyone!
Now you too can take part in destroying whats left on Toronto's history...all for the low low price of $209-650 thousand!!!! Get out your checkbooks kids!
Well ronotoe, I respectfully differ. Complaining DOES count, especially in situations that are as egregious as this town's willingness to pimp itself out to developers.
Recognition of a problem and complaining are the FIRST steps in mobilization and action. They aren't SUFFICIENT by any means, but they ARE useful and neccessary.
Incidentally having picked up the NOW today and seeing the article on Kensington turning into Yorkville (coincidental paraphrase of what I wrote), it appears my post was at lease SOMEWHAT prescient in terms of people waking up to the danger that this type of situation poses to the fabric of the city - problem is, it's been going on for so long that it's like waking up when the house has been ablaze for a good long time and yelling "Fire!"
I think developers, yuppies, and Drakes ALL have their place in the urban ecology (just like raccoons, wasps, and mould ;o), but when a few species get out of hand and dominate, it has the same effects on a community that it does on a biosphere.
So, in long-windedly answering your question?
My vision of a vibrant 21st-century Toronto would be a community of dynamic balance with niches (physical, social, intellectual and economic space) for all the many species that live here and make it home.
If you REALLY want to learn more, well, yer on teh Internets - mount the Google and surf the tubes!
All the best.
Re. Bardo's comment above: units for 28 yuppies is hardly out of hand in the "urban ecological" context of the Bloorcourt area, and given the huge number of rental units across the road in the highrises, one could argue that residents of "The Church" will actually be balancing to the ecology. By the way, you can forget registering - the units are double oversubscribed, and have been since they were released. I live in the area and that is the word on the street. The developer also seems keen on restoring the stained glass windows, which the church had covered up with rather tacky plexiglas that has not aged well. Not sure how this is bad - at least the building is kept as part of the urban landscape instead of being torn down.
I thought that there was an agreement with the developer to preserve some of the interior features of the church, such as the Raymond Moriyama designed chaper on the upper floor, but I see no trace of it from the floor plans. Then again, from periodically seeing different for sale signs on this property, I surmise that it might have been flipped once before the current developers bought it?
I think you make some good points Nick, in so far as you're looking at the development in context (in this case the context of the neighbourhood if I understand you correctly).
In the context of scale that I see however, it's NOT a matter of JUST 28 units - it's a matter of 28 units x a gazillion, all over the downtown - Death by a thousand cuts.
It's also the context of TIME. Once that church is condo-ized, it's GONE, and with it the sense of community and place that it once embodied and could have, with the proper re-development, have embodied again.
Also on the subject of time, if those units were as heavily over-subscribed as you indicated, it's reasonable to posit that it's only a matter of time before yet MORE re-developments spring up in the neighbourhood, each maybe with "just" another 28 units.
It's a GOOD thing they're keeping the stained glass, but place is irreplaceable.
Might it be poetically neat if the Moriyama firm was enlisted as a consultant on this project. (Shades of the firm's supervision of the Japanese Cultural Centre's conversion into the Noor Cultural Centre.)
While we're on the subject, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the mammoth conversion happening with the Portuguese Seventh Day Adventist Church on College at Palmerston.
Say what you will about the Centenniel United project, but I think it can be argued that it gives back to the neighbourhood. Given its small-ish size, discrete location and the sheer scale of the apartment blocks across the street, simply retaining the structure (as opposed to losing it to knock-down) is a positive for the immediate area. I too would have preferred it to be a community centre, incubator for area start-up businesses, etc. But the price of the land under these small community churches just doesn't seem to make it a viable proposition anymore.
On the other hand, with the Seventh Day Adventist church, it is iconic and by far the biggest, most visible structure on that entire stretch of College. Given the needs of the area (overly-saturated with bars, lounges and restaurants), I think this was a real missed opportunity to re-purpose an old structure for maximum impact on a sensitive strip (as perhaps a stage theatre, arts centre, retail mall, etc.).
Too, the conspicuous and awkward juxtaposition of luxe condos in an area known for weekend partying is just another recipe for a showdown between condo owners and local businesses over noise levels. At least with the Cennteniel project, the new residents will have to assimilate to their new environs...and not attempt to have it the other way around.
The reason why the church is architecturally significant because it was supposed to pay tribute to the grand idea of attaining a higher state of existence (an afterlife) as a community. People came together decades ago and raised the funds to build it. Splitting it up into 28 units sold in a market is senseless given the history of the building. Jesus, after all, threw the money changers out the temple. Now, it's like the temple is theres. And yes, the United Church reads the New Testament.
In the same area an old school is being turned into all of 4 condos (from what I gathered) with starting prices between $500k and $1.4m...
@ Kevin Bracken:
a la Limelight NYC circa (no pun intended) 1980s? did anybody see party monster? good movie.
To answer to the title...No, nothing is sacred. It's all about the money.
Like in the mob-movies, when they say, "It's just business"... right before they shoot someone in the head...kinda like that.
"In the midst of Toronto's condo madness, it becomes clear that the only thing sacred is the almighty dollar. If a space can be broken up and parceled out, a developer will appear instantly to stake out the territory."
Uhhh, no. This is the story of a failed church that sold itself off.
If there weren't enough people that gave enough of a shit to keep the church going, then tough shit.
It's a nice architectural save of a nice looking building. That's all I care about.
2: Very surprising and disheartening to hear about the conversion of the Portugese Church up on College. It raises an interesting point about Condo-ization - time and again I hear about people buying condos in entertainment/club areas and then having a major melt-down because of the noise. If someone was going to drop that kind of cash to LIVE somewhere, wouldn't it make the teensiest sense on their part to check out what the neighbourhood is actually like? Do some research? Talk to the people that live and the business owners that operate there? Is it naivete? Arrogance? What kind of mindset at PLAY with that? I'm sincerely curious.
AR: Very poignant post about the rationale of building a church, and the moneychangers in the temple. Nice to hear from other people who think that there are some things that don't have a price tag.
$209,000 to 650,000 is a pretty normal price range. I don't understand why posters are getting all pissy about that, as if it's a crime to build places to live.
And if it were an ugly church, then it would/should have been torn down. It isn't, so it wasn't, and that's a good thing.
There is another church conversion in the works - the Victoria Presbyterian Church at the corner of Annette and Medland is being turned into 38 condo 'lofts'. All but a handful of the units were snapped up on the first day of sale.
Last week: auuuuugh! too many abandoned buildings in toronto! how dare the city take them over sans profit to the original owner!
This week: auuugh! how dare an owner of a building be able to sell it to someone wanting to make it viable and livable!
Also, Bardo, to suggest that Palmerston/College is anything like the Entertainment District and people who plan on living there "don't know what they're in for"...
I think the $1 million+ old school family houses on Palmerston, 400k+ starter home families of Little Italy, and oodles of elderly neighbours still doing their thing (from social hangouts with walkers and canes on Grace to non-stop parades for various Saints...) say different.
And I doubt that a luxury condo conversion will change this dynamic--if anything it'll make the area even more neighbourhoody and less clubby.
But wait.. sorry, is next week the week we complain about neighbourhoods and their pox on otherwise disconnected and polarized populations?
Well Paigesix, I'm not sure I understand all your points, but I'll do my best to respond. If I mis-understand you in any material regard, please feel free to correct me.
The first two sentences of your post revolve around the words "abandoned", "profit", "viable" and "livable". Profit has its place, something I alluded to in my earlier post. However, should the market be the deciding factor in everything, especially something taht we all have a stake in - the neighbourhoods where we live? I would argue for balance, and right now, there isn't any.
"Abandoned" - Well, it wasn't abandoned. It simply wasn't in use at the MOMENT. What opportunities were there given for other potential players like community groups, co-ops, artist collectives, non-profits, or *gasp* affordable housing coalitions to have a go at the space? Maybe some, maybe NONE, and maybe not enough such groups had the vision or the interest. I for one would be fascinated to learn more about how these sales are decided upon and made.
Thirdly, livability and viability. It was originally another poster that indicated the number of bars and restaurants in the area. I did not intend to compare Palmerston/College to the "entertainment district", however I can see how you MIGHT have taken it that way (with a bit of a stretch, IMHO). At the same time however, the area in question DOES, as the previous poster pointed out, have a substantial number of restaurants, pubs, bars, and general night-lifey type venues in the area.
Time and again both in Toronto and elsewhere (Seattle and NYC, two places outside Toronto I know of for sure), people have moved into condos in these types of areas and then thrown major hissy-fits about the general ambiance of the place. This will continue to happen. Not ALWAYS, but enough to make me wonder WTF is up with people, so my original question remains open.
College/Palmerston IS a lovely viable neighbourhood, and you may ultimately be correct in your opinion that the condo development may end up ADDING to the diversity of the neighbourhood. But there are already OTHER condo developments quite close by, and I would contend the neighbourhood could have been made even MORE diverse by a different re-purposing of the space.
Oh - and I hope you appreciate the irony of you're complaining about me complaining - Thanks for your input :o)