Torontoist: Tall Saint

jayzie1

Mon, 26 May 2008 14:52:21 -0500

Sorry Rajio, but I think you might be wrong... According to this article in the Globe & Mail, various groups have been trying to save those buildings for almost 20 years. It just happened that the City didn't agree and the developer had millions to give to Vic College. So, in the grand scheme of things...ordinary citizens have little chance to save buildings of (perceived) merit. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080503.CHARLES03/TPStory/?query=goodbye+victorian+holdouts

sonyactivision

Mon, 26 May 2008 12:34:50 -0500

It ain't pretty but it's Darwinism in action. The condo species is simply mightier and more predatory than the historical house. Only time will tell if a new superpredator megacondo will arrive and clear away The St Thomas like so much chaff. Observers are maintaining their keen watch on the horizon.

Rajio

Mon, 26 May 2008 11:25:34 -0500

Jayzie1 thats 100% wrong. If you identify a heritage building and petition the city to give it heritage designation then you can save the building. These buildings did not get designated as heritage sites because evidently nobody thought much of their value as such, though now that they're gone its a cue to the arm chair heritage quarterbacks to come out to play. There was plenty of warning that these were getting taken down. They'd been vacant and boarded up for ages. When new developments are being proposed theres community consultation built in to the process too. another opportunity to speak up.

jayzie1

Mon, 26 May 2008 11:00:17 -0500

And exactly how is an ordinary citizen supposed to save the ones we have? No amount of community objections, petitions, etc. carry any weight vs. the millions of dollars developers contribute to city coffers. There's really quite little us "arm chair heritage quarterbacks" can do in these situations except lament the loss of yet another piece of Toronto history.

kaiserhead

Sun, 25 May 2008 23:47:21 -0500

Nothing irks me more than arm chair heritage quarterbacks! If you really want to save Toronto's buildings, stop complaining about the ones that have been lost and start identifying and saving the ones we still have.

PickleToes

Sun, 25 May 2008 02:47:51 -0500

David: Sorry, I didn't notice the sticker.

TokyoTuds

Sat, 24 May 2008 21:40:45 -0500

I am torn between preservation and increasing density in urban areas. The risk is that most new developments do not treat "the street below it with reverence", and the city needs to insure this and enforce sound by-laws. Does anyone agree or disagree with me that infill development like 217. St. George Street is well done? The developer bought 2 Victorians side by side, kept them, built a 4 storey condo across the back of the property, and integrated the Victorians with many units actually in the old dames. http://tinyurl.com/5afdjq Near the above site on St. Thomas, did the Windsor Hotel not also preserve the original building? Cheers, Tuds

David Topping

Sat, 24 May 2008 19:55:37 -0500

The tag refers more to the "DON'T DO IT" sticker than anything else.

PickleToes

Sat, 24 May 2008 19:49:59 -0500

I find this article's categorization under "vandals!" to be rather contentious. When the owners of a piece of private property decide to alter it or rearrange it in some fashion Torontoist calls it vandalism. Why is that?

Jenelle Rupchand

Sat, 24 May 2008 14:39:14 -0500

Demolition is ridiculously, ridiculously wasteful.

sniderscion

Sat, 24 May 2008 14:17:17 -0500

Great article; I didn't know the background when I took my shots; just that it was a crying shame that something hideous would soon take the place of these wonderful old homes. Glad I got the images that I did. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sniderscion/2384232612/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sniderscion/2385595801 I reposted to the pool.

Rajio

Sat, 24 May 2008 13:56:22 -0500

Oh come on, those houses werent great, or architecturally/historically sigificant in any way other than just being old. Are we never going to demolish anything anywhere in Toronto? by all means, lets just keep going with urban sprawl instead. ...and whats so bad about Condominiums in this area with many such buildings? Just think, in a generation or 3, people will be trying to preserve them just like you're lamenting the fate of the houses that once stood there. If you loved them so much, why haven't you got any photos of them before demolition? Sorry guys, we can't keep everything forever just because its old.

Jkai

Sat, 24 May 2008 13:33:51 -0500

http://www.flickr.com/photos/inventor_77/417926007/in/photostream/

Jkai

Sat, 24 May 2008 13:33:01 -0500

Urban tragedy, indeed. It's not like we couldn't see this coming though..

AR

Sat, 24 May 2008 12:55:09 -0500

At least with this building, they're not replacing historical Victorians with false-historical architecture like the One St. Thomas. Imagine destroying heritage buildings like these, and then putting up a tower with historical cues that have nothing to do with the actual history of the site. That is ludicrous, but it actually happens.