Today Sun Mon
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
27°/17°		 It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Chance of Rain
26°/20°		 It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 28, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
32°/20°

11 Comments

news

Polling Booth: Relocating Historic Architecture

By Marc Lostracco


As mentioned in today’s Newsstand, a historic brick structure built in 1869 is set to be moved down the street to make way for a huge condo tower and 388-spot parking garage. The justification is that no similar buildings abut the site, which is partially true: 104 John Street is surrounded by nothing but ugly parking lots already—yet cater-corner from the structure is a row of beautiful historic brick houses, now used primarily as restaurants and clubs. Then again, across the street is a tacky Hooters and an unbecoming Green+Ross garage. Most of the neighbourhood’s former beauty has already been obliterated, and the 104 John Street structure may find a more visually appropriate home, but money talks when it comes to City council and the restaurant sits on prime real estate. A dense condo tower with better streetscape amenities is probably more useful than a plain of parking spots at grade. Still, we can imagine an architecturally interesting plan where a tower is built around it rather than picking up 104 John and dumping it elsewhere. If and when that happens, however, you can count on Torontoist to document the move.

Filed under: , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://undefined mark.

    I appreciate the effort here, but I believe each building and proposal needs to be looked at individually. Sometimes it makes sense to move a building, sometimes a building doesn’t make sense elsewhere. With this specific instance, I think those row houses are the only thing good about the whole corner, they’re being used now (not abandoned) and should be left. I’d rather the Hooters be bulldozed for the new condos.

  • http://undefined Peter K

    I resent that. There is nothing tacky about a Hooters.

  • http://undefined David Toronto

    Campbell House, which sits on the south lawn of Canada Life’s property at University Ave. and Queen Street, was
    moved to that site in the early 1970s.
    It’s better off where it is now than where it was.
    This whole matter of demolition/relocation should be looked at on a case by case basis.
    The house has been there since about 1868 and I believe it should stay there and the condo developer move elsewhere.
    Too few special buildings remain and we need to be mindful about their gradual disappearance. From the well-kept nature of it, it looks to be sound and it’s pleasing to the eyes.
    Keep this one where it is and let the parvenu arrivistes go elsewhere.

  • Pan Von Sol

    More condo’s in the entertainment district? This will end well…

  • http://torontoist.is.not.nickwarzin.com/blog tapesonthefloor

    For those interested, here’s the Urban Toronto thread on this development:
    http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=6484
    Here’s a rendering, showing the new location of 104 John:
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/4137755753_2f14ecdf17_o.jpg

  • http://undefined mark.

    Not saying anything about “a” Hooters – it’s this one that’s terrible. Street View it and be prepared to barf.

  • http://undefined Marc Lostracco

    Well, Hooters’ slogan is “delightfully tacky, yet unrefined,” after all.
    Where else can you find ’80s-style gym shorts combined with pantyhose?

  • http://undefined Peter K

    Fair point

  • Adam Sobolak

    Re Campbell House, it’s debatable whether “it’s better off where it is now than where it was”–at most, we’re “used to it”. But I reckon that these days, by far the stronger heritage argument would be to keep Campbell in situ–forming, with the Bank of Upper Canada and First Post Office to the west, a true “heritage streetscape”. Indeed, there’d be a stronger anti-move case there than there is on behalf of 104 John.

  • rek

    D. All of the above?
    If the only way to save a building is to move it, then move it. If you can save it without inching it down the street, then let it sit and build around it. And if keeping the façade is the only way any part of it will remain, then do that. The alternative is demo by neglect. Anything beats tearing it down (or letting it fall down) just because it’s old.

  • http://undefined little_potato

    I do think moving is better that than demolishing everything but the façade and calling it preservation. But I agree with the first commenter that sometimes a building doesn’t make sense anywhere else; the location is sometimes part of the history and moving it would destroy the history and makes the move pointless.