Blane Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 (edited) edit: never mind, wrong shop...My buddy lives at King and Bathurst, I'm guessing he got pretty smoked out. Edited February 20, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I'm at work right now at the former Chum building and I can smell the remenants of the fire in the hallways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Hickster Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Well as for a Heritage Loss hopefully they will get some Wonderful Heritage Stone Masons in there to restore the brink and stone buildings haha and I seen it this morning when I was at the top of the Scotish Tower at Casa Loma and was like "Wow Toronto is producing alot of smog and other gasses today, Then I was like WOW Thast not anything normal!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Toronto's identity and history has been dying by 1000 cuts for the past 40 years. You can add ten more cuts after today's fire. I'm sad and sickened by today's events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Hickster Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I agree with you 100% Jaimoe, Toronto is a wonderful city filled with much heritage(being quite young in the grand picture) and it seems like Toronto doesnt want to embrase the heritage and is soon off to find the NEW, thing, I love heritage and enjoy embrasing it, being as its my trade in all, I hope Toronto relaises wht history it has and keeps it for another 100 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomson Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 In addition to the obvious damage and the heritage losses it is a huge blow to independent business in T.O. That block hosted a diverse & vibrant group of local, independent businesses and managed to resist the corporate gentrification that seemed to have occurred both to the east and west of it. Hopefully that can be recreated in the reconstruction but small businesses generally can't bounce back as easily after events like this.It's a blessing no one was injured or killed. Makes the whole affair somewhat easier to cope with and move on from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Adam Vaughan said that the block is designated as a heritage site, thus when new construction begins, it has to adhere to the zoning and heritage design of the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 was Rotate This damaged? it's right across the street from what I gather. anyone know? that's a cool area. shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LXQ42 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 The drug lab scenario as of 5:00pm has not been ruled out.Jupiter? Rotate This is on the other side of bathurst st...so I think it's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 the block is designated as a heritage site, thus when new construction begins, it has to adhere to the zoning and heritage design of the area.is that true? when a heritage building in ottawa collapsed in october there was a lot of debate about this - yes, the heritage act means that preservation / restoration / renovation has to comply with the rough heritage design of the building, but i think it was resolved that rebuilding was a grey area.... if anyone knows something definitive that would be great. i tried to read the heritage act but it's all legalese to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 same thing in Guelph. an historic building downtown burned down in the Fall, and while they tried to save some of the structure during rebuilding, they couldn't do it safely. from what i understand, the owners are basically free to do what they want now. also, during renovations to the old guelph arena which city hall is now expanding into, council decided to keep one old stone wall - about 70 ft long and 2 storeys high. originally estimated at $1M, the cost of saving that wall has skyrocketed to well over $2M. so, as much as people may want to save old stuff, or rebuild in a similar style, its often cost prohibitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Walmart would be able to afford rebuilding in the old style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 the block is designated as a heritage site' date=' thus when new construction begins, it has to adhere to the zoning and heritage design of the area.[/quote']is that true? when a heritage building in ottawa collapsed in october there was a lot of debate about this - yes, the heritage act means that preservation / restoration / renovation has to comply with the rough heritage design of the building, but i think it was resolved that rebuilding was a grey area.... if anyone knows something definitive that would be great. i tried to read the heritage act but it's all legalese to me.Key things Vaughan said was that the entire block is a heritage site, not just a few buildings. Thus, he said that anything that is rebuilt has to comply with the heritage of the block. I hope to fucking god he's right. What we don't need is another Queen Street West, University to Spadina raise, destroy and build a gentrified piece of glass and steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 What we don't need is another Queen Street West, University to Spadina raise, destroy and build a gentrified piece of glass and steel.there are 3 heritage buildings/areas in that area you mention according to this document but yes, would be sad to see newish-ugly stuff built. hopefully different styles can co-exist if it comes to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanada Kev Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I heard one of the owners of Duke Cycle on CBC this morning and he says they plan on reopening the store on the same spot. The Duke family owned their building (the one that completely collapsed) so it should be interesting to watch what happens.I'd hate to think that this was some developer's way of circumventing the heritage site restrictions for some closet-condo tower to spring up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I heard one of the owners of Duke Cycle on CBC this morning and he says they plan on reopening the store on the same spot. The Duke family owned their building (the one that completely collapsed) so it should be interesting to watch what happens.I'd hate to think that this was some developer's way of circumventing the heritage site restrictions for some closet-condo tower to spring up.I think developers should be held criminally responsible when they destroy or significantly alter old and historic buildings, like they are in England. And why couldn't a Wal-Mart, Shopper's or a Home Depot burn down instead of old buildings. If only to dream... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 just to play devil's advocate here who the fuck are you people to tell someone else they have to spend an extra few million dollars to rebuild a burned out building, just so you dont have to look at steel and glass? that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I think developers should be held criminally responsible when they destroy or significantly alter old and historic buildings, like they are in England. hence the heritage act and numerous parts of criminal law, such as arson, insurance fraud, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I think developers should be held criminally responsible when they destroy or significantly alter old and historic buildings' date=' like they are in England. [/quote']hence the heritage act and numerous parts of criminal law, such as arson, insurance fraud, etc.The heritage act is relatively new and doesn't have a lot of teeth. Also, the OMB should be disbanded and cities should have the power to control what gets built and saved. There are few cities in this country that aren't threatened, heritage/history wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 well, you want to make altering heritage buildings a criminal act, and im not sure i agree with that.... sure it can be a drag but prison and all that, for questionable (to some) architecture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 well, you want to make altering heritage buildings a criminal act, and im not sure i agree with that.... sure it can be a drag but prison and all that, for questionable (to some) architecture? Not at all. I love the MARS development at the corner of College and University in Toronto. Some altering works, but more times than not a hack developer promises to keep part of the heritage and all that is left is a small chunk of the facade. The outside of a building is one thing, but most are just as good in the inside. How great would you feel as a Canadian if Old City Hall was raized (like it almost was) in order to expand the Eaton Centre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 well, you want to make altering heritage buildings a criminal act, and im not sure i agree with that.... i think it's ridiculous. but, im sure Jaimoe was exagerating to make a point. I hope he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 well' date=' you want to make altering heritage buildings a criminal act, and im not sure i agree with that.... [/quote']i think it's ridiculous. but, im sure Jaimoe was exagerating to make a point. I hope he was. Destroying a heritage building should be a criminal act, like it is in many parts of the world that actually embrace history. Altering is too grey for charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 How great would you feel as a Canadian if Old City Hall was raised (like it almost was) in order to expand the Eaton Centre?One minor word nit: I think the word you wanted there is actually razed.Aloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimoe Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 BTW, another store that was lost in the fire was the great Suspect Video. There's not a finer video store in the city, including Bay Street Video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now