Saturday, May 26, 2012Mostly Cloudy 22°C
City

Kyle Rae expresses concern over Gould Street demolition

Posted by Staff / April 18, 2010

Kyle RaeAfter following the coverage of the Gould Street wall collapse on Friday, I decided to make way down to 335 Yonge Street to take a look at the state of the building for myself. I was fortunate (if you can call it that) to arrive just as construction crews were tearing down a large chunk of the building's façade, apparently for safety reasons.

Crews were smashing it with a large crane-like machine, and the old building looked like it was about to collapse entirely. A nearby police officer did, however, reassure me that it wouldn't and that only loose segments of the wall were in danger of falling.

Gould Street Wall CollapseThere was a sizable crowd at Yonge, watching as large pieces of the building came crashing down to the street. The mood was that of calm curiosity, with a hint of excitement every time a large segment fell.

But Kyle Rae, city councillor for Ward 27, was not very happy as he watched the construction crew. "I would have preferred this being a more informed process," he told me.

"A heritage architect should have been onsite, with building plans...someone with far more knowledge than someone with a demolition machine."

"There's no perspective for preserving heritage among this group of people," he said, as he waved towards the crew.

Rae secured a heritage grant for the owner of the building three years ago to fix the building's façade, but he said that the owner never took it.

Gould Street DemolitionWhat's more surprising is that a building on one of our city's busiest streets could be in such bad shape. I never made point to look at it closely, but when I did today, I noticed how dilapidated it looked--maybe that should have raised an eyebrow somewhere.

It remains unclear what will happen to the building as crews work to address the threat it poses to public safety, but it's not tough to see Rae's point. Despite its state of disrepair, it'd be nice to see steps taken to preserve what remains of the historic facade.

Writing, photography and video by Tomasz Bugajski.

Discussion

28 Comments

N / April 18, 2010 at 10:35 am
user-pic
I hope the owner gets sued for this disaster. They were probably just sitting on a property waiting for a developer to come and buy the building (well, just the lot)
Richard S / April 18, 2010 at 11:07 am
user-pic
So what's going to happen? Is the entire building going to get torn down (including Salad King, Tatami, Urban Behaviour and Wanda's Waffles)? And what happens to those businesses? Do they get some sort of compensation or at they totally screwed?
jameson / April 18, 2010 at 11:40 am
user-pic
An interesting way to get a building demolished to make way for a higher density! I wonder what the Toronto is going to do here, I'm not very informed on the power of a municipality to sue land owners, but I know that the City of Edmonton had a tricky situation regarding a heritage theatre and the court case was held up for years and in the end it simply became zoned as a hold (a fancy word for a parking lot). I wonder what Ryerson is going to do...they should have first dibs on the property.
gadfly replying to a comment from Richard S / April 18, 2010 at 01:27 pm
user-pic
It's called 'loss of business' insurance and all businesses (should!) carry it for exactly this type of unforseen hazard. That's the beauty of 'row type' buildings: if your neighbor doesn't maintain their side, or if there are unforseen issues, then the neighbors pay for it, too.
We should not be jumping the gun here until the engineers have a chance to look over the site. Everyone is so quick to suspect foul play! Old buildings are, well, OLD! They were built to different specs and refurbishments don't always account for all the deficiencies. Let's just see how this plays out, and be happy that no one was hurt or killed, like when the Backstage Theatre was being torn down a few years back.....
John / April 18, 2010 at 02:55 pm
user-pic
Quick to suspect foul play for sure. I don't think it seems likely that the owners would want to tear down a sizable, perfectly good building that can command high rents on a major street, with several profitable businesses iside.

It's more likely that the owners (a Mumbai-based company called Lalani Group) just don't give a shit about heritage considerations, and let the building be altered and abused until an accident like this was inevitable.

Hopefully the city can force Lalani to pony up to repair and restore this building, which will obviously cost a lot more now than if they'd just taken care of it all along. And hopefully this is a wake-up call for the future.
I'm Just Saying... replying to a comment from jameson / April 18, 2010 at 03:12 pm
user-pic
Why should Ryerson have first dibs on a property that is one one of Toronto's busiest shopping streets? I can't seem to follow or find your line of reasoning.
RG / April 18, 2010 at 03:40 pm
user-pic
This fine old building has been rotting for years. Another piece of Toronto's irreplaceable heritage gone. Typical for this soulless metropolis.
S / April 18, 2010 at 04:23 pm
user-pic
I'm sure miller will line his pockets and approve yet another condo at this location.
concerned about yyz heritage / April 18, 2010 at 04:58 pm
user-pic
Looks as though there was work done from inside the building that compromised the exterior, as shown in the second image. The owners should be fined for not taking care of a building that points to our past as opposed to our future. There is so little in Toronto that gives us a sense of heritage. More and more the waterfront looks like Hong Kong and no one seems to be strong enough, or concerned enough, to stop the demolition of the meagre signs of what this city once was. Who's in bed with whom at City Hall? Someone's certainly asleep at the controls as developers run rampant all over this city turning it into a urban concentration of glassy towers aka condos. When will the wake up call sound? Who will respond? Or will it be too late and no one will remember?
jameson replying to a comment from I'm Just Saying... / April 18, 2010 at 01:15 pm
user-pic
Perhaps you didn't notice that the area isn't on Yonge but on Gould Street, and Ryerson's pushed (received a trial period) to close Gould St for pedestrian access only. Ryerson has very little space in the downtown area, and brings thousands of students to the campus everyday, wouldn't you rather see an long-term institutional building rather than another hot-dog store?
It's possible to have both replying to a comment from I'm Just Saying... / April 18, 2010 at 08:17 pm
user-pic
case in point: the ted rogers school of management.
David / April 18, 2010 at 08:34 pm
user-pic
It wasn't a heritage building as the owner never took the grant offered. So I guess the taxpayer can piss off and buy their own building.

Quoting "Rae secured a heritage grant for the owner of the building three years ago to fix the building's façade, but he said that the owner never took it."

As far as this building the owner can do what he wants, when he wants including creating a parking lot or a condo to park your assets... Gee what a bunch of whining socialists!
Lori / April 18, 2010 at 09:16 pm
user-pic
This is gonna sound stupid but I pray the company in charge of this buildings upkeep fixes this and soon. I would loathe seeing another condo for rich people only being built.
Adam Sobolak / April 18, 2010 at 09:29 pm
user-pic
David: from the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties...

======================
Address: 335 YONGE ST

Ward: 27
Status: Listed
List Date: Mar 15, 1974
Intention Date:
By-Law: N/A
Part IV Date:
Part V Date:
Heritage District: N/A
District Status: N/A
Heritage Easement Ag:
Registration Date:
Building Type: Residential
Architect/Builder:
Construction Yr.:
Details: William Reynolds Block, 1888, (including Empress Hotel) at Gould St. (SE) -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
Demolition Date:
Primary Address: 335 YONGE ST
=======================

So, it's got some kind of heritage status, whether you, or the owner, likes it or not. Better a whining socialist than a lying sleazebag...
seanm / April 18, 2010 at 09:37 pm
user-pic
While they're at it, that demo crew should take down Toronto Life Square in all its abysmal glory.

This building is listed on the heritage property inventory, so I'm sure it won't be torn down completely. I can't see a condo being slapped up here either, I don't even think this block is zoned for residential. Hopefully the building owners are forced to completely restore it, as well as I hope to see this event setting a precedent for the rest of Yonge Street's rotting heritage properties.
John replying to a comment from seanm / April 18, 2010 at 10:17 pm
user-pic
Agreed.
emmay / April 18, 2010 at 10:40 pm
user-pic
Ryerson is busting at the seams. I think it would favour them greatly to get another space that is essentially already on campus. Unfortunately with this incident, I'm assuming the construction of the new student centre located where Sam the Record Man was is going to be delayed even further. Bummer.
Thomas / April 19, 2010 at 12:57 am
user-pic
shame on t.o. I could have envisioned a wonderful Ryerson grad student centre in there. But neither S.Levy nor the owners from Lala land seem to be working on that kind of solution.

Get excited Torontonians, for the time is near when the big bu77 comes along and squeezes out another blob of concrete beauty!

but judging from the pics above, I'm astonished this brick shithouse didn't collapse earlier
David / April 19, 2010 at 06:51 am
user-pic
Re: Adam "So, it's got some kind of heritage status, whether you, or the owner, likes it or not."

My understanding is that being "identified and listed" as a heritage property is not the same as actually being designated as a heritage site.

While many buildings are identified as having a historical significance, unless there is an agreement put in place it is not designated as such.

So the taxpayers did not pay for the maintenance and restoration of the property nor are they willing to.(nor should they in my mind but that is just my humble opinion)

Everything is for sale at the right price... even buildings with slightly damaged facades.

Therefore if they never put up they should shut up!

Adam Sobolak / April 19, 2010 at 07:39 am
user-pic
David: you're being an apologist for slumlord practices. That's like being an apologist for Rob Ford's approach to marital relations.
jameson / April 19, 2010 at 08:26 am
user-pic
I don't think any price on the open-market would reflect Ryerson's need for downtown campus space. If this particular spot was put on the market there's no way that a public institution such as Ryerson could win out to a billion dollar developer, that means the students (education is a guaranteed necessity) and the general public would lose. It's a perfect example of public intervention for the benefit of the public good. I wonder what will happen..
David / April 19, 2010 at 09:31 am
user-pic
Re:Adam Actually I am not defending the practices of anyone. Merely noting that the taxpayer seem to have money for everything including $50 million dollars for a restaurant at city hall.

Meanwhile everywhere the city owned infrastructure is certainly crumbling...if public transit wasn't installed prior to this generation...we'd be walking!

We should not throw stones when we live in a glass house...
Mark Dowling / April 19, 2010 at 09:46 am
user-pic
Aren't we all lucky Councillor Rae wasn't on holiday when this happened, like during the City Strike.
abc123 / April 19, 2010 at 10:59 am
user-pic
What a tragedy. There is no such thing as heritage preservation in this city - merely the appearance of it.
andy / April 19, 2010 at 11:17 am
user-pic
I am a Ryerson University student.I walk by that building a couple of times everyday right on the side of where the wall callapse. My new bike was damaged in the tragedy and removed from the site without any notice. I am wondering where I can get compensation for my bike. who can give me some suggestions
rick mcginnis replying to a comment from Adam Sobolak / April 19, 2010 at 11:18 am
user-pic
Adam - come one, you know better than anybody that listing on the city's inventory of heritage properties means almost nothing in practice. I'm sure you can count off the top of your head buildings that were once on that list and have disappeared.
Adam Sobolak / April 19, 2010 at 09:12 pm
user-pic
Of course--but it's still, as per my words, "some kind of heritage status". It's not quite the same as David's statement "It wasn't a heritage building".

And look: we've been through this before with something with even *less* heritage status upon its moment of fate: the 7 Austin Terrace disfigurement-in-preparation-for-demolition-and-weaseling-out-of-heritage-status-in-the-books last year. All technical legality aside, the property owners wound up looking so low on the neighbourhood-ethics scale, the *province*--with a little prodding from the mayor--took action (and with a then-culture minister with an otherwise-record of leadfootedness on heritage issues, yet.

So, maybe this pointy-headed heritage business is a means of soaking internet-comment-troll taxpayers like David until they can't afford their beer and hookers anymore and have to R. Budd Dwyer themselves out of their misery--a kind of "reverse personal slumlording", if you will. Them's the breaks...
harijs / April 21, 2010 at 04:56 pm
user-pic
Why must we destroy old buildings? I know that by european standards that these are not old... but I still think we should preserve what we have. They have character, which new buildings dont.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal