Toronto trying to protect its heritage while building for the future

The balancing act between designating buildings as heritage properties and altering or demolishing them has proven to be a tricky task for the city. Mark McAllister looks at some examples and finds out what go into the decisions.

[@John.F_Kennedy]

My left ear feels left out

[@stevenchow408]

I say we have imput from the people not just from the developers

[@tobypowers8529]

There should be a city law passed that requires these buildings not be torn down and incorporated if they are older than a certain age.

[@B.D.F.]

Why? Not every building is worth keeping forever.

[@tobypowers8529]

Because it's completely destroying the architectural character and integrity of the city. Is it really that hard to incorporate 100 yr old buildings into a new building concept?

[@user72974]

​@@tobypowers8529 What is "character" though? 100 years ago, were these buildings replacing something that the people at the time felt had character? Let cities grow old, changing as they do, just like people do.

[@tobypowers8529]

@@user72974 What is character? You tell me. Does Paris have any character? Or London? Is some of it related to architecture? Why do you think after WW2 they built the city exactly like it was before it was destroyed? Because they wanted it to have the same character. There's a reason why these cities have an appeal, due to the architectural character. Toronto has leveled the entire area east of downtown and other areas too and now going after entire city blocks throughout the city to put up monstrosities. It's time the city passes a law requiring builders to incorporate old buildings.

[@anotheran]

Do what ROM did, build on top and have horrid structures just poke out

[@remipelletier9033]

Since when does Toronto care about its heritage??

[@Ynalaw]

The earth was repopulated in the 1840s and these free works of masonry are anachronisms and threaten the official narrative. These buildings are carry-over era buildings. This is why its mandatory they slowly destroy them. The Waldorf Hotel in New York was a good example. Its was too advanced and pristine for people of our pre-elevator, pre- advanced construction technique era.

[@PWingert1966]

Depends on how much money you can bribe them to pass it!

[@randkorp2003]

If they truly cared about it, they wouldn't be importing millions and selling the country to the highest bidder

[@JB-fv6vx]

the last twenty years of ferocious development would have made the city way more disorienting to live in if they had not kept as many facades as they did. Sure "facadism" is a bit of a band-aid solution but asking people to live in and survive the complete rebuilding of their environment is cruel (and there's a reason we often rebuild things as they were after total destruction from wars or disasters).

[@PWingert1966]

As it is I have lost most of my visual navigation landmarks for myself and for giving other directions to get to places. I can no longer tell someone to turn left at the Chinese restaurant on the corner then drive past the pharmacy and the vintage clothing stores till you get to the third alleyway and go down there to the parking in the rear of the building for example. The entire block of buildings has been demolished leaving a contemporary metal and glass-clad building with no identifiable characteristics and empty retail space to describe it for route finding and navigation.

[@jayflock7446]

good, save this city's history

[@PWingert1966]

But you should allow historic buildings to grow, change and develop while respecting the original character, materials and construction methods used in their creation that an organic evolution should produce.

[@jayflock7446]

@@PWingert1966agreed