Victoria Lofts | Church Conversion | Toronto

[The 'Sauga]

http://www.victorialofts.ca/index.php

http://www.victorialofts.ca/images/gallery_current/01_BIG.jpg

http://www.victorialofts.ca/images/gallery_current/04_BIG.jpg

[Taller, Better]

It is just me, personally... but I could never live in an old church.

[avatar_re]

It is just me, personally... but I could never live in an old church.

I feel the same way. Gives me the creeps.

[Dream Brother]

I feel the same way. Gives me the creeps.

What's creepy about a church?

[Taller, Better]

Well, nothing creepy about a church when it is a church... but when it is deconsecrated, and turned into a residence or a business, I find it creepy... epecially if they leave in the stained glass windows. It feels like a church, and the old wood smells like a church... I used to feel very ill at ease at LimeLight, a
dance club in NYC.
Not my cup of tea to live in.

[noob(but not really)]

I agree, it is a little creepy.

I think that since it's being converted :lol: into lofts, they should really downplay the churchy look of it.

[Taller, Better]

^^ agreed. I wonder what the general consensus is in the public about living in an old church?

[noob(but not really)]

^^ That would make a good poll question.

Maybe in citytalk and urban issues.

[Dream Brother]

I would find it creepier to live in a converted bath house.

[Taller, Better]

Well.... my creepy feelings stem from good experiences in Church as a youth. It is a very personal thing, but I just find it a bit disrespectful to the people who worked so hard and did without in the old days to build these churches as a labour of love. I think ideally the best use for a church is a church.
I have no idea what causes your fear of converted bathouses, but it is probably better that I don't.

[urban_grace]

Very risky buying into a place like this.............not sure there'ld be much of a market for it if the owner decided to sell.

They should have converted it into a library or community centre or some sort of public building.

[noob(but not really)]

I'd even go far enough to say they should've torn it down.

I mean, this building wasn't even that old anyway.

[ONE HUMAN]

I'd even go far enough to say they should've torn it down.

I mean, this building wasn't even that old anyway.

Are you serious? It's over 120 years old. How old does it need to be? And if it was torn down, do you really think something more architecturally interesting would be constructed in its place? I think not.

Maybe you need to read my post in the "Potential Move of Toronto Coach Bus Terminal" topic concerning the demise of Walnut Hall for some perspective: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=15135626#post15135626

.....

And here's some more info...


Victoria lofts
High Park
Lisa Van de Ven, National Post
Published: Saturday, September 01, 2007

Price range: $200,000 to the $800,000s

Location: Annette Street and High Park Avenue

Featuring just 38 units, Victoria Lofts is a new boutique conversion project by Triumphal Developments. The developer will convert the existing Victoria Presbyterian Church in the High Park neighbourhood into a con-dominium loft project, integrating some of the original features of the 120-year-old church and attached Sunday school into the suites themselves. The building is surrounded by century homes and close to the amenities of Bloor West Village.

Builder/developer Triumphal Developments Inc. Building Three storeys Suites One-bedroom, one-bedroom-plus-den, two-bedroom and two-bedroom-plus-den units Size 600 to more than 2,000 square feet Occupancy Spring, 2009 Target market A mixed group of buyers, largely familiar with the local area, including younger purchasers and others downsizing from within the neighbourhood

Features Suites will have European-style cabinetry, quartz countertops, wood flooring and energy-efficient stainless steel appliances. Amenities The project will have a multi-purpose room, and High Park, the subway and the shops and restaurants of Bloor West Village are close by. Standouts Each suite will be unique, integrating the original features and layout of the church itself, with curved brick walls, original beams and other features from the original building. Sales office The site is currently in pre-registration. Call 416-604-2719 or visit victorialofts.ca.

© National Post 2007

[ONE HUMAN]

From the National Post: http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/07/14/our-lady-of-perpetual-development.aspx

Our lady of perpetual development
Anna Sharrat writes on the next trend in real estate development, converting churches to condos. From the Toronto magazine:

http://spmedia.canada.com/gallery/00posted/0714church.jpg

"It's got 12-foot ceilings and the light is beautiful," Sue Bailey assures me with the slick conviction of a bible-belt preacher. Bailey, a sales representative for Stinson Properties, is describing Roncesvalles Village's newest condo development, High Park Lofts, a 93-suite project where units range from $ 259,000 to $699,000. Check out its Web site, and you'll find the interior atrium garden described as having a " cathedral-like" ambiance, and be able to peruse photos of uber-trendy Roncy. But this development isn't just another Toronto condo project. High Park Lofts is the latest incarnation of the Anglican church formerly known as St. Jude's.

Across Toronto, churches are putting their buildings up for sale, and developers are swooping in with ecumenical zeal, converting century-old buildings into condo developments or reducing them to rubble: Riverdale Presbyterian, at Pape and Danforth avenues, is now Glebe Lofts. The Anglican church of St. Mary the Virgin and St. Cyprian, at Westmoreland Avenue and Bloor Street, has been transmogrified as Westmoreland Lofts. Howard Park Pentecostal, at the corner
of Sunnyside and Howard Park avenues, is now a 24-unit development called the Abbey. And Willoughby Baptist, at Indian Road and Annette Street, has been razed to make way for four townhouses.

Not surprisingly, many of these churches had historical designations under the Ontario Heritage Act, which is intended to preserve such properties or at least their architecturally significant characteristics. But that doesn't ensure a structure's survival. After Heritage Preservation Services grants a historical designation, a new owner who is not interested in preserving a building can take his case to the Conservation Review Board, which can still approve a demolition. If that doesn't succeed, he can appeal the decision with the Ontario Municipal Board.

Gib Goodfellow, president of the West Toronto Junction Historical Society, believes the OMB's panel of judges favours the developers and that a heritage designation merely "slows a developer down for six months while he consults with the community. They can do what they want with it after six months."

The OMB is well-acquainted with taking heat from residents' groups -- it has a reputation for approving condo projects despite neighbourhood opposition. This past January, for example, it gave the green light to three large condo developments on trendy Queen Street West, a move that outraged locals who object to the buildings' size and density. One of the projects, the Bohemian Embassy, will feature 345 suites in a 19-storey tower in the low-rise area of Queen Street and Dufferin Avenue.

Joe Whitehead, advisor to Ali Arlani, the chief executive of the OMB, says the board is unfairly portrayed as being development-friendly. " Do developers have more money than some of the other groups? Certainly they do. But people have the right to attend hearings and present evidence. There's an appeal option."

But Michael Walker, city councillor for St. Paul's doesn't buy that. The way to save heritage buildings is to create new laws, he says: " We need heritage legislation that allows the municipality to make a decision that's final: no appeal." He says if a building is historically designated, a developer should be prohibited from demolishing the structure -- case closed -- without recourse to the OMB.

St. Jude's, named for the patron saint of lost causes, is a good example of how a property goes from church to condominium. A deconsecrated Anglican church whose membership fell off in the '90s, it was sold to a developer short on cash who ended up renting the hall to impresario David Mirvish as a practice hall for musicals. Harry Stinson, the big-talking developer, learned the church was on the market from the person who held the mortgage to the church, and who had power of sale. So Stinson bought the property and the adjacent hall in 2000, and drew up a proposal for a condo conversion.

Local residents welcomed the plan, a modest 30-unit development that preserved the church's original structure. " Everyone thought, 'Oh, wow, isn't that beautiful,'" recalls Paula Snyder, a neighbour of St. Jude's. "The next thing we knew, the building was torn down."

Local residents had lobbied for months to save the property, entreating city councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski to oppose Stinson's second proposal for a much larger building that would require the demolition of the church. Snyder says Korwin-Kuczynski gave his reassurance the church was safe. But it wasn't.

Stinson dismisses the neighbourhood effort. "There was a silly attempt by a local councillor to designate it as historic. He was playing to the locals," he says. Though Stinson's first design incorporated the original building, "it was just too complicated. In the end, we said to hell with it."

Sylvia Watson, currently seeking the Liberal nomination in Parkdale High Park, says she's dismayed by church demolitions like St. Jude's. She points to the Abbey, a development just down the street from High Park Lofts, as a blueprint for how to preserve historic churches. But the Abbey's elaborate condo conversion has been a tough sell -- both in terms of construction and aesthetics.

In its conversion of Howard Park Pentecostal, a neo-Gothic church, developer Abbey Inc. undertook a lengthy and costly process of preservation, right down to the stained-glass windows. But the 24-unit development has been on sale since 2005 -- and five units have yet to be sold, probably because in several of them the original church beams cut through the rooms at awkward angles.

Yes, it's a win for the preservationists, but it's an undeniable setback for the condo sales teams. Looking at the Abbey, it's easy to understand why many developers aren't keen to perform architectural back flips for the sake of preserving heritage features.

For Watson, part of the solution is for historical groups and residents to act before developers enter the picture. "If we actually did a proactive review of designations of buildings, we wouldn't be caught in a situation where we're scrambling at the last minute to designate a building." Currently, only 75 Toronto churches are listed under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Her idea is good in theory. But heritage groups tend to consist of volunteers and do not have the resources to undertake preservation projects en masse. "It's very hard to protect churches," says Goodfellow.

Still, rallying the committed is a good first step. A community effort saved St. Stephen's-in-the-Fields in 2006 when the Anglican Church wanted to sell the imposing structure near College and Bathurst. A lengthy media blitz ensued and the sale was halted. Now, to meet its costs, St. Stephen's rents itself out to community groups and runs city-funded out-of-the-cold programs. It's a bid to survive at a time when cash-starved churches are increasingly closing their doors.

It's a sad fact that no amount of prayer can change; congregations across the GTA are increasingly declining. Anglicans and Presbyterians are particularly hard hit: Most often, it's their churches that are on the chopping block, with the churches themselves blessing the sale.

Jim Czegludi, associate secretary for evangelism and worship for the Presbyterian Church of Canada, says the challenge for churches is to connect with their communities. "Congregations are getting smaller and older, and churches need to reach out. Churches are born, they grow, they develop and sometimes they die. The question is: How do we resurrect these churches?"

But it's the resurrection of parishes -- not the church structures themselves -- that must take precedence. "The church is more than a building. Sometimes we have to sacrifice a building to maintain the church presence," says Reverend

Linda Saffrey of Emmanuel Howard Park United, on the corner of Wright and Roncesvalles avenues. That sentiment is echoed by Reverend Debra Schneider of Manor Road United (at Manor and Mount Pleasant roads) in Toronto's north end. "It can be really good stewardship to let that building go and let the proceeds go to helping people who really need help." She suggests using the money for projects like community housing.

The key is resourcefulness, says Paul McLean, executive director of Potentials, a consulting firm that helps churches develop plans for sustainability. He says many parishes are turning to new income-generating opportunities, such as renting their spaces to day-care centres or other congregations.

The trend has certainly spawned an interesting array of split personalities; Manor Road United is also Toronto Joosarang Church, a Korean Pentecostal congregation. Victoria Royce Presbyterian is Full Gospel Young Sun Church. Koreans have become major players in the church rental market, and they're often buyers, as well. And it's their dom-

inance in Toronto's religious life that may play an important part in the future of many historic buildings.

According to Reverend Young-Joon Rhee, who preaches at Howard Park United, there are now more than 200 Korean churches in the GTA and 20% to 45% of the 30,000 Koreans in Toronto worship regularly. "Caucasian churches are closing but Asian churches are growing," he says, attributing the trend to greater piety among Koreans. He says his parish has 110 to 120 members, including children. But what is surprising is that many Korean parishes in downtown Toronto draw their congregation not from the surrounding neighbourhood but from the broader GTA: "Some are from Oakville, some are from Mississauga, some people are from Thornhill. Only four or five people are from the High Park area," says Rhee.

Although he plans to stay put, many downtown Korean congregations have moved or plan to move to the outskirts of Toronto, where the Korean population is most concentrated. And that means they will sell church properties to build new churches. The religious migration has sparked an ecclesiastical construction boom north of the city, with Korean churches dominating.

Paul Craig, vice-president of Prudential Sadie Moranis Realty, says he often fields calls from developers and Korean congregations looking for church properties. He cites the recent example of a Korean group that wanted to purchase a Presbyterian church but didn't have enough money to buy the chosen property. Though he says he hasn't seen any flipping of churches -- purchasing the property from another congregation and then selling it to a developer at a higher price --he won't rule it out as a possibility.

For Doug Hain, who's managed Victoria-Royce Presbyterian in the West End for most of his career, it's too late. He fears for the church, at the corner of Annette Avenue and Medland Street, which was sold to Triumph Developments in April for close to $2-million. He's witnessed what happened to nearby Willoughby Baptist Church, which, despite a well-organized residents' protest, was demolished by a developer mere minutes before he was served with a historical designation.

"It's kind of sad, my grandparents were there in 1885," he says, a time when Victoria-Royce's congregation boasted 2,000 people. Over the years, the congregation died off, while maintenance and heating bills rose to more than $30,000 a year. "It's the role of the community to keep things going."

On a windy summer evening in June, the baby-blue paint is peeling off the wooden front steps of Victoria-Royce, the organ has been sold and six Koreans sit solemnly inside the massive church, waiting for the rest of their congregation to arrive from the far reaches of Toronto. "I hope the stained-glass windows can be saved," says Hain, noting that they're among the finest in Toronto.

But he doesn't hold out a great deal of hope. He knows that when it comes to churches, there are rarely resurrections.

(Victoria Royce Presbyterian Church on Annette St. at Medland. Photo by Peter Redman/National Post)

Published Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:17 PM by Ronald Nurwisah
Filed under: City, Toronto Magazine

[noob(but not really)]

Are you serious?

Yes.



It's over 120 years old. How old does it need to be?

It only looks 100 to me. It's plenty old, it just has some issues...



And if it was torn down, do you really think something more architecturally interesting would be constructed in its place?

Yes.

And you have to remember this is a church, so even when it's converted into lofts, it would still look like a church. This whole loft thing doesn't go with how the building looks.

A condo building would not be out of place here. It would add density, more than what the current building could ever hope to offer, and it would be a nice centrepiece for the neighbourhood.

I know this area quite well, so I know what I'm talking about. This thing already sticks out like a sore thumb, and now there's the opportunity to get rid of it. Nothing special will be lost if that's what happens. There's plenty of other "artifacts" in the area that are much better looking, that should be protected.



Maybe you need to read my post in the "Potential Move of Toronto Coach Bus Terminal" topic concerning the demise of Walnut Hall for some perspective: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=15135626#post15135626


Walnut Hall was from the 1850s, and it should've been protected. The way the building looks, it could've housed anything. But Victoria church is designed for only one thing. It will no longer be that. So it's gotta go...

[ONE HUMAN]

It only looks 100 to me. It's plenty old, it just has some issues...

Yes.

And you have to remember this is a church, so even when it's converted into lofts, it would still look like a church. This whole loft thing doesn't go with how the building looks.

A condo building would not be out of place here. It would add density, more than what the current building could ever hope to offer, and it would be a nice centrepiece for the neighbourhood.

I know this area quite well, so I know what I'm talking about. This thing already sticks out like a sore thumb, and now there's the opportunity to get rid of it. Nothing special will be lost if that's what happens. There's plenty of other "artifacts" in the area that are much better looking, that should be protected.





Walnut Hall was from the 1850s, and it should've been protected. The way the building looks, it could've housed anything. But Victoria church is designed for only one thing. It will no longer be that. So it's gotta go...

Even if it were only 100 years old, so what? You really have no clue. You don't get it. We need to preserve our heritage buildings, not tear them down. If buildings no longer serve their original use, then it's time to get creative and find other uses for them, such as in this case. As I've pointed out (National Post article), numerous older churches have been converted into condos. This isn't exactly the first one. It's much better to find a use for this building rather than let it sit there and rot which is exactly what happened with Walnut Hall.

If you can't appreciate the architectural beauty in this structure, it may be time for you to pack it in. Sticks out like a sore thumb? Nothing special will be lost? You have no credibility. I'm by no means religious, and therefore do not attend church, but I can appreciate the history of what were some of the most important buildings in Toronto's past, i.e. churches. Check this out: http://www.historyoftoronto.ca/history/churches.html

In this day and age of trying to protect our heritage buildings, especially since we've already lost so many, I can't even believe you are serious about tearing it down. We shouldn't have to choose which "artifacts" should be protected. All of them should be. Sometimes I think you just like to be a contrarian and appear controversial.

There is absolutely no way something more interesting would be built in this location. A centrepiece for the neighbourhood? Please. It would end up being some boring box that nobody would give a second look, and you know I'm right. There is no demand to build something stunning there, when even prime locations in downtown Toronto end up with buildings that are average at best.

You say a new building would add density. Big deal... density shmensity. What kind of argument is that? Obviously any of our older buildings could be torn down and something much larger built in their place. With that argument I'm surprised you haven't proposed that we demolish all of our old buildings, because most of them are small by today's standards and we could increase density by building a new condo of office tower instead. Which of the following list of buildings should we get rid of first? http://www.historyoftoronto.ca/history/buildings.html

Too many people get caught up in the whole fascination with density, to the point where we risk losing fine architecture. It's the notion that supplanting our small older buildings with something larger and taller makes us a more impressive city. We suffer from skyline envy. We aren't NYC or Chicago, but so many of us desperately wish we were. Ours is a younger city in terms of skyscrapers. Our older buildings are on a smaller scale, but that doesn't make them any less important to our history. They should still be preserved even if you can't see them while driving on the Gardiner. Maybe it's time we take a cue from European cities and realize that bigger isn't always better. There is more to architecture than just size and height.

I love Toronto and think we already have an impressive skyline that is only going to get better. However, I don't see the need to tear down existing heritage buildings in order to build condos and office towers when there is so much unused land available, not to mention all the street level parking lots. I mean seriously, have you seen the amount of available land we have? It's staggering.

[ONE HUMAN]

I'm curious who else thinks this church should be torn down simply because it no longer serves its original purpose. I didn't realize that was the criterion by which we decided the fate of architecture.

If that's the case, many of our older buildings need to be scheduled for demolition then. I'll get right on that.

[Wrk_InProgress]

Walnut Hall was from the 1850s, and it should've been protected. The way the building looks, it could've housed anything. But Victoria church is designed for only one thing. It will no longer be that. So it's gotta go...


So since this church was built circa 1880, it should go ?

I love the arbitrary date that makes a building "old" and worth "protecting".

As it has been mentioned, this building can be converted into a host of other uses. it has hardly outlived its use.

________________________

Anyone notice that the salesperson in the above article for Victoria Lofts is from "Stinson Properties" ..........

[Taller, Better]

If a church is no longer usable for that reason, I see the best option to be a gallery, or a theatre/small concert hall. I would put condo at the bottom of my personal list.

[ONE HUMAN]

If a church is no longer usable for that reason, I see the best option to be a gallery, or a theatre/small concert hall. I would put condo at the bottom of my personal list.

That's all well and good, but if nobody is going to step up to the plate with money to put in a gallery, or a theatre/small concert hall, then what? I'd rather the building be used and maintained, then left to rot waiting for the ideal situation. If a condo developer is the only one opening up their wallet, so be it. And just because a condo is at the bottom of your personal list, not everyone feels the same.

[Taller, Better]

That's all well and good, but if nobody is going to step up to the plate with money to put in a gallery, or a theatre/small concert hall, then what? I'd rather the building be used and maintained, then left to rot waiting for the ideal situation. If a condo developer is the only one opening up their wallet, so be it. And just because a condo is at the bottom of your personal list, not everyone feels the same.

Cool your jets, one human. I have a pretty good record of historical preservation of buildings, that I would stack against anyone here. My saying that I would not personally want to live in such a condo does not mean I am going to play Bob the Builder and bull-doze this old church into the ground. If it is condo, or no go... then by all means. I just don't find it the most suitable use for a deconsecrated church.

[ONE HUMAN]

Cool your jets, one human. I have a pretty good record of historical preservation of buildings, that I would stack against anyone here. My saying that I would not personally want to live in such a condo does not mean I am going to play Bob the Builder and bull-doze this old church into the ground. If it is condo, or no go... then by all means. I just don't find it the most suitable use for a deconsecrated church.

Cool my jets? Where is it indicated that my jets were hot? I'm not allowed to comment on what you posted? Sorry, I didn't read that in the rules.

Where did I say that you sanctioned this church being demolished? I was simply putting forth the idea that we don't always get to choose what becomes of these properties, and while you prefer it not be turned into a condo, the reality is that I don't see anyone else stepping up with the funds to turn it into something else. Therefore, I would rather it be converted into a condo instead of the two other options, which I think are far worse: demolition or rotting away.

And like I said, just because converting an old church into a condo isn't your cup of tea, many people don't feel the same way. Tell you what, if you come up with the money, I'll make sure it gets converted into a gallery or theatre space. You have my number. Call me.

[Taller, Better]

Did I say no one else should be interested? Do I care if you buy the condo in the church and move in? No, I do not. You are on a mission. I leave you to it.

[ONE HUMAN]

O...k

[Taller, Better]

You have an involvement in this project, like perhaps a unit?

[ONE HUMAN]

Not at all. Is it necessary to have a personal stake in something to care about the heritage and history of our city? I simply hate seeing old architecture disappear in the name of so-called progress. I was surprised by the attitude of noob(but not really) and I hope he's in the minority. As I've said before, we've already lost many fine examples of older architecture and I'm all for preserving what we have left, whether it be churches, schools, hospitals, old firehouses or post offices, office buildings, or residences.

[noob(but not really)]

I agree with Taller, Better. A gallery or theatre/concert hall would be the best use.

I'm just on the fence with this building and I don't think it adds anything to the neighbourhood, really.

I did not imply that buildings should be leveled when they no longer serve their original purpose. But I do think historical preservation should be handled on a building by building basis.

I know we have to protect our old buildings, because once they're gone we can't get them back and a part of our history is gone forever. But I also think exceptions can be made in certain cases.

I just don't like this particular project, that's all.

[riley]

I've just read this little back and forth and have to speak up. I totally agree with One Human, and think Taller and Noob's responses have been strangely consdescending and sarcastic. I'm really surprised that they think One Human's opinion is so crazy. Most people recognize that churches are some of the most beautiful architectural structures in cities, and this one is no exception. I think it would be a horrible shame if this building was destroyed, and I've agreed with every thing One Human has said on this thread. You may be surprised to hear that there have already been quite a few church conversions in Toronto, some featured in some home decor magazines, and many are stunning, unique spaces. I would LOVE to live in one of these (tho I think Victoria Lofts is a bit far away for me). There's a beautiful church conversion on MacPherson that I've walked by often, which when I've enquired about it have been told it goes for a minimum of $2million. I also checked out the Abbey lofts in High Park, and the Church Lofts off of Bloor (which sold out in a month). So you think it would be better as a gallery or whatever, and no one would want to buy a church? Clearly you're not the majority as Brad Lamb sold the Church Loft, obviously made the decision to back this Victoria Lofts project, and the church projects I have seen are all doing very well. I think its awesome when gorgeous old structures can be converted to new uses, like lofts, and I find i'm often eying old buildings around town thinking they would make nice lofts. One of the biggest problems with Toronto architecturally, that many people voice, is the fact that we have razed most of our historic buildings to make way for crappy random architecture. One of the many reasons European cities are so revered is because they have retained their architectural history. (and not that it should matter, but I haven't bought in this project, i'm not a real estate broker or anything, and I currently live in a highrise condo). I actually think its a bit strange Taller that you would be so vehement in protecting your small point about not liking this project that you would not accept what One Human is saying without attributing some sort of invested bias.

[ladyscraper]

i think church lofts look cool. at least it's another option for condo buyers that aren't interested in generic looking cityplace style towers.

also i agree with keeping old buildings in the city even if it means gutting the inside of them for whatever purpose makes the most financial sense. at least it will keep an interesting look for their neighborhoods. otherwise it would just be demolished anyways and a much uglier building will be built to serve the same purpose.

[Taller, Better]

I've just read this little back and forth and have to speak up. I totally agree with One Human, and think Taller and Noob's responses have been strangely consdescending and sarcastic. I'm really surprised that they think One Human's opinion is so crazy. Most people recognize that churches are some of the most beautiful architectural structures in cities, and this one is no exception. I think it would be a horrible shame if this building was destroyed, and I've agreed with every thing One Human has said on this thread. You may be surprised to hear that there have already been quite a few church conversions in Toronto, some featured in some home decor magazines, and many are stunning, unique spaces. I would LOVE to live in one of these (tho I think Victoria Lofts is a bit far away for me). There's a beautiful church conversion on MacPherson that I've walked by often, which when I've enquired about it have been told it goes for a minimum of $2million. I also checked out the Abbey lofts in High Park, and the Church Lofts off of Bloor (which sold out in a month). So you think it would be better as a gallery or whatever, and no one would want to buy a church? Clearly you're not the majority as Brad Lamb sold the Church Loft, obviously made the decision to back this Victoria Lofts project, and the church projects I have seen are all doing very well. I think its awesome when gorgeous old structures can be converted to new uses, like lofts, and I find i'm often eying old buildings around town thinking they would make nice lofts. One of the biggest problems with Toronto architecturally, that many people voice, is the fact that we have razed most of our historic buildings to make way for crappy random architecture. One of the many reasons European cities are so revered is because they have retained their architectural history. (and not that it should matter, but I haven't bought in this project, i'm not a real estate broker or anything, and I currently live in a highrise condo). I actually think its a bit strange Taller that you would be so vehement in protecting your small point about not liking this project that you would not accept what One Human is saying without attributing some sort of invested bias.


Why don't you go back, and carefully re-read what I read before you do more creative paraphrasing like this. And read what I said myself.... not what was attributed to me.

[ONE HUMAN]

Finally some voices of reason! I was beginning to think I was all alone on this one!

riley, thanks for the support. I've been a member here for 4 years (joined September 26th, 2003), but in that time I've been more of a lurker than anything else, which accounts for my low post count. One thing I have observed on this forum is that newbies tend to get jumped on occasionally. It's as if some long-standing members think newbies (or those with low post counts) couldn't possibly have anything of value to contribute.

This forum is also home to a lot of young members, and while I appreciate their enthusiasm, they aren't adults yet, and maturity doesn't come naturally to them. That's not a slam; I wasn't very mature at 16. Hell, I'm not that mature now! However, the tone of this forum is often why I chose to sit on the sidelines and observe rather than getting into some silly, juvenile argument with someone half my age.

For some reason, lately, I've chosen to express my opinions or make some lame comment at someone's expense (I do that occasionally -- that's MY immaturity speaking :p). I am surprised not only by some of the opinions expressed on here, but the tone used, as if their opinions are the only ones that matter. Their words are the be-all-and-end-all and don't anyone dare oppose them. Everyone thinks they are expert. I wish I could easily attribute that to the age of the posters, but alas, that's not always the case.

The bottom-line is we all love architecture, while our tastes may vary, and we all love this city of Toronto, and wish it could be the best it could be, however, some of us have differing views on how to get there.

[ONE HUMAN]

You have an involvement in this project, like perhaps a unit?

This post, while it was a question, did imply that I must have some vested interest which justified my thoughts and opinions. Kind of hard not to infer anything else from that. Frankly, I don't see what I've said that is so radical. Preservation of quality, older architecture should be something that concerns all of us. It shouldn't just be about the shiniest and tallest new skyscraper (putting the name of this website/forum aside!).

[ONE HUMAN]

I agree with Taller, Better. A gallery or theatre/concert hall would be the best use.

I'm just on the fence with this building and I don't think it adds anything to the neighbourhood, really.

I did not imply that buildings should be leveled when they no longer serve their original purpose. But I do think historical preservation should be handled on a building by building basis.

I know we have to protect our old buildings, because once they're gone we can't get them back and a part of our history is gone forever. But I also think exceptions can be made in certain cases.

I just don't like this particular project, that's all.

I must be seeing something you aren't seeing then. I think it's a beautiful structure. Definitely of enough quality that it should be saved. I mean if not this building, where do we draw the line?

What would add to the neighbourhood? Look around and tell me what would look better in its place? Why should an exception be made in this case? To put up what instead?

You don't like the project. Fine. You've made that quite clear. Nobody is asking you to move into it. But because you don't like it we should tear it down? Uh huh. I don't even live in that end of town, and I won't be moving in either, but I still think it would be a shame to unnecessarily lose this building. It's not like we have 120-year-old churches coming out of our asses.

[riley]

Taller, I didn't paraphrase anything, creatively or otherwise. Since you seem to insist here are your actual words which I was responding to. When you said "Do I care if you buy the condo and move in. No I do not", I found this needlessly sarcastic, and obviously not One Human's point when stating an opinion. When you said "You are on a mission. I leave you to it." this struck me as very condescending and dismissive, as if the comments were nothing more than fanboy raving instead of just a different opinioin. When you asked "You have an involvement with this project, like a unit",this was condescending as well, as if he could only hold his opinion because of a personal investment. These are the comments I found condescending and sarcastic, and they were not 'attributed to you', so wrote them yourself.

Taller, I'm not trying to slam you generally, I have read and agreed with many of your opinions on other threads. I just obviously disagree with your opinion here, and as I've expressed above, I thought your responses were strangely and inappropriately condescending. That's all. Peace.

[noob(but not really)]

I must be seeing something you aren't seeing then. I think it's a beautiful structure. Definitely of enough quality that it should be saved. I mean if not this building, where do we draw the line?

It looks dead, and abandoned looking, and it makes the whole area look like that. Trust me, sprucing up the place won't help.



What would add to the neighbourhood? Look around and tell me what would look better in its place? Why should an exception be made in this case? To put up what instead?

As dumb as it may sound, a mid-rise condo building. What I said was, in general, exceptions should be made when it comes to preserving heritage buildings.



You don't like the project. Fine. You've made that quite clear. Nobody is asking you to move into it. But because you don't like it we should tear it down? Uh huh. I don't even live in that end of town, and I won't be moving in either, but I still think it would be a shame to unnecessarily lose this building. It's not like we have 120-year-old churches coming out of our asses.

Aah, you don't live in that area. I see, and you, who doesn't know the area that well, think that it should be preserved? And we do have a lot of churches that are being and should be preserved. But this building is just meh. And I wouldn't care if it's lost.

I now think that it should be meddled with more, to "modernize"(but not make it modernist ;)) the structure, putting in some street level retail, and do something with it's large street frontage. Maybe doing something with the clock tower, making lofts in there. Or preserve the exterior, and build a taller building behind it.

What I'm saying is I don't like it how it is now. And because its original purpose it not being fulfilled, we can change it up a bit. We don't have to conform to what it is now.

[ONE HUMAN]

It looks dead, and abandoned looking, and it makes the whole area look like that. Trust me, sprucing up the place won't help.

As dumb as it may sound, a mid-rise condo building. What I said was, in general, exceptions should be made when it comes to preserving heritage buildings.

Aah, you don't live in that area. I see, and you, who doesn't know the area that well, think that it should be preserved? And we do have a lot of churches that are being and should be preserved. But this building is just meh. And I wouldn't care if it's lost.

I now think that it should be meddled with more, to "modernize"(but not make it modernist ;)) the structure, putting in some street level retail, and do something with it's large street frontage. Maybe doing something with the clock tower, making lofts in there. Or preserve the exterior, and build a taller building behind it.

What I'm saying is I don't like it how it is now. And because its original purpose it not being fulfilled, we can change it up a bit. We don't have to conform to what it is now.

It took you 3 weeks to come up with that reply? You could have saved your time.

If it looks abandoned perhaps that's because it was. And forgive me, but I don't trust your opinion. I've seen enough of your opinions and your architectural tastes to know that much. Sprucing it up won't help? O...k. It actually stands up on its own without any sprucing up, and anything done will only improve it. A mid-rise condo building would not end up looking better than this project when it's completed. Why should an exception be made in preserving this heritage building? Simply because you don't like it. Uh huh. Riiiight. You've made it quite clear that you wouldn't care if this building is lost, which only reinforces your short-sightedness and lack of any architectural sensibility. I feel like I'm arguing with a 5-year-old. Wait a sec, how old are you anyway? I really don't feel like addressing all of your points because I'm not going to change your mind anyway. I'll give you some time to think up more idiotic nonsense and you can revive this thread once again. See you in 3 weeks. ;)

[noob(but not really)]

It took you 3 weeks to come up with that reply? You could have saved your time.

How egotistical of you to think that you are the reason I haven't posted in three weeks. And no, I wasn't even thinking about this thread all that time.



If it looks abandoned perhaps that's because it was. And forgive me, but I don't trust your opinion. I've seen enough of your opinions and your architectural tastes to know that much. Sprucing it up won't help? O...k. It actually stands up on its own without any sprucing up, and anything done will only improve it.

So as long as it stands up on its own that's all that matters? :weird:

It would look abandoned even if it was occupied. And if it was restored, it wouldn't be that much better looking.

You have NOT seen enough of my opinions to make a fair judgement. You aren't even on this site enough. And I don't think you should bow down to me, and believe my opinions. Why you're making it to be like that is beyond me.



A mid-rise condo building would not end up looking better than this project when it's completed.

You can't be so sure. You don't know the area. And it goes beyond that. A mid-rise condo building would actually do more for the neighbourhood. Think about it.



Why should an exception be made in preserving this heritage building? Simply because you don't like it. Uh huh. Riiiight. You've made it quite clear that you wouldn't care if this building is lost, which only reinforces your short-sightedness and lack of any architectural sensibility.

No. I said in general, exceptions should be made sometimes. I mean, it's not fun being stuck with crappy old buildings sometimes. If there is a proposal that turns out to better than what's there, then we should be open to it. Of course, that would open up a can of worms, but oh well.. good, common sense planning will take care of that. Generally, I am for historical preservation. But age simply has no bearing with me when it comes to this building. And when it comes to aesthetics, why should it? I am NOT against old buildings. I hope that clears things up for you.



I feel like I'm arguing with a 5-year-old. Wait a sec, how old are you anyway?

17. You could've looked at my profile instead of clogging up this forum with your useless banter.



I really don't feel like addressing all of your points because I'm not going to change your mind anyway.

Of course, I used to go by this building frequently. I know the area quite well. But I am open to ideas all the time. Your argument just isn't convincing.

[ONE HUMAN]

How egotistical of you to think that you are the reason I haven't posted in three weeks. And no, I wasn't even thinking about this thread all that time.

Where did I say I was the reason you haven't posted in 3 weeks? I simply commented that it's been 3 weeks since your last post in this topic. Too bad you had to start thinking about this thread again, but then again, if you hadn't, I wouldn't have this opportunity to play some more. Yay! :)

So as long as it stands up on its own that's all that matters? :weird:

It would look abandoned even if it was occupied. And if it was restored, it wouldn't be that much better looking.

Why would it look abandoned if it was occupied? How do you know it won't look better looking when it's restored? OMG!! You can see into the future!! Please tell me what the winning Lotto 6/49 numbers will be for this Saturday. Please, Please, Please!!

You have NOT seen enough of my opinions to make a fair judgement. You aren't even on this site enough. And I don't think you should bow down to me, and believe my opinions. Why you're making it to be like that is beyond me.

Haven't I? How many of your opinions do I need to see before I know you don't have a clue? I'm not on this site enough? And how would you know that? Are you stalking me? I've been on this site far longer than you, and just because I don't post nonsensical messages every day (although I'm working on it) doesn't mean that I don't check in regularly.

You can't be so sure. You don't know the area. And it goes beyond that. A mid-rise condo building would actually do more for the neighbourhood. Think about it.

I don't know the area because I don't live there? I also don't live downtown, but I know that area quite well. You'd be surprised how well I know the area, but I'll let you speculate further on how much you know about me. It amuses me.

Why would a mid-rise condo building do more for the neighbourhood? I'm thinking about it. Okay, I've got nothing. I give up. I'm obviously going to need your help on this one. Please expound on this for me.

No. I said in general, exceptions should be made sometimes. I mean, it's not fun being stuck with crappy old buildings sometimes. If there is a proposal that turns out to better than what's there, then we should be open to it. Of course, that would open up a can of worms, but oh well.. good, common sense planning will take care of that. Generally, I am for historical preservation. But age simply has no bearing with me when it comes to this building. And when it comes to aesthetics, why should it? I am NOT against old buildings. I hope that clears things up for you.

The age of a building is a factor. That's the historical value, which needs to be taken into account, as well as the architectural quality of the structure. Historical value aside, I hardly think this is a crappy old building. You'd definitely find yourself in the minority if you're in the camp, and you've made it quite clear that you are. But that's what makes you different. Embrace it.

17. You could've looked at my profile instead of clogging up this forum with your useless banter.

Ah, 17. That explains it. Yes, I could have looked at your profile, but that would have involved clicking and reading, and I'm quite lazy. I much prefer engaging you in useless banter. As banal as it might be, on some level, it does entertain me.

Of course, I used to go by this building frequently. I know the area quite well. But I am open to ideas all the time. Your argument just isn't convincing.

Well, if you used to go by the building frequently and know the area quite well, then who am I to question the Almighty Noob? If you don't see any historical value in this building, nor any redeeming architectural quality, by all means, let's tear it down and erect a boring mid-rise box. God knows we don't have enough of those. Silly me for seeing not only an opportunity to preserve this beautiful structure, but also the potential and promise of something creative and interesting.

Are we having fun yet? ;)

[noob(but not really)]

Where did I say I was the reason you haven't posted in 3 weeks? I simply commented that it's been 3 weeks since your last post in this topic.

You said it took me three weeks to come up with a reply. That's not the same as saying it's been three weeks since my last post.



Why would it look abandoned if it was occupied?

It looks abandoned now. If it was occupied, nothing would change. Unless, no, it can't be.. unless, it was spruced up perhaps? Hmm...



How do you know it won't look better looking when it's restored?

Right now, that building is a blight on the neighbourhood. It looks dead, and it also makes the area around it look dead. Restoring it would not fix that, because there are issues with the site that I will not bother explaining for you again.



Haven't I? How many of your opinions do I need to see before I know you don't have a clue?

I don't have a clue? Spoken like a true noob. Go look at some more...



I'm not on this site enough? And how would you know that? Are you stalking me?

Your grand total of some 100 posts. Sure, you could be a lurker who only posts when he has something negative to say about someone, in which case you are using your low post count to mask your going on this site all the time, trying to paint me as some sort of idiot who always makes dumb comments. Which one is it?



I've been on this site far longer than you, and just because I don't post nonsensical messages every day (although I'm working on it) doesn't mean that I don't check in regularly.

Well, keep working on that. You're very close.

I make dumb comments? :lol:



I don't know the area because I don't live there? I also don't live downtown, but I know that area quite well. You'd be surprised how well I know the area, but I'll let you speculate further on how much you know about me. It amuses me.

You know downtown, because you frequent it. I, and many forumers here are the same way.

YOU are the one who brought up not living there as an excuse for not knowing the area. I was only working with what you gave me. But the point is, you don't know the area.



Why would a mid-rise condo building do more for the neighbourhood? I'm thinking about it. Okay, I've got nothing. I give up. I'm obviously going to need your help on this one. Please expound on this for me.

More residents, more activity, street level retail. That section of Anette is in desperate need of all those things.



The age of a building is a factor. That's the historical value, which needs to be taken into account, as well as the architectural quality of the structure.

Age doesn't necessarily mean historical value. You must also think about whether the advantages of a new building outweigh historical value. If you take into account what I said, you can see that a strong case could be made for a new building. But like I said(maybe it went over your head), we can have both.



Ah, 17. That explains it.

Explains what? You being an ageist troll?



Yes, I could have looked at your profile, but that would have involved clicking and reading, and I'm quite lazy. I much prefer engaging you in useless banter. As banal as it might be, on some level, it does entertain me.

You have shown your true colours with that statement.



Well, if you used to go by the building frequently and know the area quite well, then who am I to question the Almighty Noob? If you don't see any historical value in this building, nor any redeeming architectural quality, by all means, let's tear it down and erect a boring mid-rise box.

Ah, I see what has happened here. A "slide" has been programmed into your mind for the word "condo". When you hear/see that word you instantly think "boring box". That explains a lot.



Silly me for seeing not only an opportunity to preserve this beautiful structure, but also the potential and promise of something creative and interesting.

Who said a condo building can't be creative and interesting?

[ONE HUMAN]

You really are consumed with me. I'm flattered. I wish I had the time to address all of your inane comments, but alas I don't. Or rather I can't be bothered. However, I'll indulge myself on a couple.

Not sure how you classify me as a noob. Been a member at this site since 2003, for what that's worth, which granted, isn't much. My low post count is easily attributed to the fact that normally I wouldn't waste my time arguing the finer points of architecture with immature kids. Not sure why that's changed lately. Must be something in the air.

You have no clue who I am. You really know absolutely nothing about me, although you seem to love making countless refutable claims. I think you'd be surprised if you knew who I was and what I'm capable of. Wow, that sounds rather cryptic.

Anyway, I must party company. I'll leave you to your tearing down of beautiful historical buildings and the erecting of modern stubby phallic structures to replace them. Godspeed and good luck.

[noob(but not really)]

You really are consumed with me. I'm flattered. I wish I had the time to address all of your inane comments, but alas I don't. Or rather I can't be bothered. However, I'll indulge myself on a couple.

Not sure how you classify me as a noob. Been a member at this site since 2003, for what that's worth, which granted, isn't much. My low post count is easily attributed to the fact that normally I wouldn't waste my time arguing the finer points of architecture with immature kids. Not sure why that's changed lately. Must be something in the air.

You have no clue who I am. You really know absolutely nothing about me, although you seem to love making countless refutable claims. I think you'd be surprised if you knew who I was and what I'm capable of. Wow, that sounds rather cryptic.

Anyway, I must party company. I'll leave you to your tearing down of beautiful historical buildings and the erecting of modern stubby phallic structures to replace them. Godspeed and good luck.

You don't know the half of it! YOU know absolutely nothing about me. No one on this forum has ever called me immature. You are the first, and that says a lot. It shows that you haven't been coming on here lately, and that you really haven't read enough of my comments to make a fair judgment of who I am. And I am not a kid. I don't care what anyone says, but there is no such thing as an "adolescent". That is a creation of this modernist society that we live in, and it's caused many problems. I am an adult. Go ahead and call me crazy for saying that. You will only demonstrate your ignorance of historical fact.

I don't want to knock down historical buildings in favour of phallic structures. Just keep in mind that what makes a building beautiful is not necessarily its age. Although, "they don't build them like they used to" and that's why older buildings look nicer. But I said exceptions should be made, because this building is the exception.

[ONE HUMAN]

You don't know the half of it! YOU know absolutely nothing about me. No one on this forum has ever called me immature. You are the first, and that says a lot. It shows that you haven't been coming on here lately, and that you really haven't read enough of my comments to make a fair judgment of who I am. And I am not a kid. I don't care what anyone says, but there is no such thing as an "adolescent". That is a creation of this modernist society that we live in, and it's caused many problems. I am an adult. Go ahead and call me crazy for saying that. You will only demonstrate your ignorance of historical fact.

I don't want to knock down historical buildings in favour of phallic structures. Just keep in mind that what makes a building beautiful is not necessarily its age. Although, "they don't build them like they used to" and that's why older buildings look nicer. But I said exceptions should be made, because this building is the exception.

You're the one that keeps claiming to know things about me. I've made no such claims regarding you, other than what is obvious from your postings. Once again you make a claim not based in fact when you say I haven't been coming on here lately, and that I haven't read enough of your comments to make a fair judgement on who you are. How would you know that? How would you have any knowledge on how frequently I visit this site or which posts I read? It may interest you to know that I come here on an almost daily basis and that I have indeed read many of your posts (far too many in fact).

And I do think you're immature, and I'm honoured to be the first to tell you that. Don't feel bad, I was immature at 17 too. Hell, in some ways I'm still immature now, but it's a process that never really ends until you die. That's part of growing up and growing old. You come across like you know everything at the age of 17. You're brash and egotistical. You're a know-it-all. You act as if your opinion is the only valid one. You're immature.

You are an adolescent. You are a kid. There's nothing wrong with that. And you are smart. I can see that. However, sometimes you need to think before you speak. Sometimes you have to realize your opinion isn't the only one that matters. Sometimes you're going to be wrong. Sometimes it's okay to use some tact in expressing your opinions. Sometimes it's okay not to be contoversial or confrontational. Sometimes it's okay to find the positive in something rather than always being negative.

Regarding your last point, you keep making the statement that buildings shouldn't simply be kept because of their age. Actually, in some cases that's entirely why they should be kept -- for the preservation of historical value. However, that's not my only argument regarding the church in the Victoria Lofts project. I've clearly said that putting the age of the structure aside, I think it's beautiful architecture. Many would agree with me. Most in fact. You seem to disagree. That alone makes me question if you really know quality architecture when you see it. That's really what got all of this started. And so here we are.

[dtour]

Well said ONE HUMAN. I couldn't agree with you more.

[noob(but not really)]

I don't want to revisit that last post you made, because it was off-topic. But look..

I checked out UT for the first time today, and I found a thread on this.

Here's what casaguy wrote:

The Victoria Lofts struck me because of all of the conversations about Modernist versus traditional, etc...

I couldn't be a more modern-lovin' guy (hey, it's casaguy).... but yet I really am in love with this building (and all of those pics of the details I posted above.)

So what's wrong with a little cross-pollination?

And quite frankly...

I wouldn't mind a 40 storey glass tower directly behind this church. (But nothing as unredeeming as the Windermere tower).

[ONE HUMAN]

Well said ONE HUMAN. I couldn't agree with you more.

Well, judging by the feedback that has been expressed on these boards, you would seem to be in the minority, at least out of those whom have publicly come forward. I'll invite you and riley to join my fan club. :lol:

I think I'm just misunderstood. Yeah, that must be it. I think some of you need to learn not to take things (including me) so seriously. Lighten up. Develop a sense of humour. This isn't life and death folks. We're talking about architecture.

[ONE HUMAN]

I don't want to revisit that last post you made, because it was off-topic. But look..

I checked out UT for the first time today, and I found a thread on this.

Here's what casaguy wrote:


The Victoria Lofts struck me because of all of the conversations about Modernist versus traditional, etc...

I couldn't be a more modern-lovin' guy (hey, it's casaguy).... but yet I really am in love with this building (and all of those pics of the details I posted above.)

So what's wrong with a little cross-pollination?

And quite frankly...

I wouldn't mind a 40 storey glass tower directly behind this church. (But nothing as unredeeming as the Windermere tower).

Interesting. So what do you think of what he said?

His post made me think of the Church Of The Redeemer at Bloor & Avenue Rd. The juxtaposition of an older traditional church surrrounded and dwarfed by modern architecture.

[noob(but not really)]

Interesting. So what do you think of what he said?

His post made me think of the Church Of The Redeemer at Bloor & Avenue Rd. The juxtaposition of an older traditional church surrrounded and dwarfed by modern architecture.

I thought about what I said, and that is keeping the exterior, but putting in street level retail, and erecting a building behind that.