This 3 storey building at 2989 Dundas (co Pacific) has begun a major transformation. According to the building application the 2nd and 3rd floors will be rebuilt with a new raised roof. The existing 4 apartments will be converted into one large living space.
As the Junction is redeveloped numerous buildings will be transformed through major renovations like this one. Changes are inevitable but I hope more developers make the effort and financial commitment to maintain the original facade and character of our high street.
It appears this developer will be keeping the face of the building but the next one might not be so accommodating.
In an effort to preserve the Junction the JRA will be kicking off a Junction Preservation Committee to review our options for historic preservation. The JRA will have more details at our next meeting on September 17 2009.
24 Comments
There is also stuff happening to the facade of Concourse Restuarant / Galaxy Donuts, the signs were down this morning and there is scaffolding around the front and side of the building
In an effort to preserve the Junction, the JRA will be kicking off a Junction Preservation Committee to review our options for historic preservation?
Options? I would say that unless the JRA is willing to purchase the buildings themselves or resort to bullying the new owners , you have no options.
Sorry you have one option, accept the fact that some people welcome change and that your opinions of what should be done are just that, opinions. Just because something is old it does not make it attractive, or historical.
Well said Rodger.
well said Theirry
Rodger and Theirry,
We will be debating this at our next JRA meeting so please come out and express your view.
I do think however your view is the minority and most Junction residents would like to see our area preserved.
Our options include having the Junciton declared a historic preservation distric.
Debate amongst yourselves all you want, without anyone in a position to decide these debates are a waste of time and you all know it.
Sorry to have to disagree with you Martin but the preservation society's opinion is the minority, the majority of people in any area are indifferent the whether things are preserved or not. Although you may not believe it I'm all for preserving interesting or historical building, my point being that I don't think a group of people or "society", whatever they my believe, should not be allowed to circumvent the will of a property owner, just because you're worried that the renovations will not fit into your vision of what "your" neighbourhood should look like. And in the case of this building it's an eysore, what's left of the old McBrides building is only marginally less attractive that this building.
Martin why would anyone subject themselves to a meeting of such a closed minded group of people (ie. the JRA) if they dissented and did not share the prevailing opinion of the group? Talk about a waste of time yelling a brick wall.
Martin I have another question: How many members of the JRA "exec. committee" are under the age of 30/35? Honest question that has a simple and direct answer. Please advise.
Theirry your reluctance to show up at the JRA meeting to voice your obviously strong views seems like a copout. After all, if the all execs are younger than 35, and therefore unfit to participate as you seem to imply, you should win the debate hands down, right?
Paul, I'm not sure what Theirry is implying however, might I suggest that an alternate view about the 30-35 crowd is that people over a certain age seem more reluctant to change. ie: if the JRA was made up of young people their vision perhaps would not sit well with the older crowd. Why can't there be a health mix of new and old, Europe has managed to do this and their old is really old, not 100 year old buildings that have suffered 95 years of neglect. For the record I'm over 40.
I would not worry about Theirry.
The guy thinks the Junction needs a Tim Horton's off all things.
Mix of old and new is the way to go, but what should be preserved is a thorny issue. Seen individually, a lot of buildings are expendable, but when they're side by side in a streetscape, the cohesiveness is quite attractive. It's what seen in European cities: normal streets are not lined with architectural wonders but vast groupings of old buildings with facades that are restored once in a while.
Perhaps more people can agree on the need to preserve the scale of development (i.e. 3-6 storeys). That huge Victorian building on the northwest corner of Keele and Dundas is in quite poor shape, but it's distinctive, and the same thing with the more attractive stone Beaux-Arts building with the Money Mart.
I'm 32, as for the rest I would guess the ages are evenly split from 30 to 60. The "exec" or council is about 15 people now with a range of backgrounds.
I think you have a good point of view AR. When most people hear historic preservation they assume we'll all need to fill out an application to paint our porch. That fact is the community sets the limits and the JRA is seeking input on what those limits are. It may be as simple as helping property owners apply for grant money to help remove unused hydro lines, restore brick or open up bricked in windows.
We can also consider an avenue study which would detail a plan for development, heights, land use and density can all be included. BWV and several other areas in the city have taken this approach.
I'm glad to see people are passionate about this debate and I hope we can all work together to on a plan which works best for our community.
Not in the least Paul. My point is more about the reluctance of a few who present themselves as the voice of all. I've been to a JRA meeting, its like tea time at the senior's home. Again, why talk to a brick wall?
Jason, the Tim Horton's comment was a joke to stir the pot, which is easily done amongst some on this site. I got 40+ replies… job done?
Besides there's lots of great coffee shops in this area, we don't need a Timmies. I just wanted to see some panties get bunched up in a knot.
I agree and thought Therriy was attempting to get people thinking, which is welcomed, one day day I should actually go into the Concourse, i grew up in the Junction and have never been in. As Thierry claims it's always been on the other side of the law kind of place – well at least that's the overall opinion.
But now that the ugly stuff is off the building it does have a nice stone entrance, which in itself should bring along a whole new crowd. 🙂
Everyone's commented about it but has anyone actually been in there?
Theirry has a strong point, the voice of change is not always welcome at meeting like these, for the most part people that organize/join groups such as these are of a like mind, therefore reluctant to hop on board a radical point of view. For example, if I walked into your meeting and said, "I'm so happy that the old McBrides building was torn down, it was an eyesore. Now we can finally get something modern in there, bring on the steel an glass." How do you suppose it would be recieved?
Theirry has a strong point, the voice of change is not always welcome at meeting like these, for the most part people that organize/join groups such as these are of a like mind, therefore reluctant to hop on board a radical point of view. For example, if I walked into your meeting and said, "I'm so happy that the old McBrides building was torn down, it was an eyesore. Now we can finally get something modern in there, bring on the steel an glass." How do you suppose it would be received?
I'm glad some people are seeing through my usual cynical and sarcastic nature (just ask the wife… *ducks*) . I'll do my best moving forward to tone it down a bit, but I think most of (imho) the points I address are worth discussing. If nothing else, my Tim Horton's comment incited a wave of opinions, some that I shared, and some that I disagreed with. I think the main point is that there are two side to everything, and hearing both gives people reading this blog (and from what I understand there are MANY, some quite influential, who do read this blog) a chance to make up their own minds regarding the changes that affect US all in OUR community.
I lived 26 of my 28 years in the Junction. if you've never even been in there, how can you pass judgment?
The owners actually live in the Junction and raised a family in the Junction, which is a lot more than you can say about the Johnny-Come-Latelys.
So is that to say people who have kids and live in the area aren't capable of running a booze can? Right, thats called flawed logic Jason. Last time I checked, Pablo Escobar had 2 kids.
For the record, I walked past Concourse tonight and had to wait to pass so 2 people could stop drunkenly arguging about "smokes" … (I actually thought it would come to blows.). You are honestly lucid if you can't see the forrest through the trees.
Its good to have a forum to voice the issues.
To shout down those opposed to the majority point of view wins the debate in the forum but makes people withdraw from the debate.
All the opinions aside, the Post by Rodger is very accurate. Owners have legal property rights that unless you are willing to spend money to oppose redevelopment in a neighbourhood or frustrate their efforts at renovation. The Owners right must be respected first.
Other investors who are looking at the Junction as an up and comming place to be, may reconsider investing and renovating where they see the process as adversarial.
Be careful what you wish for, Historic designations and Preservation Society's can become very powerful and Vocal Contributor to a community.
Wiser opinions than mine are needed here
David Pylyp
I think most people agree owners have the right to develop their property but this right is not unlimited.
What the JRA is looking to review is how we can engage this development with a plan developed by the community. We're not, nor can we, planing to tell people what to do but what we want is a plan and a voice at the planing table.
The Mc Bride building as always is a great example, after years of debate from the sidelines we're going to end up with a car wash. With HCD the building may have been repurposed, an Avenue Study may have stressed a mid-rise condo with retail or office space at street level. Both offer different views for the area but both offer a positive change for the community. Six carports with a hose and a scrub brush offers us nothing.
Its naive to think our debate will result in a plan which satisfies everybody and some developers may look elsewhere or simply appeal to the OMB but at least we'll have a plan and voice stronger than a rant or two on the internet.
Come out to the Sept 17th JRA meeting and help form the plan.