Some Progress At The Guild Inn – Pictures of Guild Inn Hotel Demolition
For the record, the demolition of the cement hotel addition is the only form of demolition on the grounds of the Guild Inn I have ever supported. It pleases me to share with you photos I’ve received from Gloria Valeriote, a Scarborough resident who shares the passion I and many others from Guildwood and Scarborough have for this magical place.
Gloria had seen the photos Jeanette Mahon had allowed me to share of the Guild Inn Studio and kindly offered to share with me photos she had taken over the course of a number of visits to the site during it’s demolition.
The Guild Inn holds a very special place for me. When I ran for City Council in 2006, I did so because I opposed the demolition of the original Guild Inn building, the privatization of 7.5 acres of parkland, which included most of the gardens, the parking lot and access to the path to the water. Raising my concerns about these issues to the Councillor at the time and of the lack of information I believed residents had been given was met with a simple response:
‘If you think I am doing a bad job, you should throw down you’re hundred bucks and run against me.’
So I did.
My position was very unpopular because in my defense of heritage preservation and parkland conservation, I found myself opposing the only plan on the table, and largely on the outside of the debate. Then Councillor Soknacki and current Councillor Ainslie each supported demolishing the heritage buildings. Councillor Soknacki even had the Bickford Inn delisted as a heritage building and sought Council permission for it’s demolition, while Councillor Ainslie was still his Executive Assistant.
I argued from early 2005 that the proposal brought forth by Windmill development (this is somewhat ironic I know) was not economically viable, would harm our park space and would destroy a beautiful heritage site in the process. The response was a thorough mocking. The Toronto Star called me ‘one voice of dissent’ while the Globe and Mail referred to me as the ‘long detractor’ citing my belief that Windmill development’s proposal was not economically viable and would surely not meet the economic objectives they sought.
After a campaign that saw Councillor Soknacki and candidate Ainslie strongly support demolishing the heritage buildings, privatizing 7.5 acres of parkland and building a condoized hotel project twice the size of the current building, in January 2007, Windmill development announced a lack of economic viability to their plan, and it fell through. Thank god it did.
The failure of Windmill Development’s plan has allowed for Centennial College to come up with a more palatable proposal.
My view of supportable parameters for a project was simple, public retainment of parkland, preservation of heritage architecture, a purpose that serves our community. It seems many aspects of Centennial College’s proposal meet those requirements, which pleases me.
As a citizen, I am pleased to see Centennial College acting smartly, and demonstrating that in 2009 as in 2005 the heritage buildings did not need to be demolished for structural reasons as both Councillor Soknacki and Ainslie falsely stated to Guildwood residents repeatedly while selling Windmill Development’s plan on the developer’s behalf. I am glad to see the hotel tower coming down, and hopeful Centennial College will protect the remaining heritage component in their plan.
Below are Gloria Valeriote ’s pictures.
Tags: 2006 Municipal Election, Centennial College, Centennial College Guild Inn, Councillor Ainslie, Councillor Soknacki, David Soknacki, Gloria Valeriote, Guild Inn, Guild Inn Demolition, Guild Inn Hotel Demolition Pictures, Guild Inn Hotel Tower Demolition, Guild Inn Pictures, Guild Inn Redevelopment, Guildwood, Paul Ainslie, Ward 43
July 24th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
John:
When Councillor Ainslie et al held the photo-op back in the Spring at the official announcement of the demolition, I’m pretty sure I heard it said that the Bickford building will be demolished and re-built in the same style. Did you hear that?
July 24th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
BM – My understanding from Centennial’s previous statements was that they were to keep much of the Bickford building’s exterior intact.
This Centennial College paper uses the word ‘renovated’ to describe the fate of the Bickford http://thecourier.ca/archives/city-to-donate-guild-inn-for-hospitality-program
In this City document they refer to plans to sublease space within the Bickford residence for administrative office and meeting room space. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-22338.pdf It also calls for phase one of the project to be the restoration of the Bickford residence.
Let’s hope he misspoke!
July 25th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
John:
I forget the person’s name but do recall he was a bureaucrat in charge the Guild renovation. I’ll check with two others that were with me and commented on the information. I’ll get back to you.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:05 am
And Toronto loses another piece of its modern heritage that worked perfectly with the site, despite what some believe.
August 1st, 2009 at 2:19 am
Jason – You honestly believe that the hotel tower worked perfectly with the site? Are you familiar with the financial reality of the hotel at all?
Always a money loser, and never intended to be a commercial venture. The hotel was an add on to the artist colony.
August 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 am
I think Jason is referring to it in aesthetic terms that go beyond so-called “financial reality”–that is, even if it was an awkward white elephant add-on from the start, the tower’s 60s scalloped-balcony pop-modernism has acquired a cult following in its own right in recent years, especially among younger aesthetes. While I agree that some of the arguments on the tower’s behalf have been overwrought, they still merit a certain respect–rather paradoxically, we’re now at the stage where the blithe “hooray! it’s gone” treatment evident on this page comes across as more awkward and anachronistic than the building itself.
Indeed, one might argue that those so-called unintended “commercial venture” gestures, whether the tower itself or the Bickford building’s bits of “motel Moderne” here and there, actually enhanced rather than detracted from the overall experience, and a more imaginative heritage vision on behalf of Centennial College could even have creatively adapted them into the scheme. Which, in a way, can stand as a critique of the more middlebrow, Unionville-ish “ye olde” conceptions of heritage out there–conceptions which might not even account for the possibility that a lot of the 50s and 60s suburban fabric surrounding the Guild (and yes, that even includes stuff like the highrise apartment blocks at the foot of Livingston) is now, itself, worth cherishing in its own right.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Thank you John Laforet for your concern and activism. The place is magical and the Centennial arrangement is probably the best that could happen under the circumstances. I agree with Adam Sobolak. The loss of the post-modern building saddens me. However, the building was allowed to decay to the point of no return. It concerns me that so often people do not consider post-modern worth saving. Indeed, I was around in the 1960s when 1920 buildings came a-tumbling down, and with much fanfare. Oh, to have many of them back today!