Talk:McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom

Interesting, perhaps notable
Sketches 6''' p. 173 states that the McLaughlin Building was the first car showroom on Bay Street, on a stretch which later became known as "Auto Row" for the number of showrooms. On p. 172 (and I think this can be found mentioned elsewhere), it is stated that the McLaughlin building was also the last car showroom to remain open in this area. This may have been part of the reason the building was considered notable enough for heritage listing and preservation, that it was both the first such building constructed in the area and the last remaining building of this type. Perhaps further sources can be found to verify this. It's also worth knowing that the documents preserved by the city make it clear that the historic parts of the building were retained, as required by the heritage listing. The reason some parts were not required to be preserved was that they were not part of the original 1925 structure. As usually happens, parts of the building were modified or replaced during its 82 years as a car showroom. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It has been proposed at Articles for deletion/Burano (building) that McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom be merged into Burano (building), assuming the latter article is kept. I think that the content in the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom article can easily be explained in the context of Burano (building), and the Burano (building) article is of a reasonable size that the merging of McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. I do not see how this run of the mill highrise among the 50+ others listed at Template:Toronto_skyscrapers can be considered more notable than this showroom which is a "rare surviving example of an early 20th century automobile showroom in Toronto." .  I do not want to see this significant historic structure buried in the article about that ordinary high rise. [added 03:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)]  Please consider my offer at Articles_for_deletion/Burano_(building):


 * My Proposal:

I will withdraw this WP:AfD, if all of you (, and ) agree not to attempt to merge or move either of these two buildings (Burano (building) and McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) into one article and you also agree not to submit McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom to WP:AfD. If that condition is met, I in turn will also promise not to initiate a merge, move or AfD on either article. Can we agree? And also, that removes the merger proposal he just put up.


 * --David Tornheim (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC) [revised 03:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)]
 * All your edits of McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom would be retained, and there would be a redirect from that article to the merged article. It's not like McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom would be deleted or disappear. In cases of facadism, it seems fairly standard WP practice for the original historic building to be discussed in the article for the more recent building where that recent building is substantially larger. One example that seems to have some similarity is Hearst Tower (Manhattan). Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be your typical facadism, as I just posted over at facadism. I copied my comment from there here in a new section below. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem for me with this proposal is that of the two buildings, the Motor Car Showroom is the more significant. And as I said before I don't see any reason to overburden this article about a historic structure with information about a run of the mill typical high-rise that I originally offered for deletion as it looks more to me like advertising than encyclopedic information.  This Motor Car Showroom on the other hand is something encyclopedic.  With the compromise, you get to keep the highrise article and I can maintain this article about the significant historic structure can be spared being undermined yet again by the skyscaper --something I want. WIN-WIN.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)  (revised 03:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC))
 * Burano (building) is not my article to keep, and this article is not yours, per WP:OWN. The goal here is not to "win." There is no individual "win" or "lose" in a collaborative effort. I want to be sure you understand that all your edits could be retained, including the infobox. The original article could have two separate infoboxes, one in the lead and one in the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom section. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree no one WP:OWNs either--I didn't phrase that well above and have corrected it accordingly. There is no reason to put this article UNDER the highrise.  The showroom is the more notable of the two. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't merge. There is plenty of information about the early car dealership.  The Burano building has enough  sources to support a basic separate article, even though it's new, and will gather more history with time. Yes, the two buildings are related, but there are plenty of related articles in Wikipedia - for example, music albums and single songs from them often have separate articles even though one arises from the other. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't merge, since the AfD decision was to keep the Burano building article. The McLaughlin Showroom has a significant history that has nothing to do with the Burano building.   PK  T (alk)  18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't merge. Both notable. Alaney2k (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's apparent from the sources that there wasn't much interest in the McLaughlin building until the proposal for the Burano building. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Facadism
At first, based on what I had been reading from you and other commentators, I thought only the facade was kept. However, further digging, I discovered last night that it appears this went above and beyond simple facadism (and the pics--I believe posted by you post--seemed to confim that far more than the facade appeared to have been preserved). From this April 8, 2008 report from City Planning:

The revised strategy also proposes that the southern part of the building be demolished and the decorative interior elements be reconstructed (from moulds and survey drawings) within the new building. The structure of the new building has been adjusted to locate the columns of the correct octagonal section to permit an accurate reconstruction of the interior features.

This certainly sounds like they went further and planned to reconstruct some of the historic interior elements as well. This example goes beyond the kind of poor facadism you see in these examples.

That report was incorporated into the materials presented to the City Council on May 26, 2008 and approved May 26-27, 2008 here. That approved item include (this has been edited down):


 * a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the retained and reconstructed portion of 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) including design guidelines for exterior signage;
 * a detailed Conservation and Restoration Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, detailing the dismantling, storage, restoration and reconstruction of 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) satisfactory to the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services;
 * owner shall:
 * provide a record of the as-found condition of 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom), including all survey documentation and interior casting samples, satisfactory to the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services;
 * provide and implement an interpretation program for 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom), satisfactory to the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services;

--David Tornheim (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Add to the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I plan to do that. I did mention it very briefly in the lede last night (about interior elements), but I had intended to expand upon it.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding being "inside" the Burano building
Thanks for your interest in this article and recent edits. I hope you agree with me that this would make a good article separate from the Burano (building). I wanted to let you know that a couple of things are incorrect in the article, and I haven't had time to correct them.

As mentioned above, it is not just the facade that was restored, but additionally other historically significant elements. This is actually a big deal in historic preservation if you are not familiar with it. Not only that, there is a historic easement with Heritage that further protects the property from future modifications or developer interest in demolishing it.

So where the article says it is "inside" of the building, that really isn't correct. It might have been "incorporated" into the new building, but even looking at the photograph, you can see that the two buildings are almost separate and distinct buildings. Getting WP:RS to confirm this is a bit tricky, but some of the documents I showed above make it pretty clear that was the plan.

If you have some ideas for new language you want to discuss, I'm all ears. I'm still uncertain what might sound best and be best supported by WP:RS and whether more digging for WP:RS is necessary.

I'm honestly dismayed about the proposed merger above, which saps my energy and interest in improving this article. I'm trying to broker a compromise to get editors to support keeping both articles if I withdraw my nomination at AfD to delete Burano (building). I just don't see how this run of the mill highrise among the 50+ others listed here can be considered more notable than this showroom which is a "rare surviving example of an early 20th century automobile showroom in Toronto." . I do not want to see this significant historic structure buried in the article about that ordinary high rise.

--David Tornheim (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An older edit may have said the heritage building was "inside" the skyscraper, I can't find it anywhere in the current edit. Sources are clear that it is now one building, not two separate buildings. If you enter through the facade of the McLaughlin building, you are actually entering the foyer of the Burano. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. I figured that might be the case, since the showroom extends around the block, not just on the corner. I wonder what percentage of the restored showroom overlaps with the bulk of the highrise.  It seems like it might be small, since most of the highrise was built on the parking lot.   I also wonder how similar the inside of the restored showroom to the original.  The documents I have read don't make that clear, and I haven't seen any clear reports on exactly what is on the inside of the restored structure.  I do see from Google maps there is a restaurant (Bombay____) in one part of it.  I am particularly curious about what is in the front corner now and what the interpretive program is like.  I would think there would be a website somewhere that describes it.  I'm almost sure there are more documents.  Possibly I will call the heritage people and ask what they know and for pointers to more docs.  Maybe even invite them to post here on the talk page as COI declared editors, unless someone objects or considers that WP:CANVASS, then we won't do that.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is plenty of information about the historic building over its long history. It will take time to dig it out because much of it is in old books and magazines. I won't contribute to any bargaining - the decision on each article should be made according to policy and guideline, without compromise. Whether the result is one article or two, there will be a home for information about this interesting old building and about the fancy new one. I've seen cases where a location has had several buildings, and the article is titled by the street address, with each building being discussed in chronological order. It's all good. Also, the article could be changed to say "on the site of" instead of "within the footprint".&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I figured you would take that position. :)  Thanks for the additional advice.  I hope it doesn't go to the street address, which would IMHO be a disservice to BOTH buildings.  But I will note that that is how City Hall often deals with these proposals, mostly for clarity and identification, especially when there are proposed changes.  --David Tornheim (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Per my comments and Jacknstork's: This language consider inaccurate and I will probably change it if no one else does:
 * The building was demolished to make way for the fifty story high-rise condominium Burano (building), with plans to retain the facade and other historic elements of the original structure and incorporate them into the Burano's lower three floors..

I don't remember who wrote "demolished"--it might have been me, but that clearly isn't accurate based on looking closely at the documents from planning and city council. It was disassembled and rebuilt and restored. And saying that it was incorporated in into the Burano's lower three floors is misleading for two reasons: (1) the bulk of the Burano high rise is in the former parking lot of the old building. (It might be technically correct to say that the rebuilt showroom is now part of the larger new Burano building, or building "complex"), (2) but to say it is the lower *3* floors makes no sense, especially since the showroom is only *2* floors. The whole sentence gives entirely the wrong image of what happened, which is why I was shocked when I saw the actual image that showed the entire showroom intact and almost entirely separate from the new high rise, when I had expected to see just the facade pasted onto the highrise, like the images I showed of facadism. This was substantial preservation, and this sentence gives the wrong impression. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the source you just cited: "The 50-storey rhombus extrusion sits above a historic building, retaining its eastern, southern, and western facades, while revealing a triple-height café/gallery space to the north." There are only three walls of the McLaughlin building (and some internal features were recreated from moulds and drawings). The McLaughlin's internal two-floor structure was not retained. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, most of the building was demolished, just the street facade was disassembled; "removed" is a rather vague word, but I guess it will do until/unless someone finds a source for the exact process. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * At least part of it was deconstructed. It certainly wasn't typical demolition. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should change the writing to more closely reflect what we know with some certainty and not re-state anything that is vaguely and confusingly worded by the sources into the article which is can be disproven by direct evidence. Our biggest problem is that the secondary sources do not cover some of the the key information that can be discerned by primary sources and direct evidence. This is what we do know:
 * 1. The plan described by Planning and approved by City Council was for :
 * a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the retained and reconstructed portion of 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) including design guidelines for exterior signage;
 * a detailed Conservation and Restoration Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, detailing the dismantling, storage, restoration and reconstruction of 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) satisfactory to the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services;
 * owner shall:
 * provide a record of the as-found condition of 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom), including all survey documentation and interior casting samples, satisfactory to the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services;
 * provide and implement an interpretation program for 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom), satisfactory to the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services;
 * See my explanation above at
 * The problem with this source is that this was the plan, but we all know that plans get changed. We really could use a source that says that the plan was fully complied with and what exactly resulted.  Unfortunately, our other sources do not accomplish this.
 * 2. What can be seen from the photos on Wikimedia (I believe taken by ) and by Google maps using street view:
 * Front (corner):
 * Location: Bay St. and Grenville St.
 * Google Maps streetview
 * File:Scanning_the_Burano,_from_the_SE,_2017_05_12_-e_(33776552724).jpg


 * Back (from North)
 * Location: Bay St. at Grosvenor St.  (850 Bay St.)
 * Google Maps streetview
 * File:North_facade_of_the_Burano,_2017_05_12_-b_(34489019991).jpg


 * Side (from South)
 * Location:  Grenville St. at Terauley Ln. (Nandos Bay Street restaurant visible)
 * map view
 * Google Maps streetview
 * Side (alley)
 * Location:  Terauley Ln. (near Grenville St.)
 * 1st view:
 * map view
 * Google Maps streetview
 * 2nd view:
 * map view
 * Google Maps streetview
 * Top/Areal:  areal view
 * Of course, inferring things from these photos suffers from the problem of WP:OR.
 * 3. The statement from :
 * "However, the 2-storey building saw closure in 2007, and has since been dismantled to accommodate structure, retail, and loft units for a 50-storey condominium – its exterior materials have been retained and its previous rooftop car park converted into an amenities terrace for its occupants."
 * "The 50-storey rhombus extrusion sits above a historic building, retaining its eastern, southern, and western facades, while revealing a triple-height café/gallery space to the north"
 * This last sentence is a mouthful, which gives a confusing and IMHO misleading impression of the result, making it sound like the area of the rhombus and the area of the historic building are nearly identical, which is clearly not the case if you look at the photos and street views. I think we should be very cautious in reading anything into that source which can be disproven by this direct evidence.
 * From considering the images of both Geo Swan and Google Street view, and comparing the front and the back and side, the front is clearly a two storey building of the original showroom. The areal view shows the pool that is part of "the amenities terrace for its occupants" the that was "previous[ly] [a] rooftop car park".  I do not consider that as an extra storey.
 * For the back view, you can see the "triple-height café/gallery space to the north", which is almost like a separate glass building itself jutting out from the highrise, which has some (about 5-10') but not all of the showroom's structure preserved (unlike the side view from the alley, where more of the showroom is preserved).
 * It's not clear to me if even a sliver of the highrise footprint overlaps with the original showroom footprint. From the original documentation--before they realized that building the foundation of the highrise would likely damage the showroom, I believe they planned to build all of the highrise in the parking lot.  (Of course, that might have been shifted.)  So giving any impression that the showroom is under the highrise seem to me misleading.
 * Perhaps, calling it a "building complex" would help, since there is no question that pedestrians will move seamlessly between the different structures on the inside.
 * Looking at the language more carefully from the library, I don't think it actually makes the mistakes I was concerned about. I might take a crack at fixing the language based on all of this.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC) [major revisions 10:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)]
 * A Nando's is at 832 Bay Street, and Bombay Street Food is also on the ground level, within the McLaughlin facade, with address of 828 Bay Street. Numerous web sites describe it as a "pedestrian mall" but they are real estate agent sites. Many refer to the area of the building that is not high rise as "the Addison" or "Addison on Bay." It's hard to find third-party sources on the current use of the space. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional research. I'm just added the comments in this diff I hadn't finished earlier, and improved the coordinates for when you click the links front or back above.  Still need to fix it some more.  --David Tornheim (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I made some major revisions to the documentation I had, and as I said there, I might take a crack at fixing the language of the article accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Old parking lot
I went on a photo excursion last week, in that area, and made a point of taking some images of the building today.

I am pretty sure I took some photos with my original digital camera, in 2008, before the original building was demolished. I don't know if I will be able to find them, as I wasn't a serious photographer then, and I had no idea they would be of interest now.

But I can address the comment above, that the tower is built in the former building's parking lot. That is not true. At least one of the references refers to the parking lot as small. It was small, lying north of the wall with the mural, where the three story north lobby is now.

I remember visiting the building, about 20 years ago, with a friend of mine, when she went to get her car serviced. Goldarnit, what kind of vehicle was she driving? Geo Swan (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A vintage McLaughlin, I hope! Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)