Esplanade properties to be sold
Two properties on Esplanade south of Mont‑Royal, left to rot for decades, will finally be sold. One has already had to be demolished. These were handsome stone-fronted buildings which, had they been maintained, could still be in use. I can only hope that whatever’s built on the empty lot will be in harmony with the buildings already there.
I did a bit of looking back and note that in 2019, the demolished building was taken apart carefully. I don’t know whether they will really be able to reassemble it as it was, or even if they should do so. We don’t construct buildings the same way now. A new building in the same form factor, integrating that façade, would be the ideal. The other building, still mostly standing, could get the same treatment because I doubt it’s worth trying to return the interior to livable condition. But it will all cost someone a pretty penny and those condos will not be cheap.
walkerp 13:53 on 2022-01-25 Permalink
I want to know Guy Desrosiers story, but prima facie, he is going to architectural hell.
Kate 15:42 on 2022-01-25 Permalink
walkerp, you asked the same question 2.5 years ago. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any explanation of what Desrosiers thought he was doing with those two properties.
Max 20:50 on 2022-01-25 Permalink
Thanks for scaring up the 2019 article. I was wondering about that this morning.
I’m confident that the facade will go back up as part of the eventual redevelopment. It’s not like we have a shortage of qualified stonework artisans, and who wouldn’t want to live in a modern apartment, on a quiet tree-lined street, facing Mount Royal, behind an authentic greystone facade? I’d be first in line if I had the means to take on a $1M+ mortgage. That little strip’s on par with Carré St. Louis in terms of desirability.
Could it be M. Desrosiers just aged out of the real-estate game?
Kate 22:02 on 2022-01-25 Permalink
It’s an interesting street architecturally between Mont-Royal and Duluth. Mind you, there’s a real eyesore at 4387 – it looks institutional, and I think it was built as an extension to the one to the south of it, and I have an idea they belong to a religious order. Certainly 4387 is the sort of bad modern architecture the Catholics like.
Also, someone should have a word with the owners of 4219 about that brick excrescence.
Re Desrosiers: quite possibly. I seem to remember he lived in one of those buildings and did not want to leave. Maybe he underestimated the work it takes being a landlord and maintenance guy for a couple of old buildings, even ones that may have been in acceptable condition when he bought them. Something’s always leaking or having to be patched up.
Max 23:01 on 2022-01-25 Permalink
Ouf! There’s one in every crowd, eh? Where’s the architecture police when you really need ’em?
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5164682,-73.5837552,3a,81.2y,38.03h,99.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCNOrE4RC2Ff97aGndGx4pA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
MarcG 11:28 on 2022-01-26 Permalink
What am I even looking at? Yikes.
Max 13:59 on 2022-01-26 Permalink
Retrofitted fire escape is all I can think of. No idea why they would put that monstrosity in front when there’s room in back of the building though.
As for 4387 the internet says it was most recently a 16-bed privately run in-patient mental health / addiction treatment centre. Permanently closed per Google Maps. The older brick building at 4373 is currently a Chez Doris-type women’s shelter / support centre.
https://www.lechainon.org/en/our-services
Blork 16:00 on 2022-01-26 Permalink
Regarding why that fugly fire escape is at the front instead of at the back, it could be because there’s already something at the back and this one is for tenants whose apartments are at the front.
Or more likely, it was just easier to build it in the front, and the work was done in the 70s or early 80s when nobody gave AF about architectural heritage or built-environment aesthetics.