# Fort York Armoury to be given up by 2031



## The_Falcon (6 Jul 2005)

Ok I know that is a long time off (26 years) and a lot can happen between now and then, but I read this in a backgrounder prepared by LFCA and sent to the Toronto Police Service Board as part of a package to have DND and TPS share a facility in Etobicoke (http://www.torontopoliceboard.on.ca/minutes/2005/05Apr07pmm.pdf  about halfway down).  In the package LFCA states once the lease is up the just plan to let the City take over the property, with no though of what will happen.  It is my hope is that they (the city) preserve the structure for historical purposes.  My question is what happens if DND manages to vacate the building before the lease is up, what happens then.


----------



## Danjanou (6 Jul 2005)

Knowing the three ring circus presently holding court at Havana on Queen St W, they'd probably sand blast all the cap badges off of the front to get rid of the "warlike, anti fill in the blank (wimmin, minority etc etc) military look" of the place. This would of course be done by unionised workers after the necessary orders incouncil that would circumnavigate the fact it's a historic building.

Once that was done and they gutted it, say hello to Toronoto's newest homless shelter/harm reduction centre/safe injection site. Bet they keep all the bars in it though. :


----------



## Vigilant (6 Jul 2005)

Isn't the new Windsor Armoury along the same lines? Having the police use it during the day and the CF use it at night seems like a really good idea. I think this will become the prefered model in the future.


----------



## pbi (6 Jul 2005)

The Tilston Armoury in Windsor works well, according to both the Windsor Police Service and the units of 31 CBG that are housed there.   38 CBG has started a joint project with the Winnipeg Police Service to develop a joint use facility to replace one of our two pre-WWI armouries in the city. The concept (not yet approved) envisions that it will be based on the Tilston concept, and will house some of our units along with the WPS training facility.

As for getting rid of FYA-that has been in the mill at LFCA at least since I was up there in 1998-2000. The facility is poorly located and is on land that both the City and developers would like to get. What really pushed us towards it was the farce we went through of converting the Armoury into a homeless shelter (while still trying to use it as an Armoury). IMHO the City pushed Ottawa (via the then MND who was a former Mayor and still held a Federal seat for Toronto) into giving them the use of Armoury, before they even tried using available city buildings such as at the Exhibition grounds. This episode was a warning to us that the pressure on the Armoury from external sources would only grow, as the facility itself (along with Moss Park) became less useful and more expensive to maintain. Although we (obviously) never pursued it, it seemed like the way ahead.

The old armouries were built to reflect demographics of the pre-WWII era, whether you are talking Toronto, Winnipeg or Montreal. In most cases the population that once joined the Militia (WASP middle and working class folks) lived a walk or a streetcar ride from the Armouries. That has long, long ago changed: it was certainly no longer true when I joined the RRegtC at FYA in 1974. Most of us came from the suburbs then, and still do today. Inner city dwellers tend to be either yuppies or poor, neither of whom are big joiners.

As far as the fate of transferred Armouries: it depends on the heritage status accorded to them. This is a Federal law and cannot be arbitrarily violated by a City for the PC reasons you suggested. The problem lies in how old the structure is, or what particular historical significance it has. Just because it is 50 years old doesn't guarantee anything. FYA, being 70 years old, might have a better chance, barely. Old armouries still exist for other purposes in London, Picton and elsewhere: the degree of preservation varies.

Cheers.


----------



## Vigilant (6 Jul 2005)

I think that geographically at least, a Markham armoury would be a good idea.  The Dennison Armoury is a great location for getting people in the Vaughn and west Toronto area, but a Markham Armoury would attract people from Richmond Hill, Markham, Thornhill, and Whitchurh-Stoufville areas. Maybe somewhere along the 404? And it would of course be done with York Regional Police as a co-located facility.

Where do you think we should replace FYA? Should we replace MPA as well? Perhaps if we build an armoury in Scarbourough we might only need one downtown armoury?


----------



## jmacleod (6 Jul 2005)

Sorry to hear that Fort York Armoury is on the chopping block - have fond memories of the famous
building. Had the same problem in ancient Halifax NS, when Ottawa based bureaucrats decided to
dispose of the Halifax Armouries, Royal Artillery Park (RA Park) and the famous Cambridge Library
until South end Halifax citizens, who have real political and financial clout heard about the idea
which very quickly vanished. Have always been partial to saving our Heritage, particularly our
Military Heritage. The famed Nova Scotia International Tattoo is having financial problems with
Ottawa, which will be resolved. Actually got involved in the restoration of the Replica Schooner
Bluenose II, which NS Tourism Bureaucrats decided to destroy. The efforts of Halifax barrister
Wilfred P. Moore QC, led to Federal financial support, and the creation of the Bluenose Trust
- otherwise the bureaucrats planned to strip the ship, chop up it's hull and sell the wooden
chunks, like pieces of the "True Cross" - but the vessel survived, thanks to Willie Moore and PM
Chretien who provided the cash. MacLeod


----------



## alan_li_13 (6 Jul 2005)

Anyone heard anything about how this will affect the four Army Cadet corps? I guess they go where their regiments go, right? One idea that most likely will not fly is giving FYA to the cadets. The cadets in Ottawa have their own building that they occupy. It would probably solve alot of problems such as training space and whatnot. The money would be hard to come by though.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jul 2005)

aspiring officer said:
			
		

> Anyone heard anything about how this will affect the four Army Cadet corps? I guess they go where their regiments go, right? One idea that most likely will not fly is giving FYA to the cadets. The cadets in Ottawa have their own building that they occupy. It would probably solve alot of problems such as training space and whatnot. The money would be hard to come by though.



More than likely you'd get to start parading in a school or Lions Club hall like most other cadet regiments.


----------



## GGHG_Cadet (6 Jul 2005)

Some





			
				Vigilant said:
			
		

> I think that geographically at least, a Markham armoury would be a good idea.  The Dennison Armoury is a great location for getting people in the Vaughn and west Toronto area, but a Markham Armoury would attract people from Richmond Hill, Markham, Thornhill, and Whitchurh-Stoufville areas. Maybe somewhere along the 404? And it would of course be done with York Regional Police as a co-located facility.
> 
> Where do you think we should replace FYA? Should we replace MPA as well? Perhaps if we build an armoury in Scarbourough we might only need one downtown armoury?


Sometime in the future the Governor General's Horse Guards are planning to put an armoury in Markham. The regiment chose Markham because it was a good location to draw people from other towns and the regiment has its roots in Markham.


----------



## Vigilant (6 Jul 2005)

GGHG_Cadet said:
			
		

> SomeSometime in the future the Governor General's Horse Guards are planning to put an armoury in Markham. The regiment chose Markham because it was a good location to draw people from other towns and the regiment has its roots in Markham.



That's pretty interesting. May I ask who your source is? Would all the GG's move there, or is it a new coy thing like the TorScots in Mississauga and the QOR in Scarborough?


----------



## Highland Laddie (11 Jul 2005)

PBI,

Is the Winnipeg Armoury you refer to McGregor or Minto? I know McGregor has structural issues, but I had heard that there was a plan to build a new 'hanger' style building in the back for vehicles and class rooms. Is there merit to this plan, or is it 'pie in the sky' dreaming? Cheers.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> The Tilston Armoury in Windsor works well, according to both the Windsor Police Service and the units of 31 CBG that are housed there.   38 CBG has started a joint project with the Winnipeg Police Service to develop a joint use facility to replace one of our two pre-WWI armouries in the city. The concept (not yet approved) envisions that it will be based on the Tilston concept, and will house some of our units along with the WPS training facility.
> 
> As for getting rid of FYA-that has been in the mill at LFCA at least since I was up there in 1998-2000. The facility is poorly located and is on land that both the City and developers would like to get. What really pushed us towards it was the farce we went through of converting the Armoury into a homeless shelter (while still trying to use it as an Armoury). IMHO the City pushed Ottawa (via the then MND who was a former Mayor and still held a Federal seat for Toronto) into giving them the use of Armoury, before they even tried using available city buildings such as at the Exhibition grounds. This episode was a warning to us that the pressure on the Armoury from external sources would only grow, as the facility itself (along with Moss Park) became less useful and more expensive to maintain. Although we (obviously) never pursued it, it seemed like the way ahead.
> 
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Jul 2005)

Let's not forget that with old armouries come major upkeep bills.  As nice as it would be to keep all the old buildings, it doesn't make good economic sense.


----------



## swanita (22 Jul 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that with old armouries come major upkeep bills.   As nice as it would be to keep all the old buildings, it doesn't make good economic sense.



That is true but I would truly hate to see my armoury go, even though it's a long ways off. That building holds lots of memories for a lot of people. It would be such a shame for it to be torn down  :'(  But I guess only time will truly tell. When the time comes & the decision's made then we'll all know.


----------



## Vigilant (22 Jul 2005)

As I see it HQ and A Coy of the Tor Sctos will move to the new Etobicoke location probably in Fall of 2007. Everyone else looks to be staying for now.


----------



## Highland Laddie (22 Jul 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that with old armouries come major upkeep bills.   As nice as it would be to keep all the old buildings, it doesn't make good economic sense.



True, but on the flip side most of these buildings, particulalry those pre-dating 1917 would be classified as Class A National Historic Sites or Buildings. This really limits redevelopment potential of these buildings for other uses, and thus the amount of money that the government would get for them. 

I know that there have been a few notable exceptions to this, such as a armoury that has been converted into a Delta Hotel in Ontario (London??). What the government received as a selling price would be a good question. Overall though, we wouldn't get much, if anything, or these sites as the buildings more than likely can't be torn down.


----------



## swanita (22 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> As I see it HQ and A Coy of the Tor Sctos will move to the new Etobicoke location probably in Fall of 2007. Everyone else looks to be staying for now.



What Etobicoke location? I haven't heard anything about that. We are just opening our Mississauga site at stand-to in September, which was supposed to be done LAST year.


----------



## Vigilant (22 Jul 2005)

Separate thread:

The new Etobicoke Armoury (Joint Use with Toronto Police)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32833.0.html


----------



## swanita (22 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> Separate thread:
> 
> The new Etobicoke Armoury (Joint Use with Toronto Police)
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32833.0.html



Interesting, but for some reason I was under the impression that that building would also be in mississauga but i guess not!! But highly doubt it'll actually happen in the 2 yrs stated!! We all know that rarely a construction project is done when predicted  .


----------



## Vigilant (23 Jul 2005)

swanita said:
			
		

> Interesting, but for some reason I was under the impression that that building would also be in mississauga but i guess not!! But highly doubt it'll actually happen in the 2 yrs stated!! We all know that rarely a construction project is done when predicted  .



No, we can't have the Toronto Scottish ALL moving to Mississauga now, can we? It does fit in well though if the Tor Scots were concentrated on the west end, and the QYRang went north. Historically, companies of what was then called York County Battalion were based in Scarborough, Aurora, and King Township.

The Royals might move to Etobicoke as well, if LFCA decides to move out fast.

The Toronto Police Service would really like this done fast. It's been pushed back several years now, but I see Fall 2008 as being reasonable.


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Jul 2005)

and the 48th and the QOR....

where would they go?  Historically speaking that is...

dileas

tess


----------



## Vigilant (23 Jul 2005)

Am I being tested? 

You probably know this better than I, but as I recall the 48th first started parading at Upper Canada College and have always had close ties with a lot of connected people. They play at the first game of the Maple Leafs every season.

Queen's Own has been a part of the city since before Confederation.

As I see it they're both downtown Units.


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Jul 2005)

More of an education for other posters....but with your historical reasoning where should the regiments I asked go...it piqued my interest and curiosty of where they should end up...

Why, do you feel that you are being tested?   

dileas

tess


----------



## Art Johnson (23 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> Am I being tested?
> 
> You probably know this better than I, but as I recall the 48th first started parading at Upper Canada College and have always had close ties with a lot of connected people. They play at the first game of the Maple Leafs every season.
> 
> ...



Just a minor correction re Upper Canada College and the 48th.

The 48th occupied the buildings of the Old Upper Canada College location that had been vacated when the College moved to it's new location. The old College had been located on the North side of King Street West I believe it is now called Bishop Strachan Park. The 48th  remained there till the University Armouries was opened in 1894.

Aye Dileas


----------



## Vigilant (23 Jul 2005)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> More of an education for other posters....but with your historical reasoning where should the regiments I asked go...it piqued my interest and curiosty of where they should end up...
> Why, do you feel that you are being tested?



Sometimes... But that is good, we should continously test ourselves and improve on what we find lacking. Too many people aren't interested in history, which is a real shame when it comes to the military and our own Units.



			
				Art Johnson said:
			
		

> The 48th occupied the buildings of the Old Upper Canada College location that had been vacated when the College moved to it's new location. The old College had been located on the North side of King Street West I believe it is now called Bishop Strachan Park. The 48th  remained there till the University Armouries was opened in 1894.




Thanks. I was just recalling what a buddy of mine from the 48th said (who I think also said he used to go to UCC).  That is one heck of an interesting historical tidbit. I'm not too familiar with the history of UCC, but I've gone past the park a few times.


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Jul 2005)

there you go,

you have used a quote from two former 48th Highlanders...

anytime you need a question answered, or decide to join the dark side, feel free to ask us.

dileas

tess


----------



## Vigilant (23 Jul 2005)

I appreciate that.

I've considered the 48th before. Lots of good friends in there.

MCpl Young was one of the instructors on my course, and so was Sgt Martin (before he left last year, just so you know which one I'm talking about). Good people, good times...


----------



## pbi (29 Jul 2005)

Highland Laddie said:
			
		

> PBI,
> 
> Is the Winnipeg Armoury you refer to McGregor or Minto? I know McGregor has structural issues, but I had heard that there was a plan to build a new 'hanger' style building in the back for vehicles and class rooms. Is there merit to this plan, or is it 'pie in the sky' dreaming? Cheers.



I am now a bit out of the loop, but as of July when I left 38 CBG, the idea was still only in a formative stage. There was no "plan": in fact we had not yet even written the SOR (Statement of Requirement) that is a key document in such a project. As well, 17 Wing still has not completed their portion of an Armoury Option Analysis that we started three years ago, and passed to them for technical review of five main options. Building a new Armoury, leasing a new Armoury, or going into a joint-use venture were three of the options IIRC. 

Having said that, the most likely Armoury to be replaced is McGregor, which is the least suitable and least structurally sound of the two. Minto is becoming more and more crowded all the time (there are now no less than four different CF Reserve chains of command represented in it   as well as Cadets and Museums) but it is still basically sound. The "hangar" project you refer to was still on hold when I left, waiting for 17 Wing to provide the SOR (the project was actually put forward not by 38 CBG but by 17 Wg TEME Sqn, who once had a Det in Minto). If it were to be approved, it would replace the ancient vehicle garage at the rear of Minto. It will probably still have to be at the rear, as there has been a history of local resistance to any attempt to construct new DND buildings in Minto Park across the street in the additional parking area.

Cheers.


----------

