Tuesday, February 2, 2010

St Patrick's Market/A. Stork and Sons/Then and Now

This watercolour seems to show an even earlier version of the market.
The property was bequeathed to the city by D’Arcy Boulton in 1837 and it was expressly provided that it was to be used forever as a public market and that if the city ceased to use it for this purpose, the property should revert to the heirs of the Boulton estate.


The original St Patrick's Market was built in 1854 stood here until 1912 when it was
replaced by the building below.

Here's a couple of photos (again from the 80's) of A.Stork and Sons
Fresh Killed Poultry on Queen West.
To the left is the Beverly Tavern and to the right
an empty lot where the Christmas tree lot
from "A Christmas Story" was filmed in 1982.
On several occasions I remember hanging out back of
the Bev late at night and watching the police round
up stray chickens that had escaped the slaughter.
Sometime in the mid 1980's.
As seen in the movie. The empty lot has since been filled in.
 Sometime in the 1980's as seen by P.Cummins.
A somewhat current view.
The building has since been re-purposed as the Queen Street Market but remains mostly vacant. I wonder how much time needs to pass before the ownership reverts back?


9 comments:

  1. do you know anything about the legacy agreement connected to this building? we heard the former owner mandatesd it for local food businesses and non profits....

    ReplyDelete
  2. great post!! love to hear about toronto history

    ReplyDelete
  3. I grew up at 21 St. Patrick's Sq. I remember every sunday morning when they came and picked up all the blood and guts in the back of Stork's. Also, the neat little park back there now was a parking lot for the chicken trucks, there was always disgusting puddles and potholes filled with guck and chicken shit back there; it was very dirty in those days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I grew up at 11 St Patrick Sq in the 80`s and I remember everything you just said... perhaps we know eachother...

      Delete
  4. It was a mess...
    There was also a chicken processing plant on Spadina just north of Baldwin.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Copied from posting by WWWebster in Urban Toronto (St patrick's Market thread)
    The following is an excerpt from the April 4, 1913 edition of the Toronto World:


    St. Patrick’s Market Cannot Be Used for Other Purposes
    Effort of City to Act in Opposition to Will of Testator Was of No Avail

    Yesterday was Toronto’s day at the Parliament buildings. The city had a ponderous bill before the private bills committee, and, like many other private bills, it was cut and mutilated unmercifully. The city was represented by W.K. McNaught, the sponsor of the bill; Mayor Hocken, Corporation Counsel Geary and the board of control.

    The strongest gale that struck the city’s plans was directed against the request that the city should be allowed to use the site of St. Patrick’s market for civic purposes other than as a civic market, in spite of the fact that when the property was bequeathed to the city by D’Arcy Boulton in 1837 it was expressly provided that it was to be used forever as a public market and that if the city ceased to use it for this purpose, the property should revert to the heirs of the Boulton estate.

    Mr. Geary, in pleading for the legislature’s sanction to the clause providing that the city might “use the site for other purposes that a market notwithstanding the provisions of any conveyance thereof,” stated that the property had been used for a market for 75 years and that now it was no longer suitable for this purpose.

    H.T. Beck, counsel for the heirs of the Boulton estate, strenuously objected to the passing of the clause. “If the city doesn’t require the market they ought to give the land back. They are only able to upset the will on a technicality.”

    Almost Insulting

    “If this action had been taken by private parties they would have been called dishonorable men,” said J.R. Cartwright, deputy attorney-general. “The sum that is offered to the heirs, $5000, is ridiculous, almost insulting. The land is worth almost $200,000.”

    Mayor Hocken claimed the land was worth no more than $40,000. “Mr. Boulton’s action,” he said, “was not primarily philanthropic in giving that market to the city. He wanted to add to the value of his own property adjoining. If the property paid taxes its price would have been paid out twice over in two years.”

    The net result of the discussion was that the committee struck out the clause. The city officials were disappointed at this turn in their plans, and after the committee had risen Mayor Hocken said he was certain the city would now go on and rebuild the market.

    ReplyDelete