Northern Light
Superstar
TAS has registered to lobby on this one effective today, so somethings a brewing once more.
The description reveals a bit:
The description reveals a bit:
- Thread starter greenleaf
- Start date
AlbertC
Superstar
38 Walmer Road - TAS
Creating a welcoming accessible place while celebrating the rich history of the church, the site it sits on and the Annex community.
tasimpact.ca
38 Walmer Road
TAS and our partners, the Walmer Road Baptist Church have been working together to create a bold new vision for this site. Our proposal includes:
- Adaptive reuse of the existing sanctuary, to include a new space for the Walmer Road Baptist Church and a new commercial community hub.
- 162 new condominiums in a 20-story building.
- A publicly accessible courtyard for residents and members of the local neighbourhood.
We are excited to evolve this place at the corner of Lowther and Walmer in the Annex with and for the community and see this project as a tremendous example of our commitment to building for impact.
Northern Light
Superstar
38 Walmer Road - TAS
Creating a welcoming accessible place while celebrating the rich history of the church, the site it sits on and the Annex community.
38 Walmer Road
TAS and our partners, the Walmer Road Baptist Church have been working together to create a bold new vision for this site. Our proposal includes:
The commercial community hub will be a welcoming, inclusive place that restores the sanctuary’s historical role as a place for community, connection and social innovation.
- Adaptive reuse of the existing sanctuary, to include a new space for the Walmer Road Baptist Church and a new commercial community hub.
- 162 new condominiums in a 20-story building.
- A publicly accessible courtyard for residents and members of the local neighbourhood.
We are excited to evolve this place at the corner of Lowther and Walmer in the Annex with and for the community and see this project as a tremendous example of our commitment to building for impact.
View attachment 414976View attachment 414977View attachment 414978View attachment 414979
Three notes:
One, a front-page story is up on this by @Téana; it can be found here: https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2022/0...cept-walmer-road-baptist-church-redevelopment.
Two, TAS has done a superb job here, I really commend them for it; I would hope they remain involved and Suulin Architects remains the architect of record here to follow this through to its conclusion.
Three, Gh3 on landscape......cringe.............. I'm looking at that render and I see problems........Birch trees everywhere........this has never worked out well, for Gh3 either (see June Callwood)........ I get what they are going for....
but.....no, Aspens are the correct choice here, at least mostly, if one wants to take a flyer on one or two Birch, sure, why not; but not all Birch, bad idea.
Also....that looks like limestone screening to me..........it will not hold up, it never done, it's a @#$# to maintain. The only time it works if it's not intended for people to walk on, and/or very light traffic and very sheltered from wind. For the level of use shown in the render, hardscape (ideally quality interlock) is the correct choice.
Last edited:
neo
New Member
What is limestone screening?
I agree that gh3 struggles on landscape
The building should be taller
I agree that gh3 struggles on landscape
The building should be taller
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
LemonCondo
Active Member
Love the colour on this one!
Northern Light
Superstar
We've seen all the pretty pictures.......so nothing new to add there.........but, the App is now in to the AIC:
Site Plan:
On the architecture, some material details:
From the Planning Rationale Report:
On the Landscape Plan:
Extensive use of Silva Cells, even under the court yard. That bit is good.
Soil volumes are acceptable
Species list is problematic:
Acer Freeman, ok, its native, in that it the hybrid occurs naturally, but its a clone and over-used.
River Birch is NOT native.
This is its native range:
Paper Birch: Great tree, not very urban tolerant, try a couple, if you want to, but not 4, substitute Aspen, much more reliable, similar affect. (dappled light, light coloured bark at lower levels)
Honey Locust: Near native, good urban tree.
Pin Oak: Native to Niagara as its northern limit, I can stretch to allow this one; but I'd prefer Red Oak or White Oak both of which are very reliable in good conditions.
Site Plan:
On the architecture, some material details:
From the Planning Rationale Report:
On the Landscape Plan:
Extensive use of Silva Cells, even under the court yard. That bit is good.
Soil volumes are acceptable
Species list is problematic:
Acer Freeman, ok, its native, in that it the hybrid occurs naturally, but its a clone and over-used.
River Birch is NOT native.
This is its native range:
Paper Birch: Great tree, not very urban tolerant, try a couple, if you want to, but not 4, substitute Aspen, much more reliable, similar affect. (dappled light, light coloured bark at lower levels)
Honey Locust: Near native, good urban tree.
Pin Oak: Native to Niagara as its northern limit, I can stretch to allow this one; but I'd prefer Red Oak or White Oak both of which are very reliable in good conditions.
rickshaw
New Member
This proposed condo is way too tall for the area. Should not be allowed, hopefully won't be allowed. This will ruin a great neighbourhood. Twice the height of anything nearby? Please no!!!!
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Undead
Senior Member
As always with this type of concern, your real target is zoning (lack of "gentle" density), population growth (excessive) and housing financialization (perverse incentives enabled by government policies).
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
If Uno Prii where alive today and designing all those wonderfully weird looking residential buildings that are scattered all through your (and my) neighbourhood, his stuff would never get approved...all because of people like you. Doesn't that make you feel great? Non?
rickshaw
New Member
Do you live nearby? Next door? Across the street? Or are you merely a detached spectator who is admiring the "Art" of the project? Is your home now going to be covered in full shade at all times due to this enormous tower blocking the sun? Do you have little children living on the street that will now be directly exposed to a massive construction site for a few years? (good luck with nap time!) Do you already have trouble finding street parking as it is, and find the intersection often backed up with cars already, without adding hundreds of more people to the neighbourhood? Do you own a property nearby and fear the value will now decrease? If no to all of the above, don't you feel great offering your opinion? non? The "Art" might be wonderfully weird looking, but it affects people's real lives. Doesn't that make you feel great? Non?
Last edited:
smably
Senior Member
rickshaw
New Member
Regardless, I've heard that many neighbours in all directions from this site are planning to fight this very hard. We'll see if it ever ends up actually happening.
Northern Light
Superstar
The poster has already indicated that she lives nearby. Reading posts, before hitting reply is always a wise choice.
I entirely understand concerns over shadows; however, it's important not to wildly exaggerate; if you consult the shadow studies by following the link below, looking under 'supporting documentation' and then going to p.3 and clicking on Sun/Shadow studies, you'll find that no property is affected for more than 2-3 hours per day.
Application Details
secure.toronto.ca
So almost no property is subject to incremental shadow all/most of the day. One apartment building's southern elevation is close'ish, but of note, if you chopped this proposal in half, that wouldn't change.
That sucks, but is a fact of life in booming Toronto, and again, a proposal 1/2 this size would still have a construction schedule 3/4 as long.
The answer to that, frankly, is to stop providing subsidized, below-market street parking. If the City charged the same rates as buildings/homes which rent out spaces nearby, permit parking would go for $225 per month.
At that price, fewer people would have 2-car households, fewer people would have one-car households, and those willing to pay for a market-priced permit, would have no problem finding parking.
(likewise, pay and display parking should be in effect during the daytime, with permit holders exempt, since they've pre-paid)
This is an irrational fear for most owners in this area, as each time a new density precedent is set, the properties nearby end up worth more money, for better or worse.
* There are always exceptions with homes that have full heritage protection or small awkward lots that may not have future development potential.
Resorting to name-calling is unwise, and may attract adverse attention from the Mods.
One can thoughtfully assert a position, for or against any proposal without making it overly personal or hostile. Facts work better.