You can view the page at http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2010/07/596-church-street-proposal
Last edited by a moderator:
|
|
|
- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
Edward
Senior Member
I don't see the fuss. Nice addition and they seem to be saving the best of what's currently there. Currently a motley bunch.
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
I can't agree with Edward - low-rise apartments are part of what keeps this area homey and livable. Though these are not specimens in particular, they are attractive examples that make Gloucester accessible and comprehensible. Living in Montreal, I can safely say developers should bend to every need of the human community. This building is too tall and /*or should be set back further - soyez nombreux at this meeting.
Uncle Teddy
Senior Member
Set back to where? This building is already on the lot line.
Setting this building back from the lot line would mean a smaller floor plate for the tower, and I cannot see any reason why the size of the floor plate should be set in stone at this point.
milanista
Active Member
I wish I could make it to this meeting to voice my opposition of this ridiculous project.
Find an empty surface parking lot to build your cookie cutter tower on, there are plenty still kicking around.
The city really should institute some sort of moratorium on demolition in the downtown core until all surface lots are built upon. Sure that idea may sound far fetched to some, but it's the kind of thinking that needs to start going on at city hall if we want to have any sort of street character left in 20 years and not just anonymous glass boxes everywhere that give nothing back to the community, but could be picked up and plunked down in virtually any city on the continent due to their dullness.
Find an empty surface parking lot to build your cookie cutter tower on, there are plenty still kicking around.
The city really should institute some sort of moratorium on demolition in the downtown core until all surface lots are built upon. Sure that idea may sound far fetched to some, but it's the kind of thinking that needs to start going on at city hall if we want to have any sort of street character left in 20 years and not just anonymous glass boxes everywhere that give nothing back to the community, but could be picked up and plunked down in virtually any city on the continent due to their dullness.
wmedia
Senior Member
Yet another bland box. C'mon people, get creative! I'm all for modern buildings, but this generic neo-modernist style is getting very tedious.
junctionist
Senior Member
The tower could be built anywhere. The existing buildings on the site form an attractive heritage brick streetscape even though they're a bit plain. We shouldn't tear stuff like this down.
Peepers
Banned
The only solution to this impending disaster would be to redesign a tower with a much smaller floor plate. This would allow all historic frontages to be preserved but would result in a much taller tower - which is not a problem as far as I am concerned.
Unfortunately the city planners dropped the ball on this one. The original proposal was for a taller tower but the city planners insisted on a "mid-rise" tower which necessitated a larger floor plate.
Unfortunately the city planners dropped the ball on this one. The original proposal was for a taller tower but the city planners insisted on a "mid-rise" tower which necessitated a larger floor plate.
ganjavih
Senior Member
Toronto continues to be a victim of its own success.
4pook
Active Member
A boring box that squashes what it pretends to protect.