gristle
Senior Member
So for you, forty-seven is good enough for demolition? Or is it fifty?
|
|
|
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
Mongo
Senior Member
This is a non-sequitur. Automation Gallery was stating that even 47-floor buildings can be built on small lots, and hence the existing historic buildings need not be demolished, since this project might end up being built behind them. Then you come back with a reply that completely misses the point.
gristle
Senior Member
No, I got the point, I was asking a direct question about when demolition would be appropriate in his opinion.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
You know very well im against knocking any of these historical buildings down, but you just want an argument
gristle
Senior Member
Well that's good to hear that you are against knocking these historical buildings down. Does that apply to all historical buildings?
Not an argument, just a question.
Not an argument, just a question.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
A better discription of what we're getting
91 KING ST E
OPA / Rezoning 12 145905 STE 28 OZ Ward 28
- Tor & E.York Mar 29, 2012 --- --- --- Teixeira, Alex
416-392-0481
Rezoning application for 71-95 King St E to permit a 47-storey (137 m excluding mechanical penthouse) mixed-use building with a 4-storey podium. The podium component occupies the entire footprint of the site. The proposl includes 355 dwelling units and 8,135 square metres of non-residetial uses. The applicant is also proposing 213 parking spaces in 5 levels of underground parking.
91 KING ST E
OPA / Rezoning 12 145905 STE 28 OZ Ward 28
- Tor & E.York Mar 29, 2012 --- --- --- Teixeira, Alex
416-392-0481
Rezoning application for 71-95 King St E to permit a 47-storey (137 m excluding mechanical penthouse) mixed-use building with a 4-storey podium. The podium component occupies the entire footprint of the site. The proposl includes 355 dwelling units and 8,135 square metres of non-residetial uses. The applicant is also proposing 213 parking spaces in 5 levels of underground parking.
Platform 27
Active Member
First off, confirmation that this is the entire block from 71 to 95, not just Albany at 91. Clearly the same project as in this thread; should be merged.
Secondly, unless the "four storey podium" is a reference to the existing building (with a tower core stabbed through a small portion of it), I don't see how we're not looking at a complete obliteration of the block and a rebuild -- potentially with a salvaged facade used to re-skin the modern podium, potentially not. The parking's a strong hint: 5 levels of an assumed 40 parking spaces each has a sizeable footprint, larger than could be stuffed in a small tower core, so would likely require a rather large hole.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Not much info on the row of historical bldgs.
Unlike how it was mentioned in the Five Condo development.
Project: proposed construction of a 45-storey glass and steel condominium apartment building with 412 units. The project will be built above three existing brick-clad heritage buildings at 11 Saint Joseph St and 9-25 Saint Nicholas St, these will be redeveloped for approximately 30,000 sq ft of retail and amenity space.
Scope: 470,000 square feet; 45 storeys; 1 storey below grade; 4 structures; 412 units; 1 acres
Unlike how it was mentioned in the Five Condo development.
Project: proposed construction of a 45-storey glass and steel condominium apartment building with 412 units. The project will be built above three existing brick-clad heritage buildings at 11 Saint Joseph St and 9-25 Saint Nicholas St, these will be redeveloped for approximately 30,000 sq ft of retail and amenity space.
Scope: 470,000 square feet; 45 storeys; 1 storey below grade; 4 structures; 412 units; 1 acres
DSC
Superstar
Any ideas of who is behind this proposal?
adma
Superstar
Incidentally, the non-listed endangerment of this blockfront was mentioned in the January 25 Built Heritage News--and I'm not sure if somewhere else; anyway, the parallels with the 81 Wellesley East situation are worth noting...
thecharioteer
Senior Member
Would anyone have believed that in 2012 Toronto, a row of 1842 buildings on King East, designed by John Howard, could not only be unlisted and unacknowledged by our intrepid heritage bureaucrats (who have been listing buildings since 1973), but could be in danger of demolition?
ahmad.m.atiya
Banned
It's just a block of dated stores with a history no more important than my next door neighbour's house. What's the point of saving these buildings? The facade is not even close to what it looked like in the early 1900s, never mind when it was built in ~1850. The exterior (most likely the interior as well) is extremely dilapidated and is a seriously diminishes the rejuvenation of that neighbourhood. Even if it were to be cleaned up as part of this development, I would still rather see something more modern built in its place. The fact is that these "heritage" buildings did very little to create an openness to pedestrians. The reason likely being that the technology to build large windows that sufficiently expose the interior to the outside simply wasn't available.
With that said, prioritizing the removal of parking lots over any building (no matter how disastrously ugly and dated) is a must.
jje1000
Senior Member
Methinks I predict you'll get chewed up on that first point. Seriously though anything being built should be better than what it replaces- and that includes parking lots.
Last edited:
thecharioteer
Senior Member
Interesting that the attitudes expressed are very similar to those that led to the almost wholesale demolition of the St. Lawrence neighbourhood in the 50's to 70's, and could have equally be applied to the King block east of Church, which also looked quite "dilapidated" in the 70's:
egotrippin
Senior Member
I don't normally tell people that their opinions are wrong, but this is just wrong. Might as well raze everything over 20 years old, because the effects of age may be noticeable.