You can view the page at http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/01/heritage-mingles-modern-sultan-and-st-thomas-project
Last edited by a moderator:
|
|
|
- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
greenleaf
Senior Member
I still don't like the new entrances on Sultan St, but if that is what it takes to get a well thought out design and to maintain the buildings, I can live with that.
Uncle Teddy
Senior Member
I love in-fill like this. Looks like its well thought out.
Red October
Senior Member
I like the fact that it looks like most details will be kept, and the greenroof is a good touch.
I still think they should keep that aging tree along Sultan.
I still think they should keep that aging tree along Sultan.
SimonP
Active Member
I still would prefer to keep that island of lowrises. The diversity of heights makes that corner of Yorkville very appealing.
adamovich
New Member
I still think this is completely inappropriate for this site. These are to me, some of the nicest old buildings and add such whimsy to this quaint intersection. I'm all about infill and density, but I'm getting tired of developers just dropping buildings on top of historical sites. It's insulting and completely degrades the heritage structures. Hopefully the planners will come to their senses.
ps. the patterned brick fronts are horribly cheesy and like many have said in the other thread... "80's".
ps. the patterned brick fronts are horribly cheesy and like many have said in the other thread... "80's".
milanista
Active Member
What an absolutely unnecessary project. Sure the Yorkville area is prime real estate and I can understand why everyone wants to take advantage of that and put up a tower there, but unless these heritage structures are literally falling apart inside, I see no reason for this to go through.
pw20
Active Member
I for one like this project.
Only quibble - I'd love to see cafe/resto use on the first floor. I imagine the houses some gorgeous heritage features that would make for a unique eating space that would provide a great dining experience a block away from the hustle and bustle of Bloor Street. The area has a lack of quality resto's (sassafraz doesn't count...)
WiddleBittyKitty
Felis catus
These buildings are Designated Part IV Heritage Properties. I assume the designation covers the exterior only, as these buildings do not contain major public spaces like a church would. Despite that, I assume that Heritage Services wants as much of the existing buildings retained as possible.
1) What could the owner do as of right without the re-zoning that is being applied for? (How much teeth does the Heritage Preservation Act have?) I am under the impression that post-process they could simply bulldoze these if they wanted, but then they would not get any density bonus from the City. Am I on track with that?
2) We know the owner is not going that route however. I assume that with the rezoning application the owner is saying "For retaining these structures and enhancing the public realm, we want enough density bonus to be allowed a 9 floor tower." How does the City determine what is a fair swap in these cases?
1) What could the owner do as of right without the re-zoning that is being applied for? (How much teeth does the Heritage Preservation Act have?) I am under the impression that post-process they could simply bulldoze these if they wanted, but then they would not get any density bonus from the City. Am I on track with that?
2) We know the owner is not going that route however. I assume that with the rezoning application the owner is saying "For retaining these structures and enhancing the public realm, we want enough density bonus to be allowed a 9 floor tower." How does the City determine what is a fair swap in these cases?
We have two more images now.
Looking east across St. Thomas Street at the west and south sides of the project.
Detail of the curved, fritted glass of the office tower portion.
Looking east across St. Thomas Street at the west and south sides of the project.
Detail of the curved, fritted glass of the office tower portion.
Peepers
Banned
This looks good to me. They have preserved the heritage facades (no doubt they will be restored to pristine condition) and the low rise office building looks really intriguing with its curved glass (which appears to be fritted in some places with the pattern found in the paving brick).
Student99
Active Member
I'm actually liking the extent of the preservation. If only St Thomas Commerical Developments had snapped up the properties across the street instead of Minto (those now demolished townhouses on Charles and the University Apartments)... I bet they would have shown a similar respect to the heritage.
EDIT: okay okay I know those properties weren't under the same heritage designation as these. And who knows, maybe this company wouldn't be so inclined to preservation if they weren't required to.
EDIT: okay okay I know those properties weren't under the same heritage designation as these. And who knows, maybe this company wouldn't be so inclined to preservation if they weren't required to.
Last edited:
Morgan Edge
New Member
Well it looks like their artist/model maker pulled an all nighter after all the bitching everyone did yesterday 
These new renderings are helping me to feel a lot better about this project, and I really hope the end result is going to be as sensitive to the heritage aspects as they now seem to be. I don't like everything about it, the funky landscaping IMO is suited better for tarting up some drab 60s block tower or something. Also I don't know what those houses are like on the inside but if they are original then I wouldn't want them to be gutted. But this is much better then the nightmare I thought they were facing yesterday. Still I wonder (worry) about the first rendering we saw and why it appeared to be so different from what we're seeing now?
I do really dig the tower portion though, love the rounded glass and all. Personally, I would rather see it get built on a empty lot but if something has to go on top of these houses then we could certainly do a lot worse
These new renderings are helping me to feel a lot better about this project, and I really hope the end result is going to be as sensitive to the heritage aspects as they now seem to be. I don't like everything about it, the funky landscaping IMO is suited better for tarting up some drab 60s block tower or something. Also I don't know what those houses are like on the inside but if they are original then I wouldn't want them to be gutted. But this is much better then the nightmare I thought they were facing yesterday. Still I wonder (worry) about the first rendering we saw and why it appeared to be so different from what we're seeing now?
I do really dig the tower portion though, love the rounded glass and all. Personally, I would rather see it get built on a empty lot but if something has to go on top of these houses then we could certainly do a lot worse
landscapeurbanismTO
New Member
A totally unnecessary addition! These houses can stand alone as destination and important retail precincts similar to the houses along Cumberland St. in Yorkville. Like another member stated, why not look at an empty lot for infill. It's just poor planning and insensitive to both local history and preservation principles,E.R.A should
be ashamed of themselves as heritage consultants. The City, developer and architect should be too. Toronto is becoming way too desensitized to mutilating perfectly beautiful and structurally sound historical/heritage buildings.
be ashamed of themselves as heritage consultants. The City, developer and architect should be too. Toronto is becoming way too desensitized to mutilating perfectly beautiful and structurally sound historical/heritage buildings.
landscapeurbanismTO: you know that this is a (reasonably) market driven economy, right? and that property owners have rights? and they aren't able to develop land they don't own?
if you want to replace the process that examines the redevelopment of developed land with a complete cessation of that kind of activity, then when not start by writing to your mpp and ask them to enact legislation that prevents it?
otherwise, everyone will likely continue about their business, and most probably, without any shame.
42
if you want to replace the process that examines the redevelopment of developed land with a complete cessation of that kind of activity, then when not start by writing to your mpp and ask them to enact legislation that prevents it?
otherwise, everyone will likely continue about their business, and most probably, without any shame.
42