^ Yep indeed. I discovered upon that randomly one day at the parking garage rooftop next doors to take in the nearby views.
 
On the agenda for designation.

This report recommends that City Council include the property at 100 Simcoe Street (with the convenience addresses of 90 Simcoe Street, 130 Pearl Street and 203 Adelaide Street West) on the City of Toronto’s Heritage Register.

Located on the west side of Simcoe Street between Pearl and Adelaide streets in the King-Spadina neighbourhood, the property contains an industrial building that was constructed in two phases and originally occupied by Rolph and Clark Limited (forerunners to Rolph-Clark-Stone Limited), lithographers, graphic designers and stationery manufacturers. Following research and evaluation, it has been determined that the property at 100 Simcoe Street meets Ontario Regulation 9/06, the provincial criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, which the City also applies for properties on the Heritage Register.

The inclusion of the property at 100 Simcoe Street on the City’s Heritage Register would identify all of the property’s cultural heritage values and heritage attributes. Properties on the Heritage Register will be conserved and maintained in accordance with the Official Plan Heritage Policies.
 
Let's hope the developers don't sneakily demolish the building before it receives designation @2444Yonge
 
No, but on the 9th, City Council voted to add the existing building on the site to the city's Heritage Register.

42
 
This proposal has to have one of the most uninspiring podiums I've seen in quite awhile! Toronto deserves much better!
 
Automation Gallery said:
Nothing sneaky if the city issues a permit
Click to expand...

The developer is within their rights because of procedure among the different city departments but, they are also fully aware of the pending designation and will pay up to have the demolition rushed. On the other side, it's not entirely fair for the city to pull off a last minute designation after the developer has possibly recently paid for the site with the intent to redevelop it. It's all pretty damn sneaky.
 
Nothing much new design-wise at the public consultation tonight. The tower is 12.5m from the west property line, as the City requires, and 13.5 metres from the Simcoe Street property line, which is quite a bit more than required by the tall buildings guidelines. The tower could, in a city-building gesture, be moved east to give more space for a redevelopment on the Humbold property to the west.

The most fun bit was George Baird explaining why the building that the City just added to its heritage register isn't worth in architectural terms, showing diagrams of how heavily the building has been modified over the years… even up to last year when the City allowed entrances to the building to be modified, seemingly not caring if the building were being further compromised.

An old photo of the building before any changes were made to it did show that the building once had character. Sorry I don't have that photo to provide now!

42
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
Nothing much new design-wise at the public consultation tonight. The tower is 12.5m from the west property line, as the City requires, and 13.5 metres from the Simcoe Street property line, which is quite a bit more than required by the tall buildings guidelines. The tower could, in a city-building gesture, be moved east to give more space for a redevelopment on the Humbold property to the west.

The most fun bit was George Baird explaining why the building that the City just added to its heritage register isn't worth in architectural terms, showing diagrams of how heavily the building has been modified over the years… even up to last year when the City allowed entrances to the building to be modified, seemingly not caring if the building were being further compromised.

An old photo of the building before any changes were made to it did show that the building once had character. Sorry I don't have that photo to provide now!

42
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the update. Does that imply the building was sort of approved by the city? Were there any objections from the community?
 
Nope, no implications re: approval. Despite no-one commenting on Baird's disparaging of the heritage designation (other than someone noting that Baird is a tough act to follow), the City will not let the heritage building go lightly, now that it's on the register.

What did matter to a number of people were the traffic and servicing issues, especially when it comes to the bicycle lanes, in terms of mode conflict around the building, eg. pedestrians VS cyclists VS cardrivers VS delieryvehicles on tight roads.

…and I complained that the tower placement will make redevelopment of the land to the west more difficult, potentially sticking the city with a surface parking lot. (Without space for a tallish building next door, the business case for redevelopment becomes tough to make.) I said I'd like the owners to go above and beyond and move the tower east.

No comments about 59 storeys.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top