...and all that parking lot with eyesore car service buildings behind. You'd would think they go for that first. /sigh
Agreed. How tone deaf can a landowner be to ignore the low hanging fruit (huge parking lot, ugly auto body shop) and try to go after a pretty historic building that's the only one left on that large block? I don't understand such idiocy.
You can demo / develop buildings that don't belong to you?
 
Rhetorical question but I'll bite...

Are you saying the body shop should have been expropriated to save the house on the corner? Who gets which property? How is the (former)-owner of the lost property compensated?
 
I'm not sure why you are asking a question with an obvious answer. So you have me at an advantage here.
He's pointing out to people who are asking why the owner doesn't want to redevelop the parking lot instead of the heritage building, that it's not the same owner: you cannot redevelop on land you do not own.

42
 
He's pointing out to people who are asking why the owner doesn't want to redevelop the parking lot instead of the heritage building, that it's not the same owner: you cannot redevelop on land you do not own.

42
I don't think anyone was making that claim though. I certainly wasn't...no matter how mistaken we where on the ownership assumption.

With that said, and since it's a contention, I'll amend my statement to: "In the hypothetical, you'd would think they go for that first." Of course, this may not entirely cover the ignorance in the matter...but it removes the ownership part of said property in question for this thread. Mostly. Err...hopefully. >.<
 
After much discussion about who owned what here.............this property is now the subject of a new application involving a much larger assembly!

1640502736618.png


Properties included are 109-127 inclusive.

Aerial Pic:

1640502790976.png


Site size ~3300m2/ 36000ft2

Streetview:

1640502923340.png


Everything from the parking area through to the historical yellow house.
 
@AlbertC I can confirm the proponent here is Republic Developments.

Description also added to the App:

1640975043307.png


I don't remember if I've ever seen a .5 storey referenced in the AIC......
 
Last edited:
Appears like whoever manages the application website caught their mistake. It was changed to 14 storeys after:


Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application to facilitate the redevelopment of the site for a 14 storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 339 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 20,983 square metres.
 


Look at that restored version of the 'Yellow House'.............

Warm colours, varied, progressively from north to south............

A well conceived scale......

I'm not 100% sold on the upper/glass floors in terms of the aesthetic (I wonder if the balconies and the glazing had more of a smoked quality.......hmmm)............but overall, a very nice effort.
 
I don't think I need add any renders to excellent selection offered by @DavidCapizzano but lets add some stats:

1641618442761.png


Parking Ratio is 0.35

1641618549201.png


1641618583892.png


From the Heritage Impact Assessment:

1641618898869.png


1641618921463.png


On the landscape Plan:

Somewhat less ideal.

Soil volumes meet minimum standards for most trees, but don't excel.

Sidewalks are indicated as concrete.

No irrigation to be provided.

1641619188090.png
 
Considering the bridge over the railroad tracks on Strachan, this stretch of Strachan is a travel corridor from the waterfront to Queen Street, especially for bikes and pedestrians. I’m surprised there are townhouses on Strachan and not retail units. Seems like a lost opportunity.

Not a fan of the gray brick at ground level. But overall this seems decent.
 
Not a fan of the gray brick at ground level. But overall this seems decent.

Have a closer look at the drawings.

I don't see any brick at ground level.

Looks like a grey vertical siding, and a taupe, faux-wood finish siding/tile inset.
 

Back
Top