[Mongo]

Reforming the zoning would also mean having to find a new way to fund neighbourhood improvements. If you're moving lots of new people into an area, there's no reason why infrastructure improvements should not be part of the approval in some way.

42

One obvious way to retain the funding would be to institute a flat development tax per square meter of space (presumably with different rates for different uses and project locations), while instituting a much more generous zoning plan. This would eliminate a lot of the uncertainty we have now, on whether a given project will be approved or not.

 

[Mike in TO]

"Development Charges"
"Municipal Land Transfer Tax"
"Ontario Land Transfer Tax"
"HST/GST"

There are plenty of taxes being collected from development by municipal and provincial/federal governments to fund infrastructure.

 

[interchange42]

"Development Charges"
"Municipal Land Transfer Tax"
"Ontario Land Transfer Tax"
"HST/GST"

There are plenty of taxes being collected from development by municipal and provincial/federal governments to fund infrastructure.

Whether the funds come from development-related money or City of Toronto taxes, it has to be raised some way. It's something we need to address as part of a total overhaul of the system.

42

 

[greenleaf]

Inclusion on the City of Toronto's Heritage Register - 2 Carlton Street

"This report recommends that City Council include the property at 2 Carlton Street (including the entry addresses known as 451- 471 Yonge Street) on the City of Toronto's Heritage Register. The property is located at the north-east corner of Yonge and Carlton streets within the proposed Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District (HYHCD).

The property contains, Carlton Tower, an eighteen-storey tower-on-podium complex combining ground floor retail space, a mezzanine and parking on the upper three floors of the podium, with offices in the tower. Designed by the architect Edward I. Richmond, in collaboration with A. R. Moody, architect and W. R. Sefton, engineer, construction was complete by 1959.

In May 2017, the property was nominated for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Following research and evaluation, staff have determined that the property at 2 Carlton Street meets Ontario Regulation 9/06, the provincial criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, which the City applies when considering properties for inclusion on its Heritage Register.

The property at 2 Carlton Street is the subject of a zoning amendment application which would result in the demolition of Carlton Tower.The inclusion of 2 Carlton Street on the City's Heritage Register would identify 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."

 

[raptor]

oh god, this building is now 'heritage'? In my opinion, this sets a dangerous precedent.
For those in the know, what does this mean for the proposed development?

 

[maestro]

There aren't that many towers from its era around. Certainly a fraction of all the mediocre, colourless glass towers being built. I see no problem protecting it just to maintain architectural diversity. It's not bad building either. The proposed development has many zoning issues to overcome to be approved. It was only proposed in protest of zoning changes. This decision doesn't change much.

Re: ugly precedent

We aren't even close to other cities in preserving our built history (Facadism don't count)

 

[Automation Gallery]

Lol, heritage...come on??

Quick photos of the existing building:

 

[raptor]

seriously, should have designated the regent park monstrosities, instead of demolishing

 

[Amare]

Would the inclusion of this building on the Heritage Register exclude it from being able to undergo facendectomy/plopping a tower right on top of the current building? It it doesn't, then we're in for one ugly development, one that's even worse than the last 2 proposals submitted.

 

[mrxbombastic]

The significant portion is the podium architecture at the corner. The upper portions are fairly typical and not all that note worthy. But that crisscrossing diagonal grid at the base, clock portion. And playful and geometric concrete patterning are definitely worthy of preserving given the destructive past of our 50s/60s era architecture

 

[Big Daddy]

Knock it down quickly. There are buildings that are important and need to be protected - this is not one of them.

 

[maestro]

Like Commerce Court South and East ... oh wait... their innovative modernist design aren't worthy of protection either from an uninspired glass stupertall proposal. I see a trend. Both aren't classical in design. Both are to be replaced by much taller skyline punchers

 

[jozl]

This very congested intersection needs help. The subway entrance is too small to accommodate all the traffic it gets and is becoming a real problem. Inclusion of a public plaza within a new development would be nice. The heritage designation does not help.

 

[mrxbombastic]

I think we all agree this intersection needs some rethinking and that the TTC entrances needs to be expanded and better integrated.

I don't think carte blanche for a second rate glassy attempt at "movement" or "playfulness" or extrusions or whatever the developer and architecture team want to espouse about this cold and faceless current design, is what's needed.

Pull back the retained/Incorporated or commemorated facade to add room to the street level. Create a ground level built form that engages in some sort of warmth, whimsy or actual geometric innovation that captures interest and make you want to linger. That's how you would actually help create sense of place and an inviting atmosphere.

/Rant

 

[TheKingEast]

This is what happens when you wipe out all the character this city had and replace it mostly with blue/green glass boxes. How this building has to be saved, I have no idea.