​

Agenda Item History 2023.PB11.5

Agenda Item History 2023.PB11.5
secure.toronto.ca

PB11.5 - 200 University Avenue - Alterations to and Demolition of Heritage Attributes of a Designated Property​

Consideration Type: ACTION
Ward: 10 - Spadina - Fort York

Origin​

(October 16, 2023) Report from Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning

Recommendations​

The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that:

1. City Council refuse the issuance of an alteration permit for the heritage property at 200 University Avenue, in accordance with Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

2. City Council refuse the issuance of a demolition permit for the heritage attributes of the heritage property at 200 University Avenue, in accordance with Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

3. If the owner appeals City Council’s decision to refuse the issuance of an alteration permit under Section 33 or a demolition permit under Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act for the heritage property at 200 University Avenue, City Council authorize the City Solicitor and the necessary City staff to attend the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing in opposition to the appeal.
 
The OLT Merit hearing is scheduled for July:

1706369803331.png
 
Neither here nor there - and the architecture of the addition looks utterly uninspiring, relative to the structure below (lord knows, it failed pretending not to be there already, given the barely there gap between the two and the unavoidable connection that is the core).

It could have used a more radical interpretation. That, or may the current doldrums stick around for longer.

AoD
 
Last edited:
There should be a gap, and then an exact replica for a few floors in a different colour, as the tower climbs higher it should slowly morph and fade away into the skyline.
 
Red_Bulmer said:
There should be a gap, and then an exact replica for a few floors in a different colour, as the tower climbs higher it should slowly morph and fade away into the skyline.
Click to expand...

I thought extending the original lantern element - first as an expression of the core, followed by a replica at the crown of the addition would be more desirable. And if one is going through that much trouble to extend the tower with the perimeter columns, it would serve to express it in the structure all the way as well.

AoD
 
ProjectEnd said:
620 units with 4 elevators...
Click to expand...
I mean we might as well just have 1 elevator for those 620 units at this point right?

The province doesnt give a damn, and a lot of developers clearly dont give a damn either.

At this point (sad to say and I really hope i'm wrong) it's probably going to take an unfortunate incident to finally have elevator standards mandated.
 
officedweller said:
What's up with the staggered/setbacks on the north elevation at the top of the new addition?
Click to expand...
Trying to be needlessly janky because that's what all the cool developers do...

...or a not so great negotiation around an air ambulance flight path restriction.
 
Amare said:
I mean we might as well just have 1 elevator for those 620 units at this point right?

The province doesnt give a damn, and a lot of developers clearly dont give a damn either.

At this point (sad to say and I really hope i'm wrong) it's probably going to take an unfortunate incident to finally have elevator standards mandated.
Click to expand...
Technically that is all that's required by current code.
 
The effort to ‘differentiate’ the old and new doesn’t make sense in this case. It would probably fit better with the original International Style ethos to simply expand the height but with the original facade language all the way up.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top