Northern Light said:
So then the problem isn't HCDs per se; but some HCDs, the motivations for same and the details within same.

How about we avoid baby and bathwater syndrome and fix the problematic ones rather than banishing HCDs writ large.
Click to expand...

Oh, I never suggested banning HCDs. I said "stop using heritage conservation districts as a blatant attempt to stiffle development on main streets", which is an improper use of HCDs. There are places were HCDs are an effective tool. Other places where their use is questionable. For example, the use of an HCD for a massive, quickly evolving and highly diverse area like the St. Lawrence so-called "neighbourhood" (which extends from Yonge to Trinity, according to the HCD) has been questioned by planners and heritage consultants.
 
The Avenue's plan is great but, it's introducing significant density and height increases for many of these communities. There's obviously going to be backlash with results like HCDs. The same can be said with introducing something like laneway houses. These are great long term growth strategies. There's a lot less resistance when it comes to subdividing lots currently occupied by bungalows with driveway extending to the rear yards for two semi detached homes or converting a large house to condo apartments. I could be wrong but, I see less resistance towards 2, 3, 6 flats (Chicago term) as well since they maintain the current look of houses with front and rear yards. We need more of this for now.
 
Only way I'd accept this building being touched is if they carried the exact same materials and design of the existing building all the way to the top, rather than just slapping up some glass tower.
 
maestro said:
The Avenue's plan is great but, it's introducing significant density and height increases for many of these communities. There's obviously going to be backlash with results like HCDs. The same can be said with introducing something like laneway houses. These are great long term growth strategies. There's a lot less resistance when it comes to subdividing lots currently occupied by bungalows with driveway extending to the rear yards for two semi detached homes or converting a large house to condo apartments. I could be wrong but, I see less resistance towards 2, 3, 6 flats (Chicago term) as well since they maintain the current look of houses with front and rear yards. We need more of this for now.
Click to expand...

Of course, the laneway housing report just got deferred. By whom, I wonder :rolleyes:

AoD
 
upload_2018-5-4_16-23-8.png


176m

Only 5 elevators serving 54 floors! wow..
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-5-4_16-23-8.png
    upload_2018-5-4_16-23-8.png
    455.8 KB · Views: 629
Get rid of the balconies so the other pattern can wrap the whole building. Balconies higher than floor 18-20 don't make much sense any way.
 
Awful composition. The vertical subways tile do not connect to the base building at all. The crown is even worse. More subway tiles isn't going to make these random elements look anymore put together.

On a side note, the 90s trend of putting tiles vertically is hopefully never revisited
 
maestro said:
Awful composition. The vertical subways tile do not connect to the base building at all. The crown is even worse. More subway tiles isn't going to make these random elements look anymore put together.

On a side note, the 90s trend of putting tiles vertically is hopefully never revisited
Click to expand...

I'd prefer a different concept but this is what's been presented. I'm just thankful they're not proposing yet another all glass facade. The proposal at 250 Dundas West is a breath of fresh air and hopefully points to a new direction for tower design in this city.

It seems that NYC is also looking to avoid the default glass facade with experiments in copper, stone, and brick. Been waiting for this day for 8 long years.

New York architects ditch "default" glass facades for brick, stone and copper
 
Last edited:
Skeezix said:
Oh, I never suggested banning HCDs. I said "stop using heritage conservation districts as a blatant attempt to stiffle development on main streets", which is an improper use of HCDs. There are places were HCDs are an effective tool. Other places where their use is questionable. For example, the use of an HCD for a massive, quickly evolving and highly diverse area like the St. Lawrence so-called "neighbourhood" (which extends from Yonge to Trinity, according to the HCD) has been questioned by planners and heritage consultants.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's probably too late for St. Lawrence to be a true heritage district. Much of the 19th-century urban fabric that was worth preserving as the city's "old town" was replaced in the second half of the 20th century. The replacement buildings were too often unremarkable, like that apartment building on the southeast corner of Front and Jarvis. Of course, we should still preserve the great heritage buildings that remain and promote new development that gives the area its own character and sense of place, rather than something like Southcore but with a few facadectomies.

It should be noted that the 1970s community at its south end is a great example of urban planning (if architecturally conservative). I wish we had more boulevards like the Esplanade with vibrant parks framed by the street and buildings on both sides. I also think that Front Street between Jarvis and Church would make for a gorgeous market square for the city. It's a broad street surrounded by great buildings like St. Lawrence Market, Market Square, and various 19th century heritage blocks. As an ordinary street, it feels kind of empty and underutilized most of the time. But it could be a pedestrian-friendly heart of the city, like it was in the 19th century.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top