To me, height is not the issue here but the quality of the design. While I'm all for Toronto expanding its base of architectural firms producing towers, this firm does not have extensive experience in tower design and unfortunately it shows. The crudeness of the brick balconies in terms of arbitrary placement and materiality and the overall cladding is very heavy-handed. This site calls for the elegance of KPMB or the minimalism of aA (which are not "a dime a dozen" when they are on their game, utakata). KPMB's 300 Bloor West is a great example of what could be achieved on this site, particularly given the architectural quality of the church (Langley & Burke 1889-92).
 
thecharioteer said:
To me, height is not the issue here but the quality of the design. While I'm all for Toronto expanding its base of architectural firms producing towers, this firm does not have extensive experience in tower design and unfortunately it shows. The crudeness of the brick balconies in terms of arbitrary placement and materiality and the overall cladding is very heavy-handed. This site calls for the elegance of KPMB or the minimalism of aA (which are not "a dime a dozen" when they are on their game, utakata). KPMB's 300 Bloor West is a great example of what could be achieved on this site, particularly given the architectural quality of the church (Langley & Burke 1889-92).
Click to expand...

Er, yes they are in the opinion here. While we can debate the degree which works...and I agree, some do. But it's been done to death as far as I can concerned...

...I do like this proposal because it's new, creative and interesting. And goes to add more to the crazier (in a good way) Uno Prii based buildings scattered around this neighbourhood. It's different, that much I can say for now. But I'll also agree, it's probably not everyone's cup of tea.

That said though, I do suspect there will some refining to this before the shovels ever hit the ground. So it's a case of arguing "what if's" currently, over what will be. So in the end, I may not even like what they'll come up with...but I guess we'll have to wait and see. And hopefully it will be something we can all agree on. 😺
 
This one was appealed to the OLT on May 31st.

As such, it is the subject of Appeals Report - recommending staff appear at OLT in opposition, headed to the next meeting of TEYCC:


From the above:

1694096611620.png

1694096637402.png

***

1694096687351.png


Comments: Staff concerns per the above were to be expected. The fact that under the heritage section we see planning staff looking for ways to say 'yes' should be read as encouraging to the applicant.

I expect there is a settlement to be had here, but material changes will be required.
 
Just a little plug for what I realise now will be a stellar development! And what an assemblage of buildings and institutions. Alliance Francaises, Gwendolyn, Estonia and a public space in a converted church. Love it! Go TAS!!!Taken 12 November.

IMG_5060.jpeg
 
If only there was a whole nearby area full of unremarkable low rise structures of no heritage value where we could build more housing instead of looking at tearing down churches. Hmmmmm…
 
evandyk said:
If only there was a whole nearby area full of unremarkable low rise structures of no heritage value where we could build more housing instead of looking at tearing down churches. Hmmmmm…
Click to expand...

There's plenty of the above, in that very area. We've been through this, lots of times, and I bring the evidence; please desist from conjecture not supported by evidence.
 
Exactly! We should be removing some of those unremarkable single family homes on Dalton, Brunswick, Kendal, etc. to build transit-friendly housing and leave the churches alone.
 
evandyk said:
Exactly! We should be removing some of those unremarkable single family homes on Dalton, Brunswick, Kendal, etc. to build transit-friendly housing and leave the churches alone.
Click to expand...
The Church wanted to sell. They sold to TAS. Why force institutions to maintain premises they can't afford to or don't want to? I agree it sucks to lose beautiful buildings, but if the owners of those structures can't maintain them, why are we burdening them with that debt? You just end up with ridiculous situations like West-Park Presbyterian in Manhattan.

I've dealt with a lot of heritage structures and for all their undeniable beauty, they're often maintenance sinks and cost far more in upkeep than anyone but a sophisticated landlord can keep up.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The Church wanted to sell. They sold to TAS. Why force institutions to maintain premises they can't afford to or don't want to? I agree it sucks to lose beautiful buildings, but if the owners of those structures can't maintain them, why are we burdening them with that debt? You just end up with ridiculous situations like West-Park Presbyterian in Manhattan.

I've dealt with a lot of heritage structures and for all their undeniable beauty, they're often maintenance sinks and cost far more in upkeep than anyone but a sophisticated landlord can keep up.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying; and i don't think we can compel an owner who literally can't afford the upkeep to maintain the building, however, we can force them to sell to someone who can afford to maintain it, if they cannot. If there were no buyers, even at $1, then I think the question shifts to whether the public should be the buyer if there's a desire to retain the building.

Would the church be a nice spot for a relocated and much enlarged Spadina Library branch?
 
ProjectEnd said:
The Church wanted to sell. They sold to TAS. Why force institutions to maintain premises they can't afford to or don't want to? I agree it sucks to lose beautiful buildings, but if the owners of those structures can't maintain them, why are we burdening them with that debt? You just end up with ridiculous situations like West-Park Presbyterian in Manhattan.

I've dealt with a lot of heritage structures and for all their undeniable beauty, they're often maintenance sinks and cost far more in upkeep than anyone but a sophisticated landlord can keep up.
Click to expand...
If it was legal to develop all of the mostly empty space around the church, they'd buy those instead. We force them into buying the church, and then stop them from building there too. But certainly if the city wants to preserve this type of building when church/community uses don't support them any more, it should pony up and convert them to public uses.

Edit to clarify: I don't mean specifically right around the church. There's good apartment housing to the north and west, including great heritage preservation at Loreto. But the whole neighbourhood is nondescript single family homes that could provide space to be developed. And it's not like the Annex has no experience with small apartment buildings. There are tons of them, such as the beauties on Howland across from the fire station.
 
evandyk said:
If it was legal to develop all of the mostly empty space around the church, they'd buy those instead.
Click to expand...

There is no 'empty space' around the church, and it IS legal to buy the buildings that are nearby.

Lets cut the hyperbole, please and ty.
 
It's not legal to build much housing on almost any of those lots, even if you buy a few adjacent ones.
 
I know it's crazy, but in my view it should be legal to build something like this in the Annex. And it should be legal to build something like that but twice as tall pretty much anywhere, but especially in places served by two subways and a streetcar line.
1710341683825.png
 
evandyk said:
It's not legal to build much housing on almost any of those lots, even if you buy a few adjacent ones.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true at all.

Please stop mis-stating the facts.

What you seem to be trying to say is that many homes in The Annex are in the Yellowbelt. First off, they ARE housing, so lets be clear on that. Second they be legally bought, sold, or rented.

Further, they can be rezoned, though, in the case of the yellow belt properties, if what one is seeking much higher density, then yes an OPA is required. But these have been granted already in the City, see the Huntley Selby site which has gone (in part) from yellowbelt to high density residential. Such conversion isn't 'illegal'; there is a process to follow.

On top of that, within the yellowbelt, permission for multiplexes of up to 4 units is now as-of-right, no OPA required. Heights of 3 storeys are now allowed everywhere, and 4 storeys in many yellowbelt areas are now permitted as-of-right as well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top