This one is before Preservation Board next week:

What's being discussed is a settlement offer:

1710283111178.png


1710283138014.png


1710283171623.png


1710283203113.png


1710283220590.png


The actual recommendations are confidential, but we do get the substance of heritage report:

1710283303870.png

1710283343548.png
 
This seems to be a sensible compromise. What I like most is the leveling of the floor to be more useable for other events. Makes me wonder if some of our rep cinemas that are struggling could do this to make them more economical to operate?!
 
rdaner said:
This seems to be a sensible compromise. What I like most is the leveling of the floor to be more useable for other events. Makes me wonder if some of our rep cinemas that are struggling could do this to make them more economical to operate?!
Click to expand...

If you remove 'the rake' (sloped floor) the sightlines are terrible, whether for plays, or live performances. The rake needs to stay or the cinema closes.

Now if you want to save the building, but not the use, this has already been done a few times in Toronto, with the Runnymede Cinema (Shoppers Drug Mart) on Bloor; The Eglinton Cinema near Avenue Road, and a few others.
 
Northern Light said:
If you remove 'the rake' (sloped floor) the sightlines are terrible, whether for plays, or live performances. The rake needs to stay or the cinema closes.

Now if you want to save the building, but not the use, this has already been done a few times in Toronto, with the Runnymede Cinema (Shoppers Drug Mart) on Bloor; The Eglinton Cinema near Avenue Road, and a few others.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I thought as much. I do know that ‘retaractable’ bleachers have been used in a few cases but it is expensive. Another option might be using air rights in some capacity to generate income. However this belongs in another thread.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Better (how can it not be?) but I don't really trust RAW and their sense of aesthetics (much less detailing), and I am not exactly sold on the choices made even if it can be executed correctly.

AoD
Click to expand...

Fair. This definitely feels like a project where detail and materials will make or break it.
 
I'm only feeling lukewarm over this new design, but it does looks more in accord with parochial dimensions.
 
RyanD said:
Hey Everyone, my name’s Ryan and I’m the Development Manager on this and other LCH Projects.

I think it may be helpful to give further insight into the background of this project that will (hopefully) provide a bit of ease. LCH is working with the church congregation at St. John's Presbyterian to develop the site. The church congregation will retain a double-height space in a portion of ground floor of the existing church, and residential units would be built above. We are proposing to retain the vast majority of the church façade (aside from the rear portion facing the laneway). The interior of the building would be demolished, with new construction to rise through the roofline. To my knowledge this method of redeveloping a church has not been done before in Toronto, and it will open new discussion about heritage preservation. We believe that the most important heritage attribute to this site is its historical use, and the congregation itself - who would not be able to complete the growing list of repairs associated with the building without major investment.

The concept is inspired by a development in Boston called The Lucas and we have retained the architect of that project, Finegold Alexander, as the design architect for this project. FAA is also overseeing the heritage restoration portion of the 260 High Park project.

At this stage, we have just submitted our first OPA/ZBA application. Everyone on the development and design team would agree it is very early in the process. When we onboarded Finegold Alexander they were extremely excited to get into the nitty-gritty of the design process, however we instructed them not to focus on the design language of the building, more so on the massing, density etc. This is a complex project on a tight site and it is going to be beneficial to get detailed comments from planning, engineering, transportation, the community (whether it's the UT community or Riverdale community) before moving into detailed design development.

Rather than presenting a simple block model showing density, we did add some articulation to show what a modern addition could look like. The rendering that was created was really a replacement for a typical block model that would normally be seen at early stage developments and that we are still 2 years away from a marketing rendering. The intention for this is to be a very high end design.

All that being said I'm looking forward to the feedback. I'm sure there will be some great debate and I'll be following along.

View attachment 376920
View attachment 376919
Click to expand...
Absolutely love this and appreciate you leaning in to provide context. Hope to see it built asap!!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top