[AlexBozikovic]

I don't believe in abolishing zoning entirely, and there really isn't a scenario in which zoning continues to exist, where interior yellow belt on side streets is going to be zoned as if it were on a major transit corridor

There are many scenarios in which a different planning regime would make this building a harder target. Many of them would produce better results aesthetically, environmentally, and even with respect to the quality of the new housing.

In the world we live in, the heritage listing of this neighbourhood was a joke that recognized many buildings of no architectural or historical value in a misguided attempt to protect them as small storefronts. Our heritage system has been a capricious mess. It doesn’t need to be that way.

 

[Northern Light]

There are many scenarios in which a different planning regime would make this building a harder target.

I don't disagree, in a world in which we had completely a completely different planning and regulatory regime from the province.

And I'm all for that.......

I'm simply saying City Planning operates with the tools currently available to it.

They are legally mandated to do so.

If you feel there is an existing tool they did not make good use of here, I would love to hear about that.

Elsewise, we're discussing reforms that will likely have to come from a different level of government.

In the world we live in, the heritage listing of this neighbourhood was a joke that recognized many buildings of no architectural or historical value in a misguided attempt to protect them as small storefronts. Our heritage system has been a capricious mess. It doesn’t need to be that way.

We completely agree on the above.

Though, again, we face real challenges in changing this without provincial intervention.

Heritage designation at the neighbourhood level here was misused in an attempt to protect scale to some degree, and the traditional retail storefront. That's not what the designation should be used for.........

The question though is, did the City have the means to compel proper redevelopment which preserves fine-grained retail, and which gives people the illusion of human-scale, and warm building materials like masonry, or stone, rather than endless glazing, spandrel, pre-cast and aluminum that's been oil-canned to death?

To the extent they have some options to do somewhat better (and I think they do) they should use these; but truthfully the provincial planning framework which largely precludes Planning addressing aesthetic tastes is a serious obstacle and ends up with Councillors doing what they can (but shouldn't) to hold back the tide. A mostly rubber-stamp OLT then compounds this issue; a burden that few other jurisdictions have to deal with (a highly interventionist, developer-friendly, planning appeals body)

 

[jmi22]

Nothing.

None.

Developers take the easiest route. If use and density permissions for both sites were the same, the upfront and demo costs on the houses would be far less than the office building. I'm taking that site every day of the week.

Exactly, it is frankly absurd to act like city staff do not have the ability to redirect development pressures via a combination of zoning, design guidelines and general attitudes towards specific sites/neighborhoods even if costs to build may be higher there

 

[flonicky]

I still haven't got over Union Carbide.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I still haven't got over Union Carbide.

Ah, but then we would have never gotten this svelte little number. A beauty for the ages. Thanks, Tridel!

 

[Northern Light]

I would like it noted that @ProjectEnd is (slightly) younger than I.............and yet has perfect recall of architectural history from when he was a child, in the womb and even pre-conception.

Its really quite remarkable!

Though, in this case, he wasn't that young.........as Union Carbide came down in 1999.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

As a local to the area, of all the houses and buildings that I would wish torn down for new residential housing, this site would have been near very bottom of that list.

Next, if we really must tear down this building then a hulking midrise structure would not be my dream scenario. The site has depth to it, we can do twin high-rises here with rear parkland contribution that could connect to Hodgson and retail fronting Mt Pleasant with some fast food options (Davisville and Mt Pleasant is actually quite lacking) to serve local residents.

 

[AlbertC]

Ah, but then we would have never gotten this svelte little number. A beauty for the ages. Thanks, Tridel!

Early condo boom Tridel buildings were relentless. >.<

 

[christiesplits]

While we've lost more iconic modern buildings, this one still hurts. A shame it can't at the very least be integrated into a new development.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Early condo boom Tridel buildings were relentless. >.<

I don't know what you're talking about...

 

[GenerationLee]

I still haven't got over Union Carbide.

Although that was demoed before my time, it's an absolute shame it was lost, especially for what has replaced it.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Ah, but then we would have never gotten this svelte little number. A beauty for the ages. Thanks, Tridel!

For all the trash talk of this project, from touring units and amenities here, this building has much higher build quality than all the condos that popped up nearby since, and has aged better than some projects that are not even 5 years removed from completion.

Also, despite the lack of retail amenities at-grade, this block is still a delight to walk by with its landscaping when compared to the at-grade treatment of most other condos that have gone up in this city.

 

[BobBob]

Seems nuts to demolish this building which is substantial in size and architectural quality, and also supports a diversity of uses today and in the future. This should be made much harder to perpetrate.