maestro said:
The one positive here is that they aren't slapping the facades of a homes on a 63 storey tower. That's not heritage preservation. That's the perception of heritage preservation in a city dependent on real estate development. The history save the outer facade is erased; everything from good and bad alterations to the lives that have passed through. Selective demolition and propping up these facades must come at additional time and costs too.

More blocky towers with minimal property setbacks. What's the plan? The city of Toronto to hit 10 million poor souls?
Click to expand...
All or nothing is never a good way to address that issue. And for all its faults, some preservation is better than none at all.
 
Many here have commented on the preservation (or not) of the homes here.

I indicated an open mind on this point, as they are not listed/designated, and frankly not world-beatingly great; there is also the matter of context, and I'm rarely fan of de-contextualized history.

That said, if you're going going to go the route of removing the heritage homes, I want to see some effort to make the new building fit.

That does not have to mean pastiche, but it means looking at the street-level scale/massing as someone walks by, and having it roughly mirror its heritage-listed neighbours to the east I'd also want to see materiality aligned in some measure (ie. brick) rather than the strange box above which would stick out like a sore thumb.

I also wouldn't be opposed to preservation, in whole or part as could be made to work with a proposal here, but clearly we didn't get that either.

Skimming the Heritage Impact Assessment:

1714504904446.png


Seriously ERA did you write the above with a straight face?

****

If you walked away from even referencing the heritage, then you'd better deliver one hell of a great design; this is not that.

******

For what would be a huge give to the assembler here, I also want to see 'give back'. Even a commitment to go purpose-built rental would go some distance in that regard, moreso if there were a material affordable housing component with an affordable option to the City to add to same (a discount is viable if the City were to buy units in bulk).

*****

On trees, the Landscape Plan suggests the nicest trees on the Earl frontage would be preserved though 'injured'*; but the architectural plans and the renders do not reflect this. Proponents, kindly submit plans that are in agreement with one another.

* I need to understand what the proposed injury to the trees are to assess the reasonableness of same. One minor branch prune should not be an issue, but trimming the roots would be a hard no, along with any reduction in crown height or loss of major limbs.
 
Last edited:
...for me though, it looks like they're just plonking that building there with little regards to anything else there from the renderings. It looks imposing and oppressive...like a jackboot stomping through a bed of delicate flowers. And with little regards to the public or it's immediate neighbours. If the developers here can adequately address that while forgoing the heritage aspect, I will be open to that. But right now, the proposal is as awful as the rendered building looks, IMO....and thus is a no pass.
 
Here is the proposal with the other nearby proposals. It looks far less lonely than it does in the render provided.

Toronto Model 04-30-24 5 Huntley.png
 
If we were gaining more than we were losing from this proposal, then I might be convinced of its merits. But is the demolition of several charming, albeit not particularly architecturally significant, homes and the resultant scarring to a beautiful treelined street with an intact terrace of charming 19th-century townhomes worth what we're getting in return, which is yet another unremarkable tower with a podium unsympathetic to its surroundings? I realize densification is necessary, but surely it should be done in a way that is complementary to the existing neighbourhood, even if that does include sometimes saving only a partial building or a facade. This proposal doesn't even pretend to 'fit in'. It is the architectural equivalent of driving a square peg into a round hole with an iron mallet. I say get back to the drawing board on this one.
 
Doppleganger said:
If we were gaining more than we were losing from this proposal, then I might be convinced of its merits. But is the demolition of several charming, albeit not particularly architecturally significant, homes and the resultant scarring to a beautiful treelined street with an intact terrace of charming 19th-century townhomes worth what we're getting in return, which is yet another unremarkable tower with a podium unsympathetic to its surroundings? I realize densification is necessary, but surely it should be done in a way that is complementary to the existing neighbourhood, even if that does include sometimes saving only a partial building or a facade. This proposal doesn't even pretend to 'fit in'. It is the architectural equivalent of driving a square peg into a round hole with an iron mallet. I say get back to the drawing board on this one.
Click to expand...
 
toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com


5 Huntley Street, & 2-8 Earl Street - Community Consultation Meeting​


Tuesday, June 4, 2024 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM
(UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Register for webinar
If you want to attend, register now. When your registration is approved, you'll receive an invitation to join the webinar.

Host
Tiffany Ly

Agenda
City staff invite you to join a virtual Community Consultation Meeting for 5 Huntley Street and 2-8 Earl Street to discuss the planning applications seeking to permit a 63-storey residential building.

Join us at the Virtual Community Consultation Meeting to learn more about this planning application and to have your say.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top