picard102
Senior Member
Most of the nightclubs on this street were not purpose built.
Exactly my point. Most (almost all) aren't.Most of the nightclubs on this street were not purpose built.
Most of the nightclubs on this street were not purpose built.
...therefore it would be a huge mistake to plan ahead when the entire building topology of the area is changing? As the types of buildings come down that have housed the clubs over the years, we are building ones in their place that are much harder to convert after the fact, but don't let that be cause for reflection, let's just build every condo the same everywhere. I am glad that Pride Toronto offices have been provided for, but that's not all that this community needs. Certainly you'd need someone with deep pockets and an interest in catering to the LGBTQ+2S community with a dance club or two here... I just want to see the possibility for something out of the ordinary to be accommodated here.Exactly my point. Most (almost all) aren't.
There are already a couple of 40+ story towers fronting Church about 3 minutes walk from this site. If this is approved, no doubt the developer of the long-gestating project at the NW corner of Church & Wellesley will resubmit a taller application (at least as tall as this, if not even taller). While it's a shame that Church St north of Gerrard is becoming yet another condo canyon, the issue is the quality of the towers. This is another lazy attempt to differentiate a boring tower by employing different tones of balcony glazing, creating patterns. Enough already!Going from 14 stories to 48 is a significant height increase. If we are serious about preserving the character of the Village, then a forty-plus-story tower fronting onto Church might not be the best way to go about it. Though the previous iteration was not what I would consider easy on the eyes(OK, IMO it was butt-ugly, and that blank wall towering over O'Grady's really irked me), it was at least stepped back and more to scale with the human element. Neighbourhoods like the 'Village', Kensington Market, Chinatown and Yorkville are a part of what makes Toronto different from Cleveland or Chicago. We aren't being intellectually honest with ourselves if we believe that we can allow development like this to proceed while at the same time maintaining the character of the 'Village'. Neighbourhoods almost always go through transitions on their own, but typically this is a slow, multi-generations process not turbo-charged by any one person or decision at city hall. If, for some reason, we do decide that these places aren't worth preserving or that they can be sacrificed piecemeal in the name of 'progress' with nothing more than a historical plaque to mark their former location, then fine, as long as we also realize there is no turning back. I do hope that whoever makes that decision or sets that precedent has the courage of their convictions to someday come forward and explain their actions, with one proviso...that their name(s) also be added to that plaque.
Granted, there are already towers nearby, so perhaps the precedent has already been set. But I do disagree that this is an issue of the tower's quality. One of the unique characteristics of the Village is its early 20th-century lowrise apartment buildings and 19th-century, mostly two and three-storey Victorian structures that have evolved and been heavily modified over the years. In spite of Church St. becoming something of a traffic canyon, these structures create a sense of welcome, ambience and charm that will be lost if towers proliferate the area. Of course, infilling and densification must take place, but on a scale and with materials commensurate with the existing neighbourhood. If we wish to preserve the Village, then is it really asking too much that we restrict highrise development fronting onto Church on the eleven or so blocks between Charles and Gerrard?There are already a couple of 40+ story towers fronting Church about 3 minutes walk from this site. If this is approved, no doubt the developer of the long-gestating project at the NW corner of Church & Wellesley will resubmit a taller application (at least as tall as this, if not even taller). While it's a shame that Church St north of Gerrard is becoming yet another condo canyon, the issue is the quality of the towers. This is another lazy attempt to differentiate a boring tower by employing different tones of balcony glazing, creating patterns. Enough already!
I’m afraid the horse has already bolted on that one (height in the village), but perhaps the city will take a stand on this proposal and reject it, thus setting a precedent for say the stretch between Wood and Wellesley.Granted, there are already towers nearby, so perhaps the precedent has already been set. But I do disagree that this is an issue of the tower's quality. One of the unique characteristics of the Village is its 19th-century, mostly two-storey Victorian structures that have evolved and been heavily modified over the years. In spite of Church St.becoming something of a traffic canyon, these structures create a sense of welcome, ambience and charm that will be lost if towers proliferate the area. Of course, infilling and densification must take place, but on a scale commensurate with the existing neighbourhood. If we wish to preserve the Village, then is it really asking too much that we restrict highrise development fronting onto Church on the eleven or so blocks between Charles and Gerrard?
...I would have dialled it back all they way back to before 365 ever got approved. Damn there's been some janky arsed, soulless developments and proposals (including this one) since in one of The City's brightest spots...and to put it mildly.I should say that it's good that there's no vehicular parking underground, and it's good that there's a large s`6,500 sq ft space on the first and second levels for Pride Toronto (letter of intent signed for that), but otherwise, I wish I could turn back time on this part of Church Street by about a decade or more...
42
So I'd argue there is a difference between a tower being 3 minutes from the street and right on the street. I personally love the vibe of Church Street as a set of low rise stores with towers just outside that. I love the contrast. It feels like something special in downtown Toronto.There are already a couple of 40+ story towers fronting Church about 3 minutes walk from this site. If this is approved, no doubt the developer of the long-gestating project at the NW corner of Church & Wellesley will resubmit a taller application (at least as tall as this, if not even taller). While it's a shame that Church St north of Gerrard is becoming yet another condo canyon, the issue is the quality of the towers. This is another lazy attempt to differentiate a boring tower by employing different tones of balcony glazing, creating patterns. Enough already!
We have a Conservative provincial government, I would not be surprised if this gets a MZO because they hate everyone who lives in this area. What the City wants won't matter, the OLT or the province will override that. Either through ignorance or bigotry, this is gonna be the end of the Gay Village, short of a minor miracle.I’m afraid the horse has already bolted on that one (height in the village), but perhaps the city will take a stand on this proposal and reject it, thus setting a precedent for say the stretch between Wood and Wellesley.