We have so many glass boxes though (most of which are very much not high-quality). Why have more? A city where everything looks the same is boring.
Exactly - I can't tell if they're trolling or not as there seems to be a high historical consensus on UT that we're tired of the glass box precedent. I talk positively of the incredible amount of development that has occurred in Toronto with my cohorts from around the world. When some have the chance to finally visit there is often a dissenting impression that much of the architecture is repetitively uninspired.
 
Things that I heard in the online meeting last night:
-The building is angled to mitigate shadowing on new park to the north of here. There is some new shadow that will be cast.
-The purchase of the "Wild Wings" building on Yonge south of College/Carlton was done with the purpose to turn it into a park and (in my opinion) to essentially be used a negotiation tactic with the city re: new shadowing. The land for the new park space would be handed over to the city and is also 3x what they are legally required to give as part of parkland dedication on the 510 Yonge site.
-Not sure if will be condo or rental yet, seemed to be leaning towards condo.
-Concern raised about maintaining number of fine grain retail units on Yonge.
-Developer is proposing community space on the 2nd floor (on St. Luke's lane side, if I heard correctly) but did not have a specific purpose for that yet.
-Discussion was had about saving the coach house on Breadelbane. To me, not worth saving as does not seem historically significant, also they are planning to renovate and save to what seemed like a decent depth the other heritage buildings on site. I would prioritize more housing for people than the coach house.
-This is currently at LPAT, so not necessarily much the city can do broadly speaking, which was acknowledged by the Councillor.
 
Things that I heard in the online meeting last night:
-The building is angled to mitigate shadowing on new park to the north of here. There is some new shadow that will be cast.
-The purchase of the "Wild Wings" building on Yonge south of College/Carlton was done with the purpose to turn it into a park and (in my opinion) to essentially be used a negotiation tactic with the city re: new shadowing. The land for the new park space would be handed over to the city and is also 3x what they are legally required to give as part of parkland dedication on the 510 Yonge site.
-Not sure if will be condo or rental yet, seemed to be leaning towards condo.
-Concern raised about maintaining number of fine grain retail units on Yonge.
-Developer is proposing community space on the 2nd floor (on St. Luke's lane side, if I heard correctly) but did not have a specific purpose for that yet.
-Discussion was had about saving the coach house on Breadelbane. To me, not worth saving as does not seem historically significant, also they are planning to renovate and save to what seemed like a decent depth the other heritage buildings on site. I would prioritize more housing for people than the coach house.
-This is currently at LPAT, so not necessarily much the city can do broadly speaking, which was acknowledged by the Councillor.

Thanks for this.

****

On the park site (wild wings); this was set-up as an off-site fulfillment of the park requirement.

The site was agreed to by Parks (subject to the planning application going through)

The developer chose the spot; and spent what would have been cash-in-lieu to deliver it. So the 3x the space thing is really red herring. Its the site they could get, nearby, for a reasonable sum, that Parks would approve.
 
On the subject of shadows on the park.

The effect is marginal in March.

But noticable in June. (Blue is accretive shadow)

1620918381035.png

1620918439800.png



This is the accretive impact in September.

1620918545678.png


Overall that impact is surprisingly low.
 
Request for Direction (to oppose this at OLT) going to the next TEYCC meeting on Sept. 9th.

Report link here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-170072.pdf

From said report:

1630071364029.png


The above was predictable...........

****

But this one annoys me:

1630071405700.png


I think the angling is one of its most redeeming and interesting features.

****

Interesting, Transportation wants wider sidewalks here:

1630071505808.png


Not specified is which frontage. As there are heritage issues here, if the request was for widening on a frontage with said buildings, the facades would then have to shifted back.
 
Last edited:
****

But this one annoys me:

View attachment 344360

I think the angling is one of its most redeeming and interesting features.

If it was on many other streets I would agree, but I think there's something to be said for keeping all store fronts and buildings on Yonge Street facing the street and aligned to give our main street its vibrancy valley type of look. It creates this beautiful row of buildings up and down Yonge. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I do enjoy strong streetwalls, but in this case the little angled plaza that would be formed could be a welcomed break in the rhythm. As it stands there's really not much in the way of trees or benches or places to pause between Bloor and College. And it's not as though this is a tower-in-a-park proposal.
 


516 and 526 Yonge Street - Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act

This item was considered by Toronto Preservation Board on November 17, 2021 and was adopted without amendment.

Summary
This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the listed heritage property at 516 Yonge Street (including the entrance address at 514 Yonge Street) for its design and contextual values and the also listed 526 Yonge Street (including the entrance addresses at 528 Yonge Street and 7 Breadalbane Street) for its design, associative and contextual values under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Originally constructed circa 1876 and renovated in 1924, the property at 516 Yonge Street represents the fine-grained mixed-use/commercial building type that emerged along Yonge Street, north of College Street, in the late 19th century and persisted until the mid-20th century. Although altered, the property is one of the earliest surviving buildings on the block between Grosvenor and Breadalbane Streets, and retains its original scale, form, and massing as a 2-1/2-storey building with a mansard roof, along with architectural details from the late-19th and early 20th centuries.

Constructed circa 1881 to the designs of the significant Toronto architectural firm of McCaw & Lennox, the property at 526 Yonge Street anchors the southwest corner of Yonge and Breadalbane Streets and is a representative example of the Second Empire architectural style that was popular in Toronto in the late-19th century. The property retains its original scale, form, and massing as a 2-1/2-storey building with a 2-storey rear wing, and its Second Empire style is reflected in many of its extant original design features.

On October 16, 2020, an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment application was made for 510-528 Yonge Street and 7 Breadalbane Street, which includes three properties currently listed on the Heritage Register - 516 Yonge Street, 522 Yonge Street, and 526 Yonge Street - and proposes to retain and incorporate portions of the buildings at 516 Yonge Street and 526 Yonge Street. On October 1, 2021, City Council adopted Item TE27.8, directing the City Solicitor and appropriate City staff to attend the Ontario Land Tribunal in opposition to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appeals for the lands at 510-528 Yonge Street and 7 Breadalbane Street, and to continue discussions with the owner in an attempt to resolve outstanding issues.

Designation enables City Council to review proposed alterations or demolitions to the properties and enforce heritage property standards and maintenance.​
 
Request for Direction (to oppose this at OLT) going to the next TEYCC meeting on Sept. 9th.

Report link here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-170072.pdf

From said report:

View attachment 344359

The above was predictable...........

****

But this one annoys me:

View attachment 344360

I think the angling is one of its most redeeming and interesting features.

****

Interesting, Transportation wants wider sidewalks here:

View attachment 344361

Not specified is which frontage. As there are heritage issues here, if the request was for widening on a frontage with said buildings, the facades would then have to shifted back.
The angles look nice. I hope they keep them
 
It's wild to me that the City's response is dictating that the angled rotation of this proposal is simply incorrect. That seems highly highly subjective whichever way you fall on the preference and not something to be determined by fiat like this. And in a city full of such boring mediocrity, the City's response being "kill the interesting unique aspect because highly subjective reasons" is really something.
 
It's wild to me that the City's response is dictating that the angled rotation of this proposal is simply incorrect. That seems highly highly subjective whichever way you fall on the preference and not something to be determined by fiat like this. And in a city full of such boring mediocrity, the City's response being "kill the interesting unique aspect because highly subjective reasons" is really something.
Sometimes it feels like the city wants every building to be a grey spandrel box with wrap-around balconies 🙃
 

Back
Top