There is nothing at this location in the Heritage Register.

So unless there is some unorthodox arrangement, I would have to say 'no'.
Yes, they made a token gesture when building the present school by saving the old stained glass windows from the kindergarten. of the old building. They are by J. McCausland of Toronto and depict several nursery rhymes...definitely from an era when schools were well thought out and architecturally interesting. No telling what will end up in the dumpster though since our "heritage designation" of buildings doesn't seem to carry any weight against developers...
 
Most people who live here have seen the city grow out of control in the past twenty years. They have seen it change from "The City that Works" to an over inflated congested shadow of its former self. People prefer less development. People elect officials. Out of control development continues. QED
 
Most people who live here have seen the city grow out of control in the past twenty years. They have seen it change from "The City that Works" to an over inflated congested shadow of its former self. People prefer less development. People elect officials. Out of control development continues. QED
There are certainly some questionably large developments in places, but your overall sentiment is not shared widely on UrbanToronto. Most people posting here seem happy that the city is getting denser, more lively, more interesting, and that development happens where we can service it more efficiently, while limiting the amount of farmland being plowed under for tract subdivisions around the periphery. I'd suggest reading more posts on UrbanToronto to update your QED take on things.

42
 
Most people who live here have seen the city grow out of control in the past twenty years. They have seen it change from "The City that Works" to an over inflated congested shadow of its former self. People prefer less development. People elect officials. Out of control development continues. QED
The problem is that Toronto is congested. If we build sprawl (which is what you seem to advocate for), then we will get more congestion, with more cars on the road.

Also, the real estate market is sky-high, partly because it's not inflated enough. More units would decrease that.

"People prefer less development."
Show me that's true. Is that even a good thing for affordability?

"People elect officials."
Don't see how this is relevant.

"Out of control development-"
Stop right there, is it out of control? Or it that your opinion?
 
There are certainly some questionably large developments in places, but your overall sentiment is not shared widely on UrbanToronto. Most people posting here seem happy that the city is getting denser, more lively, more interesting, and that development happens where we can service it more efficiently, while limiting the amount of farmland being plowed under for tract subdivisions around the periphery. I'd suggest reading more posts on UrbanToronto to update your QED take on things.

42
I understand. I'll look for a discussion board that wants to slow down a city undergoing constant construction, one that's anti-facadism and pro heritage, and one that supports "human scale" in development proposals abutting low rise residential neighbourhoods...
 
This stretch of Mount Pleasant isn't particularly redeeming so I'm all for redevelopment here however I would think this lot would be more suitable for a mid rise, no? I thought Toronto had policy for this sort of thing. With the new imminent Eglinton LRT opening I would assume it would be logical for some significant city defined neighbourhood intensification ... or did we just pay taxes for an underground LRT to serve a few individuals in freehold detached housing?
 
Last edited:
Preliminary Report on this one to the Oct 14th meeting of TEYCC.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-171376.pdf

From said report:

1633014481701.png
 
There was a public meeting tonight on this proposal.

Didn't attend, but reports are that - "Councillor Matlow, he Matlow-ed... and then he Matlow-ed some more..."

No Robinson, which is unusual for a Border/Corner site between their wards.
 
There was a public meeting tonight on this proposal.

Didn't attend, but reports are that - "Councillor Matlow, he Matlow-ed... and then he Matlow-ed some more..."

No Robinson, which is unusual for a Border/Corner site between their wards.

I'm entirely focused on whether the City/Matlow or the Developers themselves can come to an understanding on an intelligent landswap and achieve a much better outcome for everyone.
Whining is worthless and defending sub-par architecture and under-utilized potential not much better.
Everybody get a damned room, literal or virtual and work it the hell out.

LOL

Sorry all, I think I'm in a mood tonight, I crucified BDPQ in the River St. thread too.

I'm just not having the defense of mediocrity tonight.
 
Sorry all, I think I'm in a mood tonight, I crucified BDPQ in the River St. thread too.

I'm just not having the defense of mediocrity tonight.
Can we just agree that the NEW building needs to restore the beloved "Heritage Chicken" at the first Step-Back..?

 
I'm entirely focused on whether the City/Matlow or the Developers themselves can come to an understanding on an intelligent landswap and achieve a much better outcome for everyone.
Whining is worthless and defending sub-par architecture and under-utilized potential not much better.
Everybody get a damned room, literal or virtual and work it the hell out.

LOL

Sorry all, I think I'm in a mood tonight, I crucified BDPQ in the River St. thread too.

I'm just not having the defense of mediocrity tonight.
What land swap?
 
What land swap?

What I previously proposed to the City and one or more of the developers involved:

See this post:


And this one:

 

Back
Top