Church st, from that very spot all the way to Adelaide st (where Spire is), needs a lot of nice work to bring the area back to life. Walking down the street is depressing, especially around Church/Dundas and the east side near Queen.

This particular stretch has no identity whatsoever yet the location is pretty good.
 
Last edited:
As usual with Aa, the elevation drawings look horribly dull - but their buildings turn out quite fine. So, I'm glad they're on this.

I still think the proposal is too tall for this particular spot, though. Half the height would be fine, maximum. I know that won't sit well with a lot of height enthusiasts on this forum, but this particular few blocks needs some TLC, in my opinion, and not mere overbuilding.There are nearly four empty corners where this building it situated, with small houses coming right up to them. Mid-rises would be a blessing here. But highrises? Not so much.
 
I feel this is fine. 40 storeys would be too much, but 34 is fine. this is a couple blocks from 60 floor towers. it is one thing if the area already has a precedent for midrise buildings, but when you have only 2-4 floor structures, you should set up the area for highrise development, especially when it is only a couple of blocks from a subway line and the rest of the core.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I feel this is fine. 40 storeys would be too much, but 34 is fine. this is a couple blocks from 60 floor towers. it is one thing if the area already has a precedent for midrise buildings, but when you have only 2-4 floor structures, you should set up the area for highrise development, especially when it is only a couple of blocks from a subway line and the rest of the core.
Click to expand...

true.
I always think in downtown, from Spadina to Jarvis should be mostly highrises, just because the short distance to the subway line. High density will enable more people to take advantage of easy access to our limited subway stations.

Particularly in the case of Church st, with Spire setting the precedence, in the south, there should be something around college to echo with that, and bring the entire church st to a higher density.

I am a crazy fan of supertalls, but it does make sense at least in our core within steps to the Yonge/University line.

By the way, is there any new proposal for Church/Dundas or Church/Queen? They need major transformation.
 
Last edited:
Church Street above Carlton is just fine, thank-you-very-much.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Church Street above Carlton is just fine, thank-you-very-much.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest otherwise. the Village should stay how things are, maybe some beautification work and some more mid rises, but definitely not 40s glass condos. I was more referring to south of Gerrard, the problem area.
 
You said "the entire Church St. to a higher density", hence my comment. I do agree that Church St. south of Carlton could really take advantage of numerous development opportunities which could possibly revive the heritage section on lower Church (Shuter to Queen) and connect much better into St. Lawrence Market. The same goes for Jarvis Street, though not quite as walkable.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Church Street above Carlton is just fine, thank-you-very-much.
Click to expand...

Church street above Alexander is just fine.

Church north of Carlton is pretty bad to be quite honest. Yes it has Maple Leaf Gardens, but that stretch of the building doesn't really have anything at street level, and the rest are either horrible 70's tower-in-the-park apartment buildings, run down looking half-assed Art Deco buildings, or surface parking lots. The stretch north of Alexander Street is where it starts to get lively/decent looking.
 
Those "horrible" tower-in-the-park buildings are the City Park Co-ops built in the late 50's which aren't going anywhere and there's nothing run down about them, then there's Church St. PS, it's not going anywhere which leaves a parking lot at Wood St. and the buildings at Carlton St (the old Warner Bros. building & Zipperz) so there's really only one development opportunity there.
 
I don't think that 355 Church will get as easy a ride as folks expect. There are a row of townhomes directly to their west, which face eastward. Those townhomes have no rear windows (building backs onto Neill-Wycik's brick wall) so anything tall will basically block their views entirely and they will live in permanent shadow. I suppose they could sell their townhomes for a loss to a vampire cult though. Guess there is always an upside.
 
They have a pretty strong neighbourhood Association in that area too, it's the Granby-McGill Neighbourhood Association or something like that.
 
Thernan said:
I don't think that 355 Church will get as easy a ride as folks expect. There are a row of townhomes directly to their west, which face eastward. Those townhomes have no rear windows (building backs onto Neill-Wycik's brick wall) so anything tall will basically block their views entirely and they will live in permanent shadow. I suppose they could sell their townhomes for a loss to a vampire cult though. Guess there is always an upside.
Click to expand...


naaaa it'll be fine. the NIMBYs in this area just puff hot air. no substance to anything they have to say just complaints for the sake of complaining.
 
355 Church @ McGill ( 33s)

The second picture is from Dec. 2010 when they were doing soil testing.

355church.jpg


churchsoil.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top