Accommodating heritage shouldn’t even be a conversation when the city can barely accommodate its people.

this is a fine proposal and should move forward.
 
DavidCapizzano said:
Accommodating heritage shouldn’t even be a conversation when the city can barely accommodate its people.
Click to expand...

That's a rather exclusive statement that assumes that assumes a zero-sum-game condition.

Accommodating heritage is possible with density, and it produces a more interesting city overall.

In fact, the main problem isn't that heritage buildings get in the way of a perfectly pro-forma-ed podium, it's because the buildings aren't tall enough IMO.

Look at this proposal for a clean-slate affordable housing proposal at 50 Wilson Heights Blvd., and tell me if it's going to even make a dent in our housing crisis? You'd be better off pushing Tory to make those new affordable housing projects 40-storey housing blocks- timidity in scale is what holds the city back.

wilson_heights.jpg

www.thestar.com

Mayor Tory's affordable housing plan moves forward with four projects across Toronto

The sites range in size and location, from a plot less than an acre in midtown Toronto to a sprawling eight acres at a site in North York. The other two in Scarborough measure seven and two acres.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
https://twitter.com/x/status/1198045611355967488

From the last page:
jje1000 said:
I would agree on your last point, but I would argue that enough of the original brick and stone fabric is still there to preserve the most important parts- the front facades.

Woodwork can always be restored, windows and doorways reopened/closed, and the ad-hoc additions removed. If we thought of heritage preservation as preserving immediate heritage value and not potential heritage value, many more buildings in this city would have been demolished long ago (think Paradise theatre and how tatty and compromised it was) and you'd never get a long-gone cornice restored.

The rear ends and interiors of the houses are architecturally unsignificant (going through the heritage report), and so I would agree that the rest of the houses are more or less tear-downs.

Again, I'm not against densification, but I am against this particular scheme- there's enough room for the accommodation of heritage and density, and the overall project would be richer than a clean slate approach.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I did email in regards to all of the housing now sites expressing my desire for the density to be increased to maintain long term affordability.

that doesn’t change my opinion that these junky run down adulterated houses are nothing to write home about.
 
jje1000 said:
I would agree on your last point, but I would argue that enough of the original brick and stone fabric is still there to preserve the most important parts- the front facades.

Woodwork can always be restored, windows and doorways reopened/closed, and the ad-hoc additions removed. If we thought of heritage preservation as preserving immediate heritage value and not potential heritage value, many more buildings in this city would have been demolished long ago (think Paradise theatre and how tatty and compromised it was) and you'd never get a long-gone cornice restored.

The rear ends and interiors of the houses are architecturally unsignificant (going through the heritage report), and so I would agree that the rest of the houses are more or less tear-downs.


Again, I'm not against densification, but I am against this particular scheme- there's enough room for the accommodation of heritage and density, and the overall project would be richer than a clean slate approach.
Click to expand...
I'm not in favour of that kind of facadism for two main reasons: first, the architectural Frankenstein that would result from that approach would look worse than both RCMI and 70 High Park since proportionally it would take over a greater percentage of the facade. Second, that kind of facadism is extremely expensive, so to amortize that over so few apartments will naturally push the price of each up.

Heritage is an important part of the story that cities tell across time, but we can't let the past dictate the future.
 
I think the cultural importance of saving and repurposing a theatre offers a benefit to the public that salvaging some old mansions does not.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'm not in favour of that kind of facadism for two main reasons: first, the architectural Frankenstein that would result from that approach would look worse than both RCMI and 70 High Park since proportionally it would take over a greater percentage of the facade. Second, that kind of facadism is extremely expensive, so to amortize that over so few apartments will naturally push the price of each up.

Heritage is an important part of the story that cities tell across time, but we can't let the past dictate the future.
Click to expand...
Again, it depends on the massing, materials, and finer details, rather than the concept as a whole. You could look at 36 Hazelton as a counterpoint- where two elements become a greater whole.

Rather than assuming that the past dictates the future, the past can inform the future- it becomes a feature of the site rather than a hindrance, and can help ground a design and give it direction.

Also, were you expecting that these units were going to be affordable in the first place? Only 4 units of the 48 units in the new building are going to be affordable, which is not much to speak of (and it's only a replacement, considering that there's also only 4 affordable units in the existing buildings as of now).
 
Eh. We can go back and forth all day about the value of heritage within cities but at the end of the day, I'm more in favour of a 'from-scratch' replacement building than trying to finagle a compromise from the facades of two forlorn house-form buildings on this site.
 
My problem is not the density proposed but replacing two houses (both with heritage fabric that contributing to the distinctive character of the Annex) with neo-70s pastiche. A weird choice. I can see this being fought tooth and nail by the ARA and HPS.

I would love to see both buildings taken on, restored and incorporated into a redevelopment of the rear parking lot. Failing that, a better design.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Why only 6 storeys? 280 St. George, which is 100m to the south and is further to the station, is 15.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree but the overall density is probably lot lower than the height would suggest given void - this site will not allow for that if preservation of the existing buildings is the goal (in fact, just by eyeballing it I would not be surprised if 280 St. George have a density broadly similar to this current proposal).

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top