Agreed, I would make note not to buy from anyone who is ok with destroying a beautiful church just to help out some NUMPTY, I mean NIMBY biatches.
 
junctionist said:
The residents don't know what they're doing. Their proposal to ruin the church is loathsome. This misguided idea should be rejected out of hand by the developer and the city.
Click to expand...

Ah, but they think otherwise.

In the end, the only justification for "ruination" ought to be if a place comes pre-ruined, by fire or whatever. Otherwise, it's a saccharine kitsch idea that's even more of an insult to "heritage" than simple facadism...
 
It passed unanimously apparently.

42
 
interchange42 said:
It passed unanimously apparently.

42
Click to expand...

No necessarily. It would have said "Adopted".

From http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mtgmonitor/glossary.htm

"Without Recommendations - This decision status, that also appears as "Without Recs", indicates that a committee or community council is forwarding an agenda item for City Council consideration - without any committee decision or recommendations."

If I am reading this correctly, this means that community council will not make a decision on this development and will leave it to city council to make the decision.

I am trying to get clarification from the city clerk's office regarding the specifics of the agenda item being forwarded.
 
I was told that Community Council passed it unanimously, so yes, it goes on to City Council.

42
 
Greenleaf's source is the clearer one it turns out. Ours took the without recommendations and morphed it into nobody objected and morphed that into passed unanimously. It has been passed on to City Council without strikes against it.

42
 
Most of the details in this Torontoist article will be familiar to people who read the article greenleaf posted here last week... but I suppose we might as well throw a link in here anyway, for completeness' sake if nothing else.
 
Contextualized there, the tear-the-roof-off-the-sucker scheme actually *doesn't* seem as saccharine as feared--but, still. (And the concern about height seems a touch NIMBY-overstated, cheek by jowl with both Imperial Oil and the ministry building at Avenue + St Clair...)
 
Even with the added context, it still seems bad. If they want a quiet community gathering space, why not keep the church standing and reuse it? Why destroy what's probably a beautiful interior? With opening and closing hours, it'll be like a building anyway. If there's one good idea that comes out of this is that heritage churches work best as landmark gathering places for the public, not subdivided spaces stripped of the majority of their art and detail when turned into condos. Yet turning them into ruins isn't the answer because it still entails a high degree of heritage destruction.
 
And of course, if development is about maximizing land usage and values, it'd be no less "dead/redundant" space as a "ruin" than it'd be whole--something you can't say about facading or condo-ing...
 
This project is now featured on DiamondCorp's website front page, along with a new rendering. This should be getting closer.

http://www.diamondcorp.ca/

7108033939_c7a673bf40_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top