[interchange42]

Wow, Martin, my ears must have been burning. This afternoon I stopped by the site to take photographs of the current state of the homes here. As I finished up I was hoping that Daniels would not put up one of their New York Towers type buildings here, but that what would work great here would be something like Diamond Schmitt's Russell Hill Residence at St. Clair, which is this place, which was in this year's Pugs:

..so I am thrilled to hear that they have hired Diamond Schmitt. There will be some on UT that won't be thrilled, as D+S have occasionally gone the dull route when they should have been a bit more daring, but typically everything they do is handsome for its proportions and smart for its urbanity. This is very good news and I await the elevations... and then the renders.

Meanwhile, here is the current state of affairs on Bloor and on Oakmount:

Bloor, starting at Pacific

Moving east

Moving east

Bloor to Oakmount

Oakmount north of Bloor

Moving north

Moving north

The last house on Oakmount sits beside land cleared for the subway nearly 50 years ago. This block is just kept as a lawn, as opposed to an operating park. I see Daniels is proposing to turn this area into community gardens.

I'm sure that Section 37 funds here would also be directed towards High Park itself. What an amazing place to live this will be if this project is done right.

Between this news, and the news that Behnisch Architekten has a plan to save the Hearn, and by doing that, more of the Portlands themselves, today is a very encouraging day.

42

 

[duper]

I love this neighbourhood, and some of the houses they're demolishing are beautiful. The large box towers at Bloor-High Park Ave just down the street are a good reminder of the WRONG way to redevelop these properties.

The last tenant of the area, Linda Sepp, was evicted in May. It's not directly related, but still an interesting story. I walked by her run-down house many times, wondering why it appeared that someone lived there, when all the other houses were boarded up. This poor lady suffers from toxic sensitivities, but as you can read in the article, it may be more in her head. She has a completely unrealistic expectation of a new place, and TURNED DOWN multiple offers of new places.

http://www.healthzone.ca/Health/Newsfeatures/Article/806414

Can Linda Sepp possibly be helped?

May 07, 2010

Theresa Boyle
Health Reporter

In the end, Linda Sepp was pretty much alone.

For years, dozens of people have tried to help the 50-year-old woman with chemical sensitivities who was facing eviction from her High Park home.

Politicians, housing advocates, friends, family, and even her landlord tried to come to the rescue. Offers of other homes were made – at least seven the Star knows of – but she turned them all down, saying they were too toxic.

On Tuesday when she was finally forced out, the only person there to help lug her possessions into her car was her frail, 82-year-old father. Now she is essentially homeless, living on the balcony of his condo.

She says she feels “abandoned” by her helpers. But those who tried coming to her aid over the years are wondering: can Linda Sepp ever be helped?

“I think my office and myself have done what we can,” says an exasperated Toronto Councillor Bill Saundercook who, along with other local politicians, has spent hours on the phone with her old landlord, housing advocates and her doctor. “I didn’t show up (Tuesday). I mean, I could have been there, but what would I have added to the drama of the situation? I knew what was happening and I elected to be away.”

Others who have tried to assist her are equally frustrated. None of the solutions they have offered have been good enough.

A look at an email she sent to the city a few years ago might help explain why. It’s a wish list for her “ideal” home. The woman, who survives on an Ontario disability cheque, said she would like a “modest” three-bedroom house on three acres of land, surrounded by trees and fresh air. It should include a sauna and a sunroom, porch, patio or gazebo for reading and artwork. There should be a small barn for chicken, goats and an animal rescue. And for guests, a bunkie and detox shower.
more--> http://www.healthzone.ca/Health/Newsfeatures/Article/806414

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wonder if there is room on the site for an intervention that would at least save some of the houses - similar to the Dundas Sherbourne Infill Housing...

AoD

 

[Observer Walt]

While several of these houses do look handsome, I doubt that many (if any) would qualify as historic. The hard fact is that they are not that much different than dozens and dozens in the nearby area, extending north up to Annette, and south along the east side of High Park. The overriding factor here will probably prove to be the goal of intensification, particularly as the site takes advantage of the adjacent subway.

Duper, as for the high-rises at High Park Avenue, there are worse examples of the 1960s apartment-building impulse. Yes it led to significant destruction of low-rise neighbourhoods. St. James Town, and the area around King and Dufferin (Tyndall and Spencer Avenues) resulted from large-scale blockbusting and are now recognized as "low income" housing at best, verging on slums at worst. The High Park complex of buildings has not gone in that direction, and has provided moderately priced housing for many over the years, in a darn good location. The city could have done a lot worse.

 

[adma]

While several of these houses do look handsome, I doubt that many (if any) would qualify as historic. The hard fact is that they are not that much different than dozens and dozens in the nearby area, extending north up to Annette, and south along the east side of High Park.

And yet the funny thing is: the same could be said about much or most of what was saved for/adapted into Diamond/Myers-style infill projects like Dundas-Sherbourne, York Square, the Hydro Block. etc. It ain't just about over-tight definitions of "historic", you know...

 

[urbandreamer]

http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/searchPlanningApp.do

1844 BLOOR ST W
OPA / Rezoning 10 261248 WET 13 OZ Ward 13
- Etob. York Sep 20, 2010 Application Submitted Sep 22, 2010 Residential Singles 1,425 29,530 30,955 346 5,155 --- --- Carvalino, Philip
416-394-8233
Proposed amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the development of a 14-storey mixed-use building consisting of approximately 346 residential units, an amenity area, and 1 425 m2 of grade-related retail use.

 

[yyzer]

render via urbanation's twitter feed......looks pretty good for Daniels!

 

[interchange42]

Ah, well, we can do a little better than that: here are more pixels of the plan for your viewing pleasure.

That's Pacific Avenue above left, Oakmount Avenue above right. Below, we'll close in for a more detailed view.

This plan - not yet approved by the City - contains 364 units. Wings fronting on Bloor start at 7 storeys, gradually terracing to 13 storeys at the back. Commercial units will front Bloor Street. Below we focus on the courtyard, and then the entry area.

An aerial view of how the project will fit into the area. Keele subway station is the low narrow structure at the bottom of the first image.

All images courtesy Diamond + Schmitt / Daniels Corporation

The building is proceeding through the planning process. A preliminary report will be submitted to Etobicoke Community Council on March 22nd. Assuming approval, a community consultation will take place in April. UrbanToronto will keep tabs on this handsome project.

 

[junctionist]

The massive black mechanical grill at the top is a nasty focal point. The massing makes it look timid and the way it meets the street isn't good at all, particularly with those sections of brick walls. One of our most prominent parks should attract bold, well-detailed designs, not such introspection. At the very least, if that mechanical penthouse was integrated into the top floor, it would have an elegant roofline, resolving all the different sections. But it's an eyesore, drawing attention to a part of the building no one wants to see.

 

[greenleaf]

I think I would like this proposal 180% more if the building were turned 180 degrees.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I think I would like this proposal 180% more if the building were turned 180 degrees.

That would put the courtyard in the shade of the building. On the other hand, it would end up facing the subway right-of-way which is being used by the high-rise building to the the north.

 

[Tewder]

There are some elements that make this a bit fortress-like considering it faces onto the park.

 

[urbandreamer]

The form here represents the historical built form for apartment buildings in this area--central square surrounded by two wings. The architecture is a decent take on the 1960s built form nearby.

With red brick like that one used on St Clair, it would be great. Although all of us V@HP dwellers live in white brick buildings, which in the summer look quite nice.

The retail adition looks tacked on--perhaps they could decrease the depth of the setback/front court and be able to sell retail with extended patios.... More dentist and doctor's offices here would suck.

 

[greenleaf]

The form here represents the historical built form for apartment buildings in this area--central square surrounded by two wings. The architecture is a decent take on the 1960s built form nearby.

With red brick like that one used on St Clair, it would be great. Although all of us V@HP dwellers live in white brick buildings, which in the summer look quite nice.

The retail adition looks tacked on--perhaps they could decrease the depth of the setback/front court and be able to sell retail with extended patios.... More dentist and doctor's offices here would suck.

Thanks for the analysis UD. I do like the built form, and get that it matches the area. The street level retail looks incomplete to me too though.

Over time, I imagined some kind of midrise street wall built along Bloor next to the park, like you see around Central Park in NYC. This proposal seems timid to me, that's all.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

Does anyone know (or can they make an educated guess/ flat out speculate) about the demographic this building will be aimed at. Is there a possibility that there will be larger family-friendly units, or will this development be mostly aimed at the usual single/young couple market? It is directly opposite a large park in a family friendly area of the city...
AmJ