Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,726
Reaction score
32,314
My take, heritage preservation is decent'ish.......buildings aren't bad........excellent by IBI standards...........

But the on-site park is a goofy idea, its a completely non-functional size; my notion of working to green the Catholic School site and get a Park Access agreement between the Board and the City is a better one if it can be done.

Also, I don't trust Gh3 with parks, at all. I have never forgiven them for June Callwood, and I never will. They're good with buildings, let them give up on parks and play to their strengths.

Preserve all or parts of 2 additional heritage buildings instead of the undersized park space.

Elsewise, not bad!
 

formerTorontonian

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 4, 2019
Messages
23
Reaction score
44
My take, heritage preservation is decent'ish.......buildings aren't bad........excellent by IBI standards...........

But the on-site park is a goofy idea, its a completely non-functional size; my notion of working to green the Catholic School site and get a Park Access agreement between the Board and the City is a better one if it can be done.

Also, I don't trust Gh3 with parks, at all. I have never forgiven them for June Callwood, and I never will. They're good with buildings, let them give up on parks and play to their strengths.

Preserve all or parts of 2 additional heritage buildings instead of the undersized park space.

Elsewise, not bad!
I like the idea of small parkettes and POPS spaces scattered throughout the city and don't necessarily need larger parks everywhere, if the parkettes/POPS spaces are well done (through good landscaping, and good connections to the surrounding streets, building entrances, and maybe even cafes). I would rather have many smaller, well done, spaces like this one, scattered throughout the city, than one large one.....ideally both would be nice as well, but I prefer the former over the latter if I have to choose
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,726
Reaction score
32,314
I like the idea of small parkettes and POPS spaces scattered throughout the city and don't necessarily need larger parks everywhere, if the parkettes/POPS spaces are well done (through good landscaping, and good connections to the surrounding streets, building entrances, and maybe even cafes). I would rather have many smaller, well done, spaces like this one, scattered throughout the city, than one large one.....ideally both would be nice as well, but I prefer the former over the latter if I have to choose

I'm not opposed to small parks intrinsically; however, the City is short of space for proper playgrounds, and sports fields.

If you look at this block and look at the lands from Jarvis, to Parliament to Wellesley, there are no full-size playgrounds and no sports fields.

Even going south to Carlton, there is little to be found.

That's unreasonable for over 1,000 new residents, in addition to those already living in the area.

A school yard that is entirely paved over is also not reasonable.

So in this case, if there must be a choice, I think it needs to favour a larger, more usable space.
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
1,859
Reaction score
881
I wish there was more thought into the towers. it looks like someone used an attractor definition from Grasshopper and called it a day.
Yeah! There's always a huge age contrast between what's being preserved and being erected. I would have loved to see some precast or stone work etc. Incorporated into the podium instead of glass and metal trim. To blend in with the historical buildings.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
2,789
Reaction score
3,246
Looks like some of those elder buildings will be preserved in the current plan for right or wrong.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,139
Reaction score
13,194
City:
Toronto
Will track this as I expect KWT will want some OPEN DOOR units or similar as part of the Affordable-Housing haggle.
There is already 76 units proposed as affordable housing - probably the first “market” downtown proposal to actually include affordable units without being forced to.

The real fight here will be the neighbourhoods redesignation.
 

Koops65

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
4,312
City:
Toronto


Toronto Model 10-22-21 HuntleySelby.png
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
1,859
Reaction score
881
Thanks Koops for killing two birds with one stone. You've also created the flyby by 2189 Lake shore west development by the harbourfront in Etobicoke.
 

The Preservationist

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
320
Reaction score
665
I've got mixed feelings on this one. On one hand the proposal is adding a lot of density half a block from a metro station, on the other that's a big cut out of a rather attractive enclave of victorian housing. One has to ask how much demolition of the past is acceptable? I suppose if they keep the houses almost in entirety as hinted at by the renderings and have mature trees largely hiding the towers the street level experience could be somewhat maintained. sigh.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,047
Reaction score
25,958
City:
Toronto
There is already 76 units proposed as affordable housing - probably the first “market” downtown proposal to actually include affordable units without being forced to.

The real fight here will be the neighbourhoods redesignation.
Markee's 1 Sumach beat them to the even-before-you-ask-we've-got-affordable-units race. Anyone know of others?

42
 

Top