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!
 
Northern Light said:
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!
Click to expand...
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
 
formerTorontonian said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
toronto_88 said:
I wish there was more thought into the towers. it looks like someone used an attractor definition from Grasshopper and called it a day.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Looks like some of those elder buildings will be preserved in the current plan for right or wrong.
 
HousingNowTO said:
Will track this as I expect KWT will want some OPEN DOOR units or similar as part of the Affordable-Housing haggle.
Click to expand...
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.
 


Toronto Model 10-22-21 HuntleySelby.png
 
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.
 
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.
 
innsertnamehere said:
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.
Click to expand...
Markee's 1 Sumach beat them to the even-before-you-ask-we've-got-affordable-units race. Anyone know of others?

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top