I'd personally be cool with whichever of those two is cheaper. I'm not much of a purist on building interiors being preserved (it's nice when possible but the exterior is the primary reason for preservation, not the interior) so a demo and rebuild would be fine, as would building around the older apartments.
 
This site is plenty large enough to accommodate the buildings on the corner.

In unrelated but related news, AFAIK UofT is pushing to demolish the homes along Hoskin between Grad house and Hillel Building for an additional residence too.
 
Armour said:
Keeping them in their entirety would be optimal.
Click to expand...

greenleaf said:
This site is plenty large enough to accommodate the buildings on the corner.
Click to expand...

The site is +/- 58 x 42m which is pretty optimal in terms of an efficient parking layout. Incorporating the buildings on the corner not only reduces that efficiency, but makes the below grade layout abnormal and difficult to maneuver. It sucks that development is driven by parking but until the City is willing to ease requirements (especially this close to higher-order-transit), this is how it's going to be. There also has to be accommodations made for loading, servicing, garbage and lobbies, not to mention retail and it's attendant servicing on the ground floor.

All of this doesn't even touch the fact that you've got lost GBA/GFA on all floors above the heritage buildings that would need to be recouped elsewhere.

I don't revel in the fact that heritage buildings are too-often lost for new development but it's never as easy as "There's absolutely no reason that they can't preserve them and work around them. Anything less would just be lazy and an insult to the historic built form." It's simply uninformed or downright disingenuous to imply that it is.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The site is +/- 58 x 42m which is pretty optimal in terms of an efficient parking layout. Incorporating the buildings on the corner not only reduces that efficiency, but makes the below grade layout abnormal and difficult to maneuver. It sucks that development is driven by parking but until the City is willing to ease requirements (especially this close to higher-order-transit), this is how it's going to be. There also has to be accommodations made for loading, servicing, garbage and lobbies, not to mention retail and it's attendant servicing on the ground floor.

All of this doesn't even touch the fact that you've got lost GBA/GFA on all floors above the heritage buildings that would need to be recouped elsewhere.

I don't revel in the fact that heritage buildings are too-often lost for new development but it's never as easy as "There's absolutely no reason that they can't preserve them and work around them. Anything less would just be lazy and an insult to the historic built form." It's simply uninformed or downright disingenuous to imply that it is.
Click to expand...

Uninformed? Disingenuous? Please. It's been literally years since I've been called that on the board, so this is fun (pretty sure it was by you last).

Yeah, parking is more important than fabric buildings. I know it's a grim state of affairs here.

Yes, that loss can be recouped: they can build taller to save/work with the existing building. 666 Spadina is roughly 240-250 ft, the same as this proposal. Building a bit higher can do the trick.
 
The quote directly preceding those two terms was not yours @greenleaf, but @Towered's on the page before this one. Apologies for being unclear.

I'm also fine with taller buildings, but in a city where height is the primary lightning rod for community opposition, it's just as, if not more, difficult to get everyone on side.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The quote directly preceding those two terms was not yours @greenleaf, but @Towered's on the page before this one. Apologies for being unclear.

I'm also fine with taller buildings, but in a city where height is the primary lightning rod for community opposition, it's just as, if not more, difficult to get everyone on side.
Click to expand...
Though you'd think NIMBYs would accept such a compromise (building higher) if it means retaining character/heritage.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The quote directly preceding those two terms was not yours @greenleaf, but @Towered's on the page before this one. Apologies for being unclear.

I'm also fine with taller buildings, but in a city where height is the primary lightning rod for community opposition, it's just as, if not more, difficult to get everyone on side.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Saw me in there and I was surprised.

Anyway, yes the height issue will always be. The process and communication around retaining a building (that is not even listed heritage) in a trade for height has never been done well, except for maybe Westbank's Mirvish Village proposal.
 
700 SPADINA AVE
Ward 20 - Tor & E.York District

Rezoning application to permit a mixed-use University Student Residence with associated retail and office uses as well as faculty housing: 23-storey building including a 4-storey podium, together with a 3-storey, 12-unit stacked townhouse complex
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 16 194679 STE 20 OZ Jul 21, 2016 Under Review
 
This might change the design a bit.

"This report recommends that Toronto City Council state its intention to designate the property at 698 Spadina Avenue under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and include the property on the City of Toronto's Heritage Register.

The property located on the north-west corner of Spadina Avenue and Sussex Avenue in the South Annex neighbourhood, contains a three storey Victorian block with commercial space at grade and residential units above, completed in 1885 as the John James Funston grocery store and, since 1984, known as the Ten Editions Bookstore.

Following research and evaluation, it has been determined that the property at 698 Spadina Avenue Road meets Ontario Regulation 9/06, the criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its design, associative and contextual value.

The inclusion of the property on the Heritage Register and its designation would ensure that all of the heritage values and attributes of the property are identified and conserved."
 
U of T needs 2,300 new beds by 2020 to meet housing demand, says housing report
Housing expansion projects met with opposition by City of Toronto

U of T says ‘yes,’ city says ‘no’

U of T’s new housing plans, especially the Spadina-Sussex residence, have been met with considerable resistance from the City of Toronto and the community. After four years of negotiations, U of T is seeking aid from the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which will mediate between the university, the city, and community members, including the Harbord Village Residents Association, according to Elizabeth Burke, U of T’s Director of Campus and Facilities Planning.
More........https://thevarsity.ca/2017/09/25/u-...0-to-meet-housing-demand-says-housing-report/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really understand the opposition for this site... there's a tall building immediately south, and a few tall-ish buildings immediately north. And it's near a major subway line, and right on the streetcar line. Seems like it should be all green lighted, especially with incorporation of the heritage building.

If the giant fugly wall at 666 Spadina got approved way back when, why not this?
 
A bit of news floating around. Looks like there's a disagreement over 698 Spadina (the bookstore)'s heritage designation:

Is it worthy of a heritage building designation? Toronto City Council certainly thinks so, as do members of the Harbord Village Residents’ Association.
Click to expand...
U of T disagrees, and will be challenging the building's potential addition to the City of Toronto’s Heritage Register at the Conservation Review Board this November.

The University argues that the building doesn't "seem to contain enough design or contextual value to warrant the heritage designation." Also, there are already 80 listed heritage buildings on U of T's St. George campus.
Click to expand...

http://www.blogto.com/city/2017/10/...-should-demolish-bookstore-student-residence/

Regardless of the heritage designation, I think 698 Spadina humanizes the corner far better than a two-storey glass storefront would. The other buildings on the site are far less significant and I wouldn't mind them going.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top