Ah, that's it. I knew there was a problem, the details of which clearly didn't travel to the east side of Jarvis. Naturally, in my buidling we prefer the Jarvis option, as the light will make it easier to come out onto Jarvis, especially if we want to go South.
2. While the new North Market is being built, a temporary structure will be built on the parking lot south of the Market, to take care of the regular activities such as the Saturday farmer's market and Sunday antique market. Afterwards, the temporary structure will be torn down and the lot used for something more permanent (I have variously heard this may be a box store or yet another condo development with retail on the bottom floor. Extending the Crombie Park and building slightly to the south would be much better, in my opinion.)

There are plans to make the parking lot into more parkland once the temporary market shelter is gone, and I believe the latest plan is to close Wilton Street and add its ROW to the block of parkland as well. Context's Market Wharf development will be built to the south of Wilton on the former Gross Machinery site.

pukegreen: one company has purchased all the buildings along the west side of Market St. between Front and Esplanade, including the car repair place, which is now closed. These will all be completely restored, and that stretch of Market St. will be made into a pedestrianized street-.

This sounds great. That little stretch could be amazing, with the overhang from the St. Lawrence Market South building- one could put cafes- etc. underneath the overhang, which could be enclosed by glass in the winter- could be really promising if done right.

I have a picture of the sign somewhere from my tour of the area a few months ago. Ill try to find it.
We have a rendering on this board somewhere of the proposed new building that the city is going to put there. It's done in the victorian style and looks quite handsome. It really fits in well and nicely augments the 19th century architecture thats already in the area. Maybe some one can locate and post the rendering on the board.

From what I recall of the renderings

These are the '00's, not the '90s. We're almost better off maintaining the banal late 60s status quo than replacing it w/"the victorian style" as proposed...
I'm resurrecting this ancient thread because I came across this new article/letter on The Bulletin website about the proposed St. Lawrence North Market redevelopment. This proposal has been lingering around for so many years I don't know what to make of it anymore. As pointed out in the letter, so many years have passed since original studies were done that the neighbourhood has changed immensely.

For the record, I love the idea of a fully pedestrianized Market St laneway, extending the existing pedestrian area (where the fountain and Rainbow Cinemas are) to incorporate the south part along the west side of the South Market, right to the Esplanade. Once the new park is in place at the north end of the Market Wharf development, this would "anchor" both ends of the pedestrian area with parks (if you ignore the dangerous j-walk dance you'd need to engage in to get to the King James park).

As well, my typical NIMBY knee-jerk reaction has me agreeing this is not an ideal location for the Traffic Courts. Their purpose would indicate that most people would be arriving by automobile and probably against their will. That sounds like something we don't need in a downtown area that is heavily pedestrian, transit and tourist oriented. I say, stick the courts somewhere less central, even an industrial area where they can wrap it in parking lots.

LETTER: Market Square battles unwise N. Market plan

Unsavoury prospect of a traffic court across from historic Market
By Richard J. Anobile

I am Co-Chair of Residents of Market Square with regard to the city’s North Market Redevelopment
plan. In addition to pushing the city hard to forgo destroying Market Lane in order to allow for a parking garage
exit—something which we may have been successful at getting off the table for discussion, we are also trying to
bring to St Lawrence Neighbourhood resident’s attention the planned use for the building—traffic courts—which we feel
is inconsistent with the growth and direction of our historic neighbourhood.

As Coun. Pam McConnell is pushing hard to get council approval for this plan at the September Community Council meeting I feel it is imperative that residents are given a clear sense of the issue and what we believe is the negative impact of the proposed use of the building for traffic courts.

Our Residents at Market Square Committee actually got its start with regard to the proposed Great Gulf 39-storey
tower at Colborne and Church. Unlike most resident’s committees we are fortunate to have specific architectural,
and real estate law talent available to us so that when we take a position with regard to a development proposal,
we can do so with a good amount of specific expertise. We don’t oppose a project just because it is too tall, too
this or too that. We generally have very good reasons for doing so.

As a testament to that, we have recently been
gratified by the fact that the Planning Department took our objections to the proposed Great Gulf Tower to heart
and asked the Community Council members to return the application to Great Gulf and that they revise their plan
take into account Zoning regulations for the site, the Official Plan and The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Urban
Design Guidelines. I spoke in support of the planner’s decision at the Community Council meeting at city hall on
July 7 and I am happy to report that council voted to send the plan back to the developers.

The situation with the redevelopment of the North Market is somewhat different in that the present plan already has
the support of our ward councilor Pam McConnell, the BIA and to a great degree, The SLNA. For many years
the city has created a number of initiatives in our area with the sole idea of helping to revitalize The St. Lawrence
Neighbourhood. And, for the most part, they have done a great job. I have lived at Market Square for just over
15 years and I am pleased that the area has evolved into probably one of the best residential areas of town.
We are blessed by the immediate availability and proximity to public transit plus a wide variety of neighbourhood
sustaining businesses. Each and every development, even those which may not be exactly the kind of building
we hoped would be built, has brought more and more residents into the area, thereby creating a continuing cycle
of supply and demand for services that nurture both residents and businesses alike.

The North Market plan dates back to around 2003-2004. The building that exists was always meant to be temporary.
Yet some 30 or more years later, it is still here —and, though not the most pleasing piece of architecture it does get
the job done very nicely. When the plan to redevelop the building was hatched, the area was still in transition
and no developer for the most part would step up to the plate to work with the city as a partner to create a new building that
might be self-sustaining while at the same time preserving the ground floor for the farmers and antique marts. Out of
frustration Pam sought another alternative: a home for traffic courts and personnel. The courts would pay for the
building as would the revenue from below grade parking – some 250 spaces with a daily churn of about 1,000 cars per
day. For whatever reason, the plan languished until now. Few residents of the area were even aware of the plan.
I am a director for one of the two condo corps that make up Market Square. Bruno Leps,
another member of our board is also our delegate to the SLNA and it was his reports that started getting our attention,
especially the plan to rip up Market Lane to allow for a parking exit onto King Street with an entrance on Jarvis. As well,
the need for more underground parking is dubious, especially given current energy circumstances and the fact that
most, if not all, of the business ventures in our area are really sustained by the local population. An interesting
tidbit is that when the Front Street Dominion Store was first built they spent a small fortune creating an elevator link to the
underground commercial garage at Market Square. The planners of that development had thought that 80% of those
shopping at Dominion would come via auto. Exactly the reverse is true.

While Pam’s plan for the North Market redevelopment might have made sense when it was first hatched, it is now outdated.
Even the traffic surveys used for the plan are obsolete. Tearing up Market Lane is unthinkable. imagine all those
cars pouring out of the underground garage (obliterating Biagio’s garden) and piling onto the street car tracks on King
Even if they manage to reroute the cars via Jarvis, they would only add to the congestion of that thoroughfare which will
soon have to handle Gardiner traffic, the new big box Shopper’s Drug at the Market Wharf and another over 300+-unit condo
to the South and 300 + unit The Vu to the North.

Add to that the kind of transient nature of the courthouse function and the loitering that can be expected outside the building during
the weekdays (plus the added congestion when Front Street closes for various street fairs) and it is easy to see that this
is no longer the kind of development that is in sync with our historic area.

Essentially we are pleading with Pam and council to hold off a bit and let others propose an alternative. One presently exists
and it is supported by former Mayor CrombieL It is to possibly redevelop the North Market building as a City Museum that
would maintain the ground level for its present use and feed into a redevelopment of all of Market Lane—from King to the Esplanade
as a pedestrian walkway—linking the new proposed park at the Esplanade with St James Park. Is it a perfect plan? No. But it
could be a start of a dialogue that would encourage other private developers to create a partnership with the city for a more forward-thinking plan rather than one hatched in 2003 under circumstances that have been overtaken by the reality of the area in 2008 and will
most certainly be outdated by the time the city’s traffic court building is up and running in 2014.

The BIA (our area’s local business association) is fearful of any development that might include a private developer, yet these fears
can be overcome by open meetings and by creating a board that would oversee proposed plans to ensure that safeguards for the
businesses—especially within the south market—are in place, along with assurances that the use of the bottom floor of the redeveloped
North Market remains a farmer’s market.

As for the SLNA,– they are simply stuck with having approved the plan years ago and while number of their delegates are
now beginning to understand that we can do better. The SLNA Executive Committee under new president Susan Kavanaugh has
simply rubberstamped a years-old approval without asking for 2008 updated traffic and impact studies.

Our group wants to ensure that the area residents and condo boards are brought into the process, that there be a dialogue, and
at the very least that area residents come to understand the implications of plunking a court house down into the midst of our neighbourhood.
Hence our initiative.

We haven’t much time to appeal for a call for alternatives as Councillor McConnell is headstrong about this project and is hoping
to have it before Community Council in September for approval. The odds are against us at the moment, but we feel an obligation
to try to find a way to buy more time for the evolution of a more world-class approach to a once-in-a-century opportunity to
ensure that The St Lawrence Neighbourhood continue to evolve into one of our city’s most exciting and embracing areas.​

2008-08-07 10:47:13
Reviewing this thread reminds me how little I miss andreapalladio's pissiness.

By the way, is it true that Eric Arthur of Toronto: No Mean City fame designed St Lawrence N? How could some one so appreciative of Toronto's Victorian heritage be responsible for such a depressing, disposal building?
Though the residents of Market Square seem to be opposed to it, the Delegates to the July meeting of the St Lawrence Neighbourhood Association heard a presentation on it from the City and, almost unanimously, supported the redevelopment of the North Market. The SLNA support is certainly not confined to the Executive.

The latest plans do NOT call for any kind of parking entrance or exit in Market Street or Market Square Park. The parking entrance/exit will be on Jarvis. (One plan to have the parking entrances and exits on Church Street - entering through the Market Square garage - was rejected because the Market Square folk and the Toronto Parking Authority could not agree on how to do this.)

IMHO, it is not a perfect plan but it is not bad. The farmers and antique markets will get more space, there will be some community space and there will be additional parking. The City promised a public architectural competition and assured the SLNA that the area's height restrictions would be respected. Having the traffic courts there allows the City to consolidate the courts and become their only landlord rather than the private one they now have and will free up space in Old City Hall. Having the Parking Authority running the garage will bring in revenue.
Most of the Market Square folks oppose everything so I would take that with a grain of salt. Most want a 8 storey building, at most, across Church at the Great Gulf site. My neighbours don't appreciate my opinions on most matters.
the thing about traffic courts is that you can probably bet on illegal parking in the area - it's what the clientele is used to :D:D:D
By the way, is it true that Eric Arthur of Toronto: No Mean City fame designed St Lawrence N? How could some one so appreciative of Toronto's Victorian heritage be responsible for such a depressing, disposal building?

If one transcribes today's alibis to yesteryear, he probably intended something neutral and a more "appropriate" neighbour to St. Lawrence Hall than its predecessor (which, to his sensibility, might have seemed too overbearing and grimily Edwardian/Victorian, i.e. as offensive as Brutalism is to many today).

And in a way, I'd take it over a kitschily "retro" replacement--in fact, its problem may be that it's not Brutalist *enough*. (For some reason or another, I find that farmer's markets and parking-garagey concrete go well together; it works in Hamilton, and I actually liked the Kitchener market in its 70s premises better than in its goody-two-shoes present premises.)
North Market Petition

Is there any kind of petition going concerning stopping traffic courts from being in the North Market?

I'm biased as I live across the street but aside from clogging the area with undesirables (provincial courts also deal with a variety of offenses less savoury than traffic infractions) I can't imagine that introducing 1000 new cars to the area is a good idea.

I thought the city wanted people to drive LESS not more. Not to mention, why would a traffic court need to be downtown...everyone there has a car...that's how they ended up in traffic court. Stick it in some industrial area not the only decent looking/historical part of the city.

I'd love to see some sort of bright, open, public space that would absorb the masses of visitors that frequent the area on the weekends. How about a covered market that has the open feeling of being outdoors? What about a roof system like BCE place...metal and glass "trees"? Something imaginative and forward-looking.

I very much believe in preserving what little historic architecture we have left but new construction should be just that.
Is there any kind of petition going concerning stopping traffic courts from being in the North Market?

There has been some organizing against it, particularly by residents of the Market Square condos. Richard J. Anobile has been handing out flyers. There is information and an email link to get in touch with him on this website: http://www.thetorontobulletin.com/Downloads/multimedia/html/northmarket.html

I agree with your ideas for the North Market, and that there is little conceivable reason that the traffic courts need to be in this area.
aside from clogging the area with undesirables (provincial courts also deal with a variety of offenses less savoury than traffic infractions) I can't imagine that introducing 1000 new cars to the area is a good idea.

Though your arguments about traffic are not unreasonable, it is the TRAFFIC courts which are supposed to move to the new North Market.

The rationale for the Courts is that they and the Toronto Parking Authority will provide the $$$ to actually build the new Market. No Courts, no Parking Authority, no new Market. The City has no funds to do anything these days!