Toronto Nicholas Residences | ?m | 35s | Urban Capital | Core Architects

[jaborandi]

There's a huge difference between Mutual Street and St. Nicholas Street. Mutual has very little charm to recommend it and the CBC studios which got torn down were a blight to begin with. I'm unable to see any comparison. What is your point?

 

[corridor_dweller]

There are some rather handsome brick homes and other low-rise buildings to the north of the Radio City tower and at 30+ storeys, its impact on the small scale 'feel' of the street is negligible. The developers continued the same scale southwards with the new Radio City townhomes quite successfully. Like St. Nick is to Yonge and Bay, this stretch of Mutual is a nice reprieve from the traffic and noise of Jarvis...entirely comparable I think. My point is that the height of the proposal is less of a problem than seeking ways to make the tower fit the current context of the street.

 

[Archivist]

corridor dwellers comments are well taken, Radio City really does enhance and complete Mutual Street, which does have pockets of charm.

Of course, the difference being that where Radio City currently sits was mostly empty, a few unremarkable structures were demolished, and the buildings that mattered (which faced on Jarvis) were preserved as part of the development. That isn't the case with this proposal.

Still, no denying that Radio City has been great for the street.

 

[marsh]

St Nicholas

I have to respond to some of the comments on the recent posts.

First, I consider Bloor, Bay and Yonge part of my neighbourhood, where I live. I accept the fact that I live in high density neighbourhood. I have not objected to condo developments on the main arteries - like Bay, Yonge and Bloor. The proposed condo development on St. Nicholas was simply wrong for many reasons. Why does that make me a NIMBY?

Further, I think our poster which illustrated the height of the proposed condo in comparison to the victorian row homes, showed how ludicrous the proposed condo is. One of the differences between the condo development on Mutual Street is that its scale is much better suited to the street, its not as high, there are more low rise townhomes that provide balance and the condo tower itself seems to be set back from street (there was no set back on the Peanut condo proposal).

Further, many people objected to the proposed condo tower - not just the residents of St. Nicholas Street. I know people in the Manulife Building, St. Mary's apartment building, and in the condos on Bay street, who did not want to see this 44 story condo tower on St. Nicholas. They obviously felt there was benefit to the community as a whole in not building this tower on the street. Are they NIMBY's too? Don't people who live in the community have a right to have their voices heard?

As I said before, I do not accept that urbanization and intensification means putting up a skyscraper on every peice of available land in downtown Toronto. There needs to be breathing space. St. Nicholas provides breathing space to the community.

I agree that St. Mary's is not ideal - but bad planning and design in the past shouldn't be used to justify bad planning and design now.

Lastly, I think the "greatness" of a city is more than just the number of skyscrapers it has. Look at Europe - there many cities there that face issues of urbanization and intensfiication, with limited room to grow - yet their cities are not necessarily filled with skyscrapers. Barcelona is a wonderful example.

I think what makes Toronto a great city is the fact that you can find streets like St. Nicholas, and Collier (near Church) and Kensington Market and Baldwin in the heart of the city. I don't want to lose these streets.

 

[androiduk]

marsh, you're making it sound like they're going to bulldoze the whole street. You might lose the two buildings on the corner (depending on the final design) but the rest of the street will remain intact and I'm sure as charming as ever. You're not going to lose any sunshine because the development is at the top end of the street. Traffic should still remain light unless the city changes the configuration of the streets. Right now, most traffic is traveling east along St. Mary to get to Yonge. There is no advantage to going down St. Nicholas to Irwin because Irwin is one way west. You might see a very slight increase in vehicular traffic during the rush hours when people are going to and returning from work but it should be negligible. As far as pedestrian traffic goes, I don't know why you're against this but I don't think you'll notice much difference here either. Bay Street is lined with condos and I can't believe how dead it is. You can't exist in a vacuum here and I think your fears are exagerated. I have lived in this neighbourhood for 20 years and I welcome all the newcomers from CASA, BSN, Uptown, Crystal Blu, U, etc. who wish to move into this area. All the amenities and conveniences you enjoy here are the result of increased density.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Further, I think our poster which illustrated the height of the proposed condo in comparison to the victorian row homes, showed how ludicrous the proposed condo is. One of the differences between the condo development on Mutual Street is that its scale is much better suited to the street, its not as high, there are more low rise townhomes that provide balance and the condo tower itself seems to be set back from street (there was no set back on the Peanut condo proposal).

Radio City also went through a process with the neighbourhood which initially greeted the project with resistance. Height reduction & design changes were made and it all turned out great.

The Radio City complex and National Ballet School truly revitalized this section of Jarvis Street with the brilliant additions and renovations that we see today. Mutual Street also benefited, going from a somewhat neglected, rundown and relatively untraveled area into a terrific little neighbourhood street. The National Ballet student residence at Mutual & Maitland streets have also served to add additional life to this area since the reno/expansion, though sadly it has received very little attention.

 

[BobBob]

The "condo infestation" thing really grated on me, it implies that condos (ie. buildings with privately owned apartments) are something that needs to be exterminated, rooted out. In reality, it's the only way forward for the city's continued development.

Whether this particular tower is appropriate here is debatable. I am not sure how I feel about it, but it is hard to agree with people when they approach the debate with selfish points like lost views, increased traffic, etc.

 

[interchange42]

Every landowner is allowed some selfishness if they believe their enjoyment of their property, and its market value, will be diminished by a change to the landscape. I agree, however, that hyperbole in defense of their patch of ground is not helpful to them: it benefits all parties here to understand each other's rights and goals.

42

 

[adma]

Radio City also went through a process with the neighbourhood which initially greeted the project with resistance. Height reduction & design changes were made and it all turned out great.

The Radio City complex and National Ballet School truly revitalized this section of Jarvis Street with the brilliant additions and renovations that we see today. Mutual Street also benefited, going from a somewhat neglected, rundown and relatively untraveled area into a terrific little neighbourhood street. The National Ballet student residence at Mutual & Maitland streets have also served to add additional life to this area since the reno/expansion, though sadly it has received very little attention.

But--as archivist implies--the CBC site upon which Radio City/NBS sits was far more of an obvious urban dead zone begging remediation/intensification than anything within the St Nicholas block, Regis and Scientology not excepted. So it's not quite the same sort of situation...

 

[androiduk]

(1) IMO Scientology's no eyesore; in fact, it's one of the most mysterious, underrated and underaltered (original windows!) postwar-era office buildings in Toronto

(2) it isn't endangered by this proposal. The neo-Georgian lowrise to its right is.

I like the Scientology building too. Especially the ground floor, there's something very approachable about it. I liked it even more when Brother's Diner was there.

 

[Tewder]

Marsh: sometimes change happens. It doesn't always have to be bad, and sometimes something new and interesting is created...

 

[adma]

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=166062

News


Naughty on St. Nick’s
You don’t need a 44-storey eyesore to have neighbourhood density
Mike Smith
St. Nicholas is a charming mutt of a street for downtown Toronto.


Tucked between the towers of Yonge and Bay, it starts at Wellesley as a laneway and, heading north, passes old three-storey industrial spaces turned commercial lofts and ramshackle garages, ending as a cobblestone street of Victorian row houses and faux Victorian townhouses.

This dreamy 19th-century streetscape is already somewhat interrupted by a 1970s apartment tower – but residents of the tiny, tony road fear that if Urban Capital’s proposed 44-storey condo at number 65 gets the go-ahead, the historic feel of their enclave will be irretrievably lost.

Do we really need another testing ground for the manifest destiny of upward intensification – and more confusion over the difference between good planning and profiteering passing itself off as ecological land use?

The good news is that the capable locals have made a ruckus, handing Councillor Kyle Rae the ammo to ask for a heritage study. He’s recently obtained a commitment that staff will report on the street to the city’s Heritage Preservation Board in February.

But the long shadow of the Ontario Municipal Board is looming, so of course anything can happen.

At a November 4 meeting, 200 residents and neighbours from the Bay corridor tore themselves away from the U.S. election coverage to pack the auditorium of the Catholic Girls’ School on Wellesley. All the ingredients were in place for a cartoonish confrontation between greedy developers and NIMBYists.

At first, locals didn’t disappoint. Each time Robert Glover, the planner hired by UC, showed photographs of the anticipated change to the local skyline, rows of residents let out catcalls and boos so rousing, so predictable that I looked around for cue cards.

But I got their point. The developer’s presentation leaned heavily on the city’s official density mandate. Urban Capital lawyer Adam Brown informed the crowd in a scolding, teacher-like tone that downtown neighbourhoods must intensify to limit northern sprawl. “This is because of a provincial mandate,†he argued. “This is exactly the sort of site designated for growth.â€

The company showed bird’s-eye photos essentially establishing that there are already a lot of towers in the ’hood, so what’s one more?

To a developer or even a city planner operating under the received wisdom that the core must figuratively and literally grow up, skyscrapers might make some sense. But not to residents and local businesses measuring what could be lost in one particular intensification project in one particular corner of the city.

“This is a very attractive building. It’s not a building for St. Nicholas,†said Kathryn Holden of the Bloor Corridor Community Association. “People always tell me they walk to work down St. Nicholas. They don’t walk down Yonge, they don’t walk down Bay. That street is a park – which costs the city nothing because the community maintains it. We put the mulch on the trees.â€

One wonders: has anyone involved in this development walked the area? “We want density,†said Sean Tracy, BCCA president. “We have a subway – you can’t have that without density. But we also value heritage.â€

Condo dwellers can destroy quaint streets while seeking them. Quaint locals want density but don’t want to live in it. This could be resolved by discussion. For all its appeals to authority, the developer ignored the central fact: the city zoned the site for six storeys, not 44. What if Urban Capital committed to experimentation with a modern low-rise? What if area residents agreed to six plus two or three extra floors?

Councillor Rae acknowledged that the development-crazed OMB was the real issue when he rose to inform staff in attendance that the public outcry had now given him reason to request a heritage conservation study. “We needed to have this meeting so the city will have a response that can be defended at the board.â€

City Hall itself isn’t blameless, though. Just as the province uses its left hand to wash its right of responsibility – one ministry restricting growth to cities in principle but taking no responsibility for the OMB’s laissez-faire interpretations – the city’s new Official Plan leaves many gaps to be exploited.

The St. Nicholas area is designated as an “apartment neighbourhood†in the OP but has no area plan, a finer-grain, more consultative plan to guide zoning.

In a part of Toronto considered appropriate for towers, that’s a surprising gap in the city’s toolbox. It’s also a hint of what other residents facing development pressure may need to push for to prevent land grabs. An area plan is, after all, Rae says, an important defence at an OMB hearing.

The residents of St. Nick, however, are lucky for now, having resrces – and political support. “Intensification doesn’t mean 44 storeys,†said Rae. “Right now I don’t see a project that will fly on this site.â€

 

[BMyers]

I don't think every person that opposes a new development is a NIMBY (I honetly don't know if this site is appropriate for a 44-storey bldg), but I also wonder why all developers are labelled as greedy?

Has this reporter ever looked at a construction proforma to actually see what the developer profit is on any particular development?

With the current land values, a 6 to 9 storey building would not be economically feasible, and you don't have to be a residential cost consultant to figure that out.

If you were taking out a $80 million dollar construction loan like these developers are, you might want to build in some profit for that huge financial risk wouldn't you?

These reporters also fail to mention that these greedy developers provide jobs for approximatley 200,000 people in the GTA. There are some greedy developers no doubt, but lets not stereotype everyone without all the facts.

 

[BobBob]

This may be off-topic, but I feel there is still a strange stigma against condos, and apartment living in general, and it's evident even in the language we use. "Homes" is understood to mean houses, and "condos" are just something you buy to flip, or to hang out in for a while, like a hotel. It's understandable to a degree, due to our lack of historical experience with private apartment living, but I find that sort of mentality really backward, and it's evident in the rhetoric of this particular anti-condo group.

Again, I'm not necessarily siding against them in this fight, just commenting on their approach.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Perhaps a bias against anonymity - living in a box in the sky, not knowing your neighbours, not necessarily caring to - is at the root of this aberrant attitude? If so, it's a strange thing to find in a big city, where getting lost in the crowd is one of the defining possibilities, and something that makes urban living attractive.

Perhaps some architects internalize this attitude and try to create a compensatory "sense of house" in their multi-unit buildings - Safdie's Habitat, Teeple's Gansevoort for instance. Others embrace the communal qualities that minimalist residential towers express, and they find a market for what they do - not everyone wants to live in a little house at street level and generations of Torontonians have been happy to rent ( and, since the first condos were built in Ontario in 1968, own ) in tower buildings instead.

"House" is just a different concept from "condo" - not a superior one.