596 Church Street (Church 18 Holdings, 25s, RAW) DEAD

[Automation Gallery]

Another condo bldg. coming to this area.......has this location been posted yet.

Condo towers to loom over Church

Village real estate appears to be on the rise. Literally.

The widely advertised Five Condos are set to take over the site of former gay dance haven 5ive, and now plans for another condo development are confirmed in the same area.

A 25-storey condo tower is slated for the Dundonald/Gloucester block of Church St, the city’s planning division confirms.

Allison Meistrich, a senior planner at Toronto City Hall, says a proposal for a 25-storey condo tower has been submitted, which would see the demolition of 596 Church St (Gloucester Mansions), as well as a portion of 69 Gloucester St.

Bruce Hawkins, speaking for Meistrich, says more buildings on Gloucester could be torn down as well, though a part of 67 Gloucester will be preserved.

The tower will feature 35 replacement rental units on floors two to six and condos on floors seven and up. The proposal is still in the application stage, and a date of construction has not been set, though Hawkins says it will probably be "in the next 12 months."

More..........http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Condo_towers_to_loom_over_Church-8610.aspx

 

[Scott218]

Interesting. With all the developments going around the village, I wonder if Plazacorp would reopen plans for the vacant site just east of 22 Wellesley E.

 

[androiduk]

The red arrow depicts the site of the original proposal and the blue arrow is the site of the proposal according to the above article.

This is 69 Gloucester. It used to be a seperate house but over the years became fused with Gloucester Mansions to the left. I've been inside and the ground floor is all pretty original, if not messy. The owners make so much $ renting it out for movie shoots they don't even bother trying to find tenants.

This is 67 Gloucester and the most westerly part of the site.

I live almost across the street and have mixed feelings about the project. I will lose a bit of sun in the morning and I feel bad for the tenants of the existing buildings, most of whom have lived there for decades. On the other hand, the buildings are a bit run down and generally very gloomy inside. New rental units are included in the new building to replace those that are being torn down. I assume the current tenants get first crack at them but I'm not sure what they do about rents.

 

[Hipster Duck]

That sucks. Both of those buildings have character and are actually quite urban in scale. When they say "a part of 67 Gloucester will be preserved", I'm pretty sure that means pulling some lame shit Toronto facadectomy.

 

[androiduk]

^ I'd rather see them keep all of 69 Gloucester than part of 67.

 

[JayBee]

shame that they're tearing down 67 Gloucester. That's a beautiful building....just needs some tidying up.

 

[egotrippin]

Absolutely unacceptable, these buildings should not be torn down or facadomized (I think I might trademark this term). I hope this proposal gets rejected outright, and buried forever.

 

[barrytron3030]

Church has enough trouble retaining any sense of architectural charm. This is good for neither the neighbourhood nor the city. Why don't we first tackle the surface lots in front of the Beer Store and at Bloor?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I read this and my blood boils. How in the world can this happen to these buildings? With thoughts like this I fear I am becoming a NIMBY.

 

[khris]

I really find this ridiculous as well. They could use some sprucing up, but the architecture is good, and from the outside look to be in good shape. I do not want to see these torn down.

 

[UrbanFervour]

I couldn't agree with you all more. Church could definitely see more intensification in development but how sad to lose two handsome buildings on Gloucester. It sometimes seems there is NO respect for preserving the heritage of this city. Whoever is proposing this is going after some of the only buildings that lend the Church Street Village ANY charm whatsoever. Why couldn't they just by & develop the bloody parking lot near maple leaf Gardens or the one out front of the Beer store?

 

[Automation Gallery]

With thoughts like this I fear I am becoming a NIMBY.

Hey...i may be joining you, totally crazy to knock down those buildings.

 

[GrinTO]

This Sucks, are there not enough empty parking lots to build on!

 

[UrbanFervour]

OK- let's get a protest together, get the media, make a statement. This kind of thing works in the Beach(es) & the Annex, so why not Church Street village? Who's in?

To those of you who live in that neighbourhood, this isn't really NIMBYism. You aren't objecting to ALL tall buildings on Church (particularly on sites without buildings on them, presently). The point is to prevent the needless destruction of lovely heritage buildings (that contribute to the area's character and quality of life) in order to accommodate new high-rises...

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

OK- let's get a protest together, get the media, make a statement. This kind of thing works in the Beach(es) & the Annex, so why not Church Street village? Who's in?

To those of you who live in that neighbourhood, this isn't really NIMBYism. You aren't objecting to ALL tall buildings on Church (particularly on sites without buildings on them, presently). The point is to prevent the needless destruction of lovely heritage buildings (that contribute to the area's character and quality of life) in order to accommodate new high-rises...

I'm in.

For the record, I'm all for intensification in this neighbourhood (and elsewhere) but this proposal of tearing down these buildings is absolutely inappropriate.

I really find this ridiculous as well. They could use some sprucing up, but the architecture is good, and from the outside look to be in good shape. I do not want to see these torn down.

Yes, the Gloucester Mansions need a little TLC but look who owns it, a developer who wants to tear it down so why put any money into it.

I'll keep a look out for community consultation meetings and advise.