News   May 10, 2024
 746     0 
News   May 10, 2024
 885     0 
News   May 10, 2024
 937     0 

Heintzman Place (formerly Village By High Park, Junction, Options, 23s, Burka)

28 September 2010:

dsc00727hs.jpg
 
Wasn't Crossways built as a rental building? The fact that Heintzman Place will be made up of privately owned condos should make a big difference. The new owners will hopefully take pride in where they live ... and so they should. Welcome to the 'hood!
 
Hooked,

That's a good point about the Crossways, but I think most of the complaints here are more about the general architectural style, not how the units are owned. But it may make a difference. We'll have to see. But thanks for the welcome!

-David
 
Wasn't Crossways built as a rental building? The fact that Heintzman Place will be made up of privately owned condos should make a big difference. The new owners will hopefully take pride in where they live ... and so they should. Welcome to the 'hood!

The Crossways does look good, though. The brick cladding has proven quite durable and there appears to be little deterioration on the exterior. There are no balconies and hence no ugly balcony clutter, and the owner takes care of the landscaping opportunities afforded by the 1970s design, including the planters on the sidewalks. The underground parking is in excellent shape. The interior mall is always clean when I visit, even if it isn't glamorous in terms of the businesses which operate there. The businesses aren't sketchy, either, offering a variety of practical and affordable goods and services.

The owner clearly takes pride in this property.
 
It's true, that the taller tower does eem to be taking longer. I've heard there may be issues regarding bricklayers.
 
Good too hear it will be done by the end of the year. I do worry however about their work-site safety. No hardhats? How far away are you from them when you see them?
 
The Crossways does look good, though. The brick cladding has proven quite durable and there appears to be little deterioration on the exterior. There are no balconies and hence no ugly balcony clutter

This begs the question - when did it become mandatory for all residential highrises to have balconies? I can't think of any recent developments that don't have them.
 
Oh no! Balcony clutter! Evidence that human beings use the buildings!

What I'd like to see is an architect that took into account what balconies look like with clutter on them and made that part of the building's visual statement - it's only Neo-modernist designs that really struggle to deal with the effect of balcony clutter - a more chaotic or flowery style might find balcony clutter adds to the picturesqueness of the building's visual statement. Right now the trend seems to be to put fritted glass on the balconies to hide the clutter, but I'd like to see some smart designer work with this aspect of the building's use, rather than try to hide it.
 
It will be interesting to see how the frit on Festival Tower's balcony glazing hides objects behind it.

42
 
It will be interesting to see how the frit on Festival Tower's balcony glazing hides objects behind it.

Yeah, I was thinking of that, and Number One Bloor. Also MLS, particularly on the lower floors. I guess the vertical garage sale effect naturally peters out the higher you go - stronger winds and all.
 
10 October 2010: Hadn't walked close to this building during the day in over a year.

Observations:

1)Smokey grey/black tinted windows really ruin this building. Cheaper perhaps?

2)Driveway strikes me as being abruptly suburban, especially when approaching from the very c.1900 urban built form and streetscape of Indian Grove and Heintzman. Yuck.

3)Inappropriate massing for the area. The Crossways comparison is spot on.

The main entrance area:

dsc01017n.jpg


Of the lot, I prefer this podium area the most:

dsc01018vi.jpg


The base of the Keele St building has terribly awkward massing--very wtf were they (Crossways) thinking?

dsc01019k.jpg
 
At the "ward 7 TDSB all candidates meeting" last night, it was mentioned that there is almost no capacity in the schools in the immediate area of this development (just a few spots @ Indian Rd. Cres. PS is my guess) . Apparently the plan is to bus the kids from this development out of the ward (I believe to Carleton Village P.S. and the high school in that cluster).

Apparently the problem is even worse for the building proposed for 1850 Bloor St. W. (opposite High Park). This building is within the catchment of schools that are already well over capacity. Any kids moving into this building will have to be bussed east.

My impression. coming away from this meeting, is that there is a serious disconnect between planning of new developments and the infrastructure/services it impacts. Anyone know whether there is a mechanism to get developers to kick in capital towards schools as part of the planning process? Would it be part of the section 31 money?

-AmJ
 

Back
Top