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

Evan said:
The condo market aint falling apart until immigration stops nimby boy.
Click to expand...

Sales are off significantly thus far this year and there are a lot of question marks for 2009. The condo market is definetly slowing and it's unlikely all the recent proposals that have been posted here the last few months will go beyond the proposal stage.

With respect to this development, St. Nicholas is a fairly unique street downtown and the site plan/lower levels of the project will hopefully be sensitive to St. Nicholas. This particular corner at St. Mary's street could however use a healthy injection of life & vitality.

The condo market and immigration levels have a rather loose correlation, there are more pertanent factors that are contributing to the declines experienced this year and forecasts for an even slower year in 2009.
 
Mike in TO said:
Sales are off significantly thus far this year and there are a lot of question marks for 2009. The condo market is definetly slowing and it's unlikely all the recent proposals that have been posted here the last few months will go beyond the proposal stage.

With respect to this development, St. Nicholas is a fairly unique street downtown and the site plan/lower levels of the project will hopefully be sensitive to St. Nicholas. This particular corner at St. Mary's street could however use a healthy injection of life & vitality.
Click to expand...

On a general Toronto scale I agree with you in regards to real estate and new developments, but for this section of Toronto I am going to have to disagree with you. For the moment at least it seems to be in a league of it's own. While it is likely other neighbourhoods may suffer, I would be extremely surprised if it did here. The number one reason is location. Close to Yorkville, Queen's Park, U of T, and the Subway, and really not that far (walking distance) to the Financial Core.

Agreed on your 2nd paragraph though. This is a neat little street unlike any other in the area. The mentioned area for development really has the potential to extend the charm of St. Nicholas Street.
 
Does anyone know how large this potential building site is? Looking at Microsoft Virtual Earth, it does not look that large. I expect that a 44 floor tower would be of a very significant density. Not a bad thing mind you.

I think towers in residential districts such as St Mary & St Nicholas are less harmful than people think. But Toronto needs better street surroundings (plants, furniture, sidewalks, general surroundings) and maintenance to keep such neighborhoods looking good. My mind is drawn to Chicago's Gold Coast neighborhood, or Vancouver's West End. Both neighborhoods have tall buildings, but have such pleasant street-level surroundings that the towers do not detract from a neighborhood loveliness.

Improved streetscape for Toronto is one of my wishes, by the way. Back when I lived in Toronto (up to about 2 yrs ago), I wanted to buy a condo at 1121 Bay Street. But looking at the shabby character of the sidewalks and general lack of character in the neighborhood, I couldn't bring myself to do it. Maybe I'm shallow. But I now live in Vancouver's West End, and the ground-level landscaping makes this an absolutely lovely place. As I also found with Chicago's Gold Coast upon a recent visit (their equivalent to Toronto's Yorkville/Yonge&Bloor areas).
 
This is sort of a disjointed rant, but this proposal was sort of the icing on the cake for me... seeing a proposal for a 44-storey building on a side street, adjacent to a row of two-storey 19th-century cottages.

Why is it that anybody who questions unregulated development is branded a NIMBY? My main problem with this sort of project is that there seem to be no rules or coherent plan. When most of the city is pure urban sprawl, why are we focusing so much growth downtown and why do we allow these towers that are so tall they block out the sun? Why do we allow developers to bastardize historic buildings when there's so much architectural shlock in this city? Yonge street is full of one-storey non-descript buildings that could be replaced with mid-rise development.

It seems that the standard game plan for a developer these days is to buy a site zoned for low-density, then submit an application for the tallest building you can possibly imagine getting away with building. If the city refuses your request, take it to the OMB and win. The end result is a city full of random buildings of random heights, all with no relation to each other and no concern for how they fit into the greater city.
 
DarnDirtyApe said:
Why is it that anybody who questions unregulated development is branded a NIMBY? My main problem with this sort of project is that there seem to be no rules or coherent plan. When most of the city is pure urban sprawl, why are we focusing so much growth downtown and why do we allow these towers that are so tall they block out the sun? Why do we allow developers to bastardize historic buildings when there's so much architectural shlock in this city? Yonge street is full of one-storey non-descript buildings that could be replaced with mid-rise development.
Click to expand...

we actually don't let developers do any of that
first of all in terms of shadowing there are clauses within the Official Plan that require new developments to limit any shadow impacts that may result. And why can't high-rise buildings and historic buildings co-exist in close proximity? As for your suggestion of developing along Yonge street replaceing "one-storey non-descript buildings" the strip of Yonge Street I assume your talking about (about from College north to Bloor, right?) is actually either listed or designated heritage by the city.
http://app.toronto.ca/heritage/sear...onge&ward=&district=&details=&details2=&type=
 
...And while St. Nicholas does have those nice cottages and townhouses to the south, we should also keep in mind that the intersection of St. Mary and St. Nicholas currently has:

NW Corner - 30 story (or so) apartment building (U of T owned, I believe)

SW Corner - 30 story (or so) rental building (25 St. Mary)

NE Corner - 10 story B-grade office building

SE Corner - Proposed 44-story condo, with the Scientology building right behind it.

As cute as that little section is, we can't pretend that the immediate area isn't dense, urban and highrise. It wouldn't even be the highest building in the immediate area - Manulife is taller, as would both of the U Condominiums.
 
DarnDirtyApe said:
why are we focusing so much growth downtown and why do we allow these towers that are so tall they block out the sun?
Click to expand...

Because Downtown Toronto isn't a cow pasture. Large North American cities often have tall buildings in their downtowns. Trees block sunlight too. I cant' stand the 'you're blocking my sunlight' argument for downtown areas.

Provided that this development treats the streetscape with respect, I think it could be a lovely addition to the neighborhood. But if it's just going to be a concrete and glass slab and sidewalk, I'd question the merits of such a proposal. The St. Nicholas/St. Mary area has a lovely character to it, and I think it could even be enhanced further with better neighborhood accessorization, such as wrought iron detailing, flowers, trees, benches, and the like.
 
vancouverguy_76 said:
But if it's just going to be a concrete and glass slab and sidewalk, I'd question the merits of such a proposal.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, I'd be surprised if the Bay Corridor Community Association would ever allow that to happen. Just look at the fuss created by U Condominiums initial proposals. Thanks to the BCCA and the residents of Bay Street, it is 2 towers instead of 3 with more green space.
 
Oh and DarnDirtyApe, please stop commenting on this thread because you obviously do not know this neighbourhood. Complaining about 44 stories when a block away 80 stories is going up? It's already all shadows downtown. And we're happy with it. Let's focus on the design and the neighbourhood aesthetics instead.
 
Dismissing the design merits of highrise proposals - without even seeing them - with the classic blanket accusation and NIMBY scaremongering tactic that Toronto is a city of "unregulated development" or that the City will allow a developer to build "everything" they want, doesn't make much sense given how long it takes for proposals to work their way through the approval process, the public meetings held to discuss such plans, and how frequently proposed buildings are redesigned to reflect the inevitable changes that the City bureaucracy mandates as a result of this dance.
 
44-storeys will be welcomed here. For one, it may block out that angled white apartment building on the SW corner, built in the tower-in-the-park era. Second, it will enhance the density of this already clustered neighbourhood, adding a new peak to a series of different sized tall buildings. And third, the street-level will be enhanced with strategic investments and attention to the streetwall and sidewalk.

I know this area well. The Scientology building is a gross blight that should be shielded from the view of east-facing condo and apartment dwellers on Bay St.

But the neighbourhood context is one where you have 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50 and soon 60 and 80 storey buildings within a 10 minute walking radius of this spot. There is no better place to put a 44 storey condo nor is there a better area in the city when it comes to accessibility. If this one goes up and if it pays attention and respect to the street it will be a welcomed addition.
 
CSW2424 said:
44-storeys will be welcomed here. For one, it may block out that angled white apartment building on the SW corner, built in the tower-in-the-park era. Second, it will enhance the density of this already clustered neighbourhood, adding a new peak to a series of different sized tall buildings. And third, the street-level will be enhanced with strategic investments and attention to the streetwall and sidewalk.

I know this area well. The Scientology building is a gross blight that should be shielded from the view of east-facing condo and apartment dwellers on Bay St.

But the neighbourhood context is one where you have 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50 and soon 60 and 80 storey buildings within a 10 minute walking radius of this spot. There is no better place to put a 44 storey condo nor is there a better area in the city when it comes to accessibility. If this one goes up and if it pays attention and respect to the street it will be a welcomed addition.
Click to expand...

I love that angled white apartment building on the SW corner, especially the entance way. Very 60's. For many years, that tower dominated the midtown skyline.

Despite its tenant, I also appreciate that wonderful piece of modernism which you perceive to be a gross blight.

I can think of several better places to put a 44-storey condo.
 
jaborandi said:
I love that angled white apartment building on the SW corner, especially the entance way. Very 60's. For many years, that tower dominated the midtown skyline.

Despite its tenant, I also appreciate that wonderful piece of modernism which you perceive to be a gross blight.

I can think of several better places to put a 44-storey condo.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm not a big fan of the angled white apartment (I don't know its name) but I have a real beef with the modernist scientology building (and not the tenant, I could care less about the tenant). The videotron on the south side of the building bothers me to no end. But the west facing side is grimey and rundown. The materials have not weathered well and it is, in my opinion, about time something covered it up.

I respect your opinions and you're right, there are a lot of ideal places for a 44-storey development. I particularly think that right here is a good fit, considering it is surrounded my friends of roughly the same height.
 
I, too, really like the building that holds that the organization that shall not be named. It just needs a bit of upkeep on its windows, a bit of paint perhaps. Physically it has a great street presence on Yonge too (although used for means I don't agree with).

As for this building on St. Nicholas, I'm curious to see what they do on such a small site. I think a tall building could work well.

This street is one of my favourites in Toronto. It seems like it should/could be pedestrian only.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top