Toronto 7 St Thomas | 38.71m | 9s | St. Thomas | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
Come on this is not something that just happens in Toronto. Spend some time on Wired New York and you'll see people living in Manhattan towers saying the same about potential new neighbours.
gristle
Senior Member
I'm guessing you don't live there, so it might be hard to assess what is good for another neighbourhood and its residents. From my experience, community meetings are usually composed of a diverse group of people, many with differing opinions about a development. "They" usually do not speak as a unified voice, and what some would consider a minor issue can actually be a significant problem if one is to experience that issue each and every day.
Sure, we can all laugh at the ranters who scream about how a development is "inhuman for stealing my rightful view" or something to that effect, but a significant development can radically alter a community. Some people really like where they live, have lived there a long time, and see a large development for what it is: a major change to their neighbourhood. It's not strange that they should have concerns.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The issue to me isn't so much so the idea of building atop the site - but how that was done under proposal. As it stands right now it is way too intrusive to the heritage structures. Personally, I'd rather see a more delicate approach to separating the addition (e.g. using narrow columns and locating the core in a manner that would minimize intrusion to the existing structures, physically separating the addition vertically by transfer trusses to distribute the loads, a la Leslie Dan Building) - and in returing granting additional density rights to cover the added costs.
AoD
AoD
buildup
Senior Member
Residents drag in issues like congestion and so forth, but their real issue which they dont want to admit is simply loss of view. The only people concerned are residents of One St Thomas facing north floors 1-9. No one else objects to the proposal.
greenleaf
Senior Member
Were you at the meeting? Because the residents of 1166 Bay were MUCH more vocal about their opposition than those from 1 St. Thomas.
AoD: The current plan adheres to all heritage easements that are required by law.
buildup
Senior Member
I meant to say that very few people in 1SThomas care aside from lower North facing units. On balance this improves the street. 1166 has a huge number of people facing West.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
greenleaf:
Not suggesting that the project is contrary to the easements, just suggesting that there is room for improvement in the aesthetics and heritage preservation components of the project.
AoD
Not suggesting that the project is contrary to the easements, just suggesting that there is room for improvement in the aesthetics and heritage preservation components of the project.
AoD
greenleaf
Senior Member
Buildup - I just re-read my post and realized I came off as very confrontational. sorry! And yes, there would be fewer 1ST units affected.
AoD - agreed.
AoD - agreed.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I don't think these are all 'round fair statements although I don't know what your referring to down on Queen's Quay. My problem this building cycle is the continuinous assault on heritage buildings downtown, or those not yet designated as heritage. There's plenty of room to build, and build high. Why a devloper buys up a row of Victorians over many years on a side street to build an addition above them is beyond me. In my view, projects like this is not at all what is best for the city.
buildup
Senior Member
Thanks Greenleaf, I didn't think your post was confrontational at all, but I appreciate your post anyway. I guess 1166 have had these spectacular views into UofT for years and are annoyed at the 3-4 buildings slowly closing off this view.
Jasonzed
Senior Member
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/948754--hume-giving-the-past-a-future?bn=1
A development planned on the south side of Sultan St. east of St. Thomas will enthusiastically incorporate a number of handsome Romanesque residences from the 1880s.
By Christopher Hume
Urban Issues, Architecture
Look on one street and you’ll see developers tearing down the city’s architectural history as fast as they can. Look on another and they’re making heritage the centrepiece of a new project.
Traditionally, demolition has been the preferred option. Even today, that’s still the case; an empty site is more desirable than one graced — God forbid — with a few Gothic-revival houses from the 1870s.
Slowly but surely, however, that’s beginning to change. Toronto developers, those stalkers of the bottom line, are waking to the economic potential of heritage.
One wouldn’t want to overstate the case — just weeks ago, the old Empress Hotel building at Yonge and Gould was destroyed by arson — but there are reasons for optimism. The Royal Conservatory of Music on Bloor is a good example, so are the National Ballet School on Jarvis St. and the Wychwood Barns. All three projects — and there are others — are instances where old and new have been integrated to the greater advantage of both — as well as Toronto.
Yet anyone wandering around Charles, St. Thomas and Sultan streets might rightly be confused about the city’s real feelings about heritage. To make way for a new condo tower on the north side of Charles just west of St. Thomas, a row of exquisite 19th-century houses was recently torn down.
By contrast, a development planned steps away on the south side of Sultan, east of St. Thomas, will enthusiastically incorporate a number of handsome Romanesque heaps from the 1880s, possibly designed by the great E.J. Lennox.
But measured in time and money, the difference between keeping heritage and killing it is huge. It’s no mystery why most builders would rather start from scratch.
“If we didn’t have the heritage component the project would already have been finished,” says Patrick Quigley, president of St. Thomas Commercial Developments, now building on Sultan. “We have spent a couple of years working on it. The heritage part was a huge constraint.”
Heritage architect Michael McClelland of ERA Architects, who has consulted on many heritage projects, confirms Quigley’s observations.
“It’s such a difficult process with the city,” he explains. “Usually developers hate it. But you end up with a much better project when you take contextual issues into consideration.”
In this case, the issue is six three-storey houses that have stood on the site about 130 years. They remain in use, but the interiors have not fared well. The temptation would be to tear the whole lot down.
Because Quigley’s firm owns the whole block, and has already constructed a 28-storey condo on the corner of St. Thomas and Charles, he could afford a more relaxed approach to the Sultan Street site. Rather than go for another tall tower, Quigley opted for a midrise building nestled above the heritage houses, or at least the facades.
“Our plan works well on a block scale,” says architect David Pontarini, who designed the new development. “It was one of those rare occasions when we got to look at the whole block, not just one building.”
His response is a softly-curved glass box that sits atop a podium located in the space behind the heritage houses. It rises above them, but only six floors. As Quigley likes to say, you won’t be able to notice the addition from the street. And because the box will also be set well back from the heritage facades, it barely interferes with the buildings below.
Also significant is the fact that this will be a mixed-use project, commercial and retail as well as residential. Indeed, some of the units will be office condos, a rarity in Toronto.
By contrast, the residential tower going up nearby on Charles won’t have to worry about incorporating the past. For some mysterious reason, the city “delisted” these heritage houses several years ago and they were quickly torn down. No doubt the developer was thrilled, but a number of fine old houses were destroyed to make way for the new scheme.
Meanwhile, back on Sultan, Quigley figures he will be lucky to have shovels in the ground a year from now. Indeed, he’s keeping his fingers crossed the city will approve the zoning changes by the end of this year.
It’s as if the city were enforcing a policy to punish those who hope to reuse heritage properties. In a world where time is money, putting them through a seemingly endless approval process makes demolition a whole lot more appealing.
And yet saving heritage — even if that means little more than a few front facades — is preferable to simply wrecking everything. Tempting though it may be to blame developers, the city could make things much easier than they are. Some jurisdictions offer tax incentives to owners who restore historic buildings; we seem to go out of our way to hinder them.
No wonder people are always going on about Toronto being such a young city; even with the best of intentions, little from the past has managed to survive.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
A development planned on the south side of Sultan St. east of St. Thomas will enthusiastically incorporate a number of handsome Romanesque residences from the 1880s.
By Christopher Hume
Urban Issues, Architecture
Look on one street and you’ll see developers tearing down the city’s architectural history as fast as they can. Look on another and they’re making heritage the centrepiece of a new project.
Traditionally, demolition has been the preferred option. Even today, that’s still the case; an empty site is more desirable than one graced — God forbid — with a few Gothic-revival houses from the 1870s.
Slowly but surely, however, that’s beginning to change. Toronto developers, those stalkers of the bottom line, are waking to the economic potential of heritage.
One wouldn’t want to overstate the case — just weeks ago, the old Empress Hotel building at Yonge and Gould was destroyed by arson — but there are reasons for optimism. The Royal Conservatory of Music on Bloor is a good example, so are the National Ballet School on Jarvis St. and the Wychwood Barns. All three projects — and there are others — are instances where old and new have been integrated to the greater advantage of both — as well as Toronto.
Yet anyone wandering around Charles, St. Thomas and Sultan streets might rightly be confused about the city’s real feelings about heritage. To make way for a new condo tower on the north side of Charles just west of St. Thomas, a row of exquisite 19th-century houses was recently torn down.
By contrast, a development planned steps away on the south side of Sultan, east of St. Thomas, will enthusiastically incorporate a number of handsome Romanesque heaps from the 1880s, possibly designed by the great E.J. Lennox.
But measured in time and money, the difference between keeping heritage and killing it is huge. It’s no mystery why most builders would rather start from scratch.
“If we didn’t have the heritage component the project would already have been finished,” says Patrick Quigley, president of St. Thomas Commercial Developments, now building on Sultan. “We have spent a couple of years working on it. The heritage part was a huge constraint.”
Heritage architect Michael McClelland of ERA Architects, who has consulted on many heritage projects, confirms Quigley’s observations.
“It’s such a difficult process with the city,” he explains. “Usually developers hate it. But you end up with a much better project when you take contextual issues into consideration.”
In this case, the issue is six three-storey houses that have stood on the site about 130 years. They remain in use, but the interiors have not fared well. The temptation would be to tear the whole lot down.
Because Quigley’s firm owns the whole block, and has already constructed a 28-storey condo on the corner of St. Thomas and Charles, he could afford a more relaxed approach to the Sultan Street site. Rather than go for another tall tower, Quigley opted for a midrise building nestled above the heritage houses, or at least the facades.
“Our plan works well on a block scale,” says architect David Pontarini, who designed the new development. “It was one of those rare occasions when we got to look at the whole block, not just one building.”
His response is a softly-curved glass box that sits atop a podium located in the space behind the heritage houses. It rises above them, but only six floors. As Quigley likes to say, you won’t be able to notice the addition from the street. And because the box will also be set well back from the heritage facades, it barely interferes with the buildings below.
Also significant is the fact that this will be a mixed-use project, commercial and retail as well as residential. Indeed, some of the units will be office condos, a rarity in Toronto.
By contrast, the residential tower going up nearby on Charles won’t have to worry about incorporating the past. For some mysterious reason, the city “delisted” these heritage houses several years ago and they were quickly torn down. No doubt the developer was thrilled, but a number of fine old houses were destroyed to make way for the new scheme.
Meanwhile, back on Sultan, Quigley figures he will be lucky to have shovels in the ground a year from now. Indeed, he’s keeping his fingers crossed the city will approve the zoning changes by the end of this year.
It’s as if the city were enforcing a policy to punish those who hope to reuse heritage properties. In a world where time is money, putting them through a seemingly endless approval process makes demolition a whole lot more appealing.
And yet saving heritage — even if that means little more than a few front facades — is preferable to simply wrecking everything. Tempting though it may be to blame developers, the city could make things much easier than they are. Some jurisdictions offer tax incentives to owners who restore historic buildings; we seem to go out of our way to hinder them.
No wonder people are always going on about Toronto being such a young city; even with the best of intentions, little from the past has managed to survive.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Nice article 
Herein lies the problem
the city could make things much easier than they are. Some jurisdictions offer tax incentives to owners who restore historic buildings; we seem to go out of our way to hinder them.
Herein lies the problem
the city could make things much easier than they are. Some jurisdictions offer tax incentives to owners who restore historic buildings; we seem to go out of our way to hinder them.
Tewder
Senior Member
I agree. Heritage is an asset of and benefit to the public realm. There must be tax breaks/benefits to encourage owners and support them.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
The article said this building will contain residential? Whaaa?
Aren't office condos simply office space that is bought, not leased?
Aren't office condos simply office space that is bought, not leased?