Toronto The Berczy | 41.76m | 13s | Concert | Arcadis

[beaconer]

According to the reports, the height ranges from 8-11 stories.

As church slopes downward toward The Esplanade, the 11 stories would be the corner of The Esplanade and Church with the 8 stories being Church and Front.

Market Square, 80 Front Street East (Front and Church), which is at the same intersection, is of the same approximate height. Granted, it is the north-east corner and not directly beside it.

It is interesting that the SLNA, some of the strongest Nimbys around do endorse the project..

 

[SP!RE]

Couldn't there atleast be dormers? Or some decent woodwork to go with the brick as opposed to just metal flashing and such (which is what we'll end up with.)

I'm ALMOST happy with this... but I'm not happy about seeing old buildings torn down when we could've kept their facades... they aren't extremely important but they are atleast old. I say the facades could have been kept.

 

[beaconer]

Concert Properties has edited this little bit on their page concerning Five Corners (previously stated as fall 2007):

Status:
-The development is currently in the process of receiving Site Plan Approval
-Sales are anticipated to commence in early 2008

http://www.concertproperties.com/properties/condominiums/country3/province17/region36/property146.htm

 

[Edward Skira]

From the rendering it looks like a Chapters is slated for the corner. Artistic license?

 

[JasonParis]

A Chapters would be fitting for that corner methinks.

 

[fred]

Not a Happy Camper

I don't like this project. No one likes tall buildings and development as much as I do, but there's a time and place for everything and this is Not the place. That's a nice street and it would be a real shame to destroy it. There are plenty of vacant parking lots on Church Street alone and numerous hideous above grade parking structures and ugly 4 storey office buildings that were built in the 50's and 60's that could and should be torn down before this charming block gets levelled. Why do developers destroy the parts of neighbourhoods that made that neighbourhood such a desirable location in the first place? :-(

But that's just my opinion! And as the old saying goes, everyone is entitled to MY opinion.

Fred

 

[bar1967]

I don't like this project. No one likes tall buildings and development as much as I do, but there's a time and place for everything and this is Not the place. That's a nice street and it would be a real shame to destroy it. There are plenty of vacant parking lots on Church Street alone and numerous hideous above grade parking structures and ugly 4 storey office buildings that were built in the 50's and 60's that could and should be torn down before this charming block gets levelled. Why do developers destroy the parts of neighbourhoods that made that neighbourhood such a desirable location in the first place? :-(

But that's just my opinion! And as the old saying goes, everyone is entitled to MY opinion.

Fred

Is 8 (Front St) and 11 (Esplanade) stories tall?

 

[Jdot]

Ugh, back to that argument that empty parking lots should be developed first. Need we remind everyone that it is up to individual land owners to propose what they want on land they own, not on land they dont own.....

 

[Mongo]

...unless you are Ryerson, in which case you can just expropriate whatever land you want, regardless of what is currently occupying the spot.

Bill

 

[Jdot]

Actually, you ask the province to expropriate the land for you.

 

[unimaginative2]

Ugh, back to that argument that empty parking lots should be developed first. Need we remind everyone that it is up to individual land owners to propose what they want on land they own, not on land they dont own.....

I know this gets trotted out every time somebody opposes development, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the city couldn't adopt a policy preventing the demolition of occupied buildings when there are undeveloped sites in the immediate area.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Yes, of course there's a reason. It's not in the city's power to force someone to sell their property, or allow it to be used for a purpose for which the owner does not wish it to be used.

 

[unimaginative2]

Of course not. There's no way for the city to force development on a property. It is, however, entirely within the realm of the city's power to prevent development of any property it chooses. If it decided to prevent the demolition of occupied buildings when there are empty lots nearby, it could certainly do that. It would simply mean that speculation in land for development would be forced to shift to empty lots only, until they are all developed in that area. It's certainly not a policy for everywhere, but certain areas like King and Peter or parts or King and Parliament would benefit quite a bit.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Well, no, they can't prevent demolition, except in certain very limited circumstances. Even if they could, that wouldn't necessarily lead to development on emptly lots.

And I can't think of a reason why those low rise, stucco and aluminium framed window buildings at Church and Front shouldn't be demolished for a much better building. Unless for some kitch reason Le Papillion were to be preseved as a memorial to the worst cooking in the city.

 

[jaborandi]

Of course not. There's no way for the city to force development on a property. It is, however, entirely within the realm of the city's power to prevent development of any property it chooses. If it decided to prevent the demolition of occupied buildings when there are empty lots nearby, it could certainly do that. It would simply mean that speculation in land for development would be forced to shift to empty lots only, until they are all developed in that area. It's certainly not a policy for everywhere, but certain areas like King and Peter or parts or King and Parliament would benefit quite a bit.

While one certainly sympathizes with your intent, your ideas seem to be half baked - please, please let us know when you have a fully baked idea that we can all rally around (and I'm not taking the mick)