Toronto HighPark Condominiums | ?m | 14s | Daniels | Diamond Schmitt

Re: Bloor@High Park demolition

There used to be brick pillars with cement balls on top at the corner of Oakmount and Bloor (on both sides) - when I was in the area this summer they were gone! Like what happened to those? They kind of made the street look a bit classy.
 
Re: Bloor@High Park demolition

I don't see the fuss. While these houses look nice they are hardly unique. There's plenty of areas in the city with houses like this. What's wrong with replacing them with higher density? They do, after all, exist within a short walk of two subway stations on a main street.
 
Those are some fantastic looking homes. I salivate with the thought of restoring them to their original condition. That said I am not familiar with the site, are we speaking about houses fronting directly onto Bloor street? If this is the case, and I hesitate to go on with this point without knowing for sure, it raises an interesting question regarding building use. Does it make sense to preserve low-rise residential on a main artery regardless of the fact that the houses are century homes? Such buildings would and should be preserved on residential side streets but the context of Bloor street changes the equation for me.

Low rise lot assembly of this kind actually fascinates me because it is on the one hand incredibly unlikely (you might have to wait 50 years) and at the same time somewhat inevitable at certain locations. At Bloor and Christie streets 5 house lots were assembled to put up a 7-8 storey condo development (still under construction). The condo will likely turn out to be mediocre architecture and yet the massing and context is brilliant, almost above the subway with both a park side view and itself contributing to the creation of a nice street wall edge to the park.
 
Wow, this post is back from the dead!

Most of these houses are on Bloor street, some are on the side streets between Bloor and the apartment towers.

The fuss about these is that they are part of a strip of beautiful low-rise houses and apartments on the North side of High Park. That strip is all that remains of the original development after the rest was replaced by 20-odd high-rise buildings in the 60's/70's. Almost everything along Bloor from Dundas to Jane is low/mid rise pre-WWII construction.

It would be a shame to lose all of these gems considering we have so much bad architecture that could be redeveloped instead. If you want to build in that area, how about all those surface parking lots at the Stockyards "power center (sic)" or the Zellers/No Frills complex at Bloor & Dundas?
 
Does it make sense to preserve low-rise residential on a main artery regardless of the fact that the houses are century homes?
Click to expand...
Watch that word "century homes". It's seldom used by actual heritage experts. It's used a lot by Sunday-painter amateurs (and real estate agents catering to the same) who *think* they're "heritage experts".

Oh, and re low-rise res on main arteries, take note of those old mansions on Jarvis built for various Massey or Gooderham family members and whatnot. Anyone who suggests that they ought to be swept away because they're on a main artery should be thrown ino a meat grinder and turned into hamburger
 
"Anyone who suggests that they ought to be swept away because they're on a main artery should be thrown ino a meat grinder and turned into hamburger"

Don't eat too many hamburgers or your arteries will get clogged.
 
Context is important here, but this seems to be a location where two differing contexts meet: The beautiful, lowrise and yes I'll boldly say 'heritage' High Park neighbourhood on the one hand, and the Bloor Street commercial strip and artery on the other. Any approach to this site will likely leave some people wanting. As somebody mentioned here earlier a thoughful approach, one which might also provide a template for further such development, might include a nod to both contexts with a plan that strives to preserve the traditional streetscape and unique neighbourhood feel, while blending new highrise density behind. I'm not familiar with the space available at this particular site, but It doesn't seem like anybody here would advocate 50-story 'City Place'-type condos anyway, but added density along this corridor does seem appropriate. The Printing Factory Lofts on Queen seems like a good example of this sort of development, and though a little taller than may be desired the National Ballet School/Radio City complex also seems to handle this issue well.
 
Every year I go down to this area just to have a look and over the last 20 years, I have been witnessing the deterioration of these homes. Sad to say, I think it is to the point where it is cheaper to just knock 'em down - probably the plan all along. I have no doubt when I visit the area next summer, the demolition will have been completed - so much for my childhood home. Like someone has already mentioned in a previous post, the new structures had better be something awesome!
 
Well, well well. I must say I am truly sad about this demolition. Over the weekend I thought I'd take a drive by number 8 Oakmount Road as I was passing through Toronto so I could show my son where I used to live. I was shocked to see the windows knocked out and the demolition notice on the door!

When I lived in that house it was truly lovely. We had refinished all the hardwood floors. Painted. Refinished wainscotting and the place was in NO WAY in any disrepair. One of the fellows who lived there with us in this grand old house offered to buy it when I moved. At that time the four homes on that corner were owned by Cadillac Fairview, and he was told that unless he could buy all four houses they were not for sale individually. Number 8 was so lovely that at times we had all talked about keeping it. Many memories are in that home and it is most certainly worth saving. I have also been in the surrounding properties when I lived on Oakmount and those homes were not in disrepair at that time either though ours was the nicest as I recall. ;)

I am sickened that since I moved in 1980 it appears that nothing was done to keep up these properties and sadly this seems to have been done on purpose. I think these condos were planned long ago. There is no way these houses are not worth saving. I've lived in one and been in the others. The character and details inside these homes are just not to be found in newer houses. I wish I had the cash to buy all four houses on that corner and save them. Sadly, all I have now are pictures and lots of wonderful memories. I didn't hang around long after taking a few quick snapshots of the house. It was just a little too much for me to take in. Needless to say my journey out of Toronto was not as pleasant as I thought it would be.

Is there no way to save any of these homes?
 
I did not sell it I was a renter there, sorry if I confused you but, we never owned it. If we had it certainly would not be getting demolished. One of my housemates tried to buy it at the time I was moving out but, the company that owned those four houses would only sell them to him as a block of houses which he could not afford, he only wanted number 8 for his family to live in as he had been there several years and had recently got married.
 
Well, in a generation's time, since 1980, the city has changed. Life goes on.
 
^
Need you always sound like an asshole? I'm not sure if its your intention, but it surely comes across that way.
 
Rafree1 - I totally understand how you feel. I lived at 14 Oakmont as a child back in the 50s - back then the WHOLE street was beautiful old houses - then came the demolition for the subway of everything beyond #14. And I concur that this whole thing was planned long ago - they were just waiting till the buildings got run-down enough to warrant demolition. Not muchyou can do when powerful giants like Cadillac fariview get involved. We'd better hang on to our pics - they're about all we have left.
 
Does anyone know what's going there?
Does the new development have zoning approval? Are local neighbourhood groups upset about this?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top