Toronto The Castle | 55.38m | 11s | Allied | Sweeny &Co

interchange42

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
27,167
Reaction score
35,405
Location
by the Humber
I was just taking a gander at tomorrow's Toronto Preservation Board meeting, and saw that there's an item coming up to designate buildings on the east side of Fraser and south side of Liberty. There's no application on those yet, so this may be an odd case (very odd) of TPS acting to designate something before it's actually threatened. That's not their usual modus operandi though, so I'm actually supposing the corollary: that there is a good chance that these buildings (which a quick googling shows are owned by Allied REIT—they call it 'The Castle') makes me suspect that Allied is at minimum thinking of up-zoning, but maybe we'll see a proposal along the lines of QRC West or their more recent plans for 379-391 Adelaide West & 96 Spadina project. Maybe it's even in their annual report? (Haven't checked.)

Here's what Google Street View has for…

41 Fraser (I love the Streamline Moderne front on this)
Allied41FraserGSV.jpg


47 Fraser (interesting entry, would like to see restored windows on this, and I wonder if it's lost a cornice)
Allied47FraserGSV.jpg


135 Liberty (here you can see why they call it 'The Castle', including the crenellations more prominent in the back-side pic. This all could look amazing restored.)
Allied135LibertyGSV.jpg
Allied135LibertyGSV2.jpg

So, I wonder what the plan is…

42
 
A couple of observations:

1) What superficially appears to be 41 Fraser, is according to TO Maps, both 39 and 41 Fraser.

2) The above is confirmed via the Heritage Register which has listings for both 39 and 41 Fraser.

See image below: From TOMaps

1603987324809.png


39 is not listed in the Allied Portfolio.

However, the principle entrance, south side, shows an address of 41.

I would take these to be one Allied property absent info to the contrary.

Description from the Heritage listing as follows:

1603987470383.png


Same description for both 39 and 41


3) The investor presentation from August of this year, from Allied does not highlight this property set for redevelopment (which doesn't mean it's not coming)

4) Being entirely speculative.............if I were to consider developing this site, this would be my footprint:


1603987868735.png


The building within this footprint is listed 8 Pardee by Allied.

It does not appear to be listed.

1603987992555.png


It could, conceivably be removed.

Alternately, at such a low height, it would be fairly easy to build around and over it.

The footprint as outlined is over 20,000ft2 and would very viable commercially.

The limiting factor would obviously be how the adjacent listed properties were treated.
 
Allied is the only developer in Toronto who seem to take heritage preservation seriously in Toronto. The rest just conduct facendectomy and retain the bare minimum possible to "satisfy".
 
Wow.

That is actually a full step beyond what I imagined and if true (Allied must be able to back all of this up) is not how HPS should be operate. I would expect that action like this on their part will cause any developer to think twice about cooperating with HPS in the future. If true, this is bad enough that heads at HPS should probably roll.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Wow.

That is actually a full step beyond what I imagined and if true (Allied must be able to back all of this up) is not how HPS should be operate. I would expect that action like this on their part will cause any developer to think twice about cooperating with HPS in the future. If true, this is bad enough that heads at HPS should probably roll.

42
Click to expand...
HPS has been happy to try and stomp all over private property owners of the assets they are so hard trying to "protect" for a while now. The two kings, both of which they have since been thrown to the curb over at the board, and now here. A few other places too where they are happy to bow to councillor's wishes to try and use heritage designations to neuter development with properties that in no way shape or form should be considered for heritage designation.

It's a very adversarial way of doing business that doesn't exactly make you many friends.

Not like there aren't certain actors on the other side that would happily do the same thing, but Allied isn't one of them.
 
I remember HPS’s response to Councillor Wong-Tam during the No.7 Rosedale process. It was so convoluted and nonsensical that I completely lost respect for the department and how it was managed.
 
Go to virtually any LPAT where a heritage matter is included and you will often experience remarks or accusations of inconsistencies and misapplication of the heritage provisions by the city. It is unfortunate as, on the one hand, inconsistencies often works against legitimate preservation efforts, and, on the other hand, they can force the hand of a developer trying to reasonably accommodate some level of heritage preservation or inclusion in a new development.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top