Urban Shocker
Doyenne
It would be tragic if the facade of this dull little apartment building was saved and slapped on the front of a tower. A clean kill, and something beautifully designed and brand new to replace it, would be much better.
|
|
|
596 Church Street (Church 18 Holdings, 25s, RAW) DEAD
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
Towered
Superstar
I'm usually pro-development and all for intensification, especially on a major downtown street like Church, but this is totally unacceptable. The city (and the OMB, if it comes to that) should reject this proposal outright. The last thing Toronto needs is for more heritage buildings to be sacrificed. There is more than enough room in this city to accomodate the old and new.
junctionist
Senior Member
Does the OMB even take heritage preservation into account when making rulings?
I'm not that familiar with the area but I know that no twenty-five storey building would fit in on that side street of old brick architecture. Perhaps this should be a "heritage conservation district". These buildings make this area attractive and historic. We can't lose them.
I'm not that familiar with the area but I know that no twenty-five storey building would fit in on that side street of old brick architecture. Perhaps this should be a "heritage conservation district". These buildings make this area attractive and historic. We can't lose them.
adma
Superstar
Though urbanistically speaking, retaining the original ground-level fabric makes more sense here (and has more creative potential) than at the NW corner of Carlton + Mutual...
maestro
Senior Member
I can't say I find either 67 or 69 particularily noteworthy so I wouldn't mind to see the actual recevelopment plans before digging out the pitchfork and torch from the closet.
to-enthusiast
Banned
I have to say I agree with most posts so far - totally crazy for the city to allow developers to tear down buildings with so much character. The pictures posted on the previous page were actually quite pretty, and a facadectomy for either would be such an insult. There should be hoops you have to jump through (perhpas there are?) if you propose demolishing buildings of a certain age.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
More photographs here, post #516
http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?5147-The-(Church-Wellesley)-Village/page35
Martin
New Member
In April, a city staff report recommended that the Church and Glouchester properties be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-23053.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-23053.pdf
Rowe
Active Member
If the developers at the very least keep the facades Ill be 'okay' with this development. But still, its such a waste to lose such handsome buildings.
to-enthusiast
Banned
Thanks for the heads up, dt. With a bit of TLC, a few of these buildings might really dazzle. Even without any sprucing up, they easily add heaps of charm to this little urban node.
junctionist
Senior Member
These buildings fit in with the historic street very nicely. It's not just the facade that's important, but also the low-rise scale.
adma
Superstar
If you pardon the expression, this might be the perfect place for 70s/80s-style "contextualism", a la Diamond/Myers at Sherbourne Lanes, or even Hazelton Lanes' relationship to Hazelton...maybe there's a spirit worth reinvoking in circumstances like this...
Torontovibe
Senior Member
I hope this development includes retail. I'd like to see retail, bars and restaurants, lining Church Street, all the way up to Bloor.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
It's hard to get anyone except neighbourhood types too much north of Wellesley, but a little more life between Gloucester & Hayden would be welcome. Bars wouldn't.
condovo
Senior Member
Absolutely. That would be ideal. Having lived in the area for many years, I can say that the individual buildings in question are quite forgettable but together give nice texture to the neighbourhood. I'm opposed to facadism. The buildings should be retained whole or not at all. And just because they're old, doesn't mean that anything new automatically would be inferior, especially in this case. For me it's wait-and-see.