Corktown

[egotrippin]

In a slightly related topic, I wonder if Percy Street will get fresh paving. In fact, it looks like a dirt road that's never been paved. It's such a peculiar street.

 

[DSC]

In a slightly related topic, I wonder if Percy Street will get fresh paving. In fact, it looks like a dirt road that's never been paved. It's such a peculiar street.

It is like that because it's a private street not a City street. (Are there many of these around?) I heard that as part of the permissions to get the building at King and Sumac approved Streetcar are to pave it.

 

[adma]

You don't seriously believe these are the equal of those Stewart Street condos, do you?

Why must they be? It isn't like 50s-style apartments along the lines of what one finds along St. George are all the equal of Peter Dickinson's Benvenuto, either. But on balance, it's IMO not a bad urban vernacular at all--at its so-called "worst", it's still miles better than some of those high-rise condos currently proposed for Vaughan.

I'm not sure I love the "these buildings aren't as bad as the worst buildings we can imagine" line of thinking. That isn't praise, it's weak justification.

Well, if there's any "Pug loserness" here, it's less along the lines of something godawful like BeBloor, than something merely homely like the Glen Lake. And as the nearby St Lawrence Neighbourhood proves, "merely homely" isn't a bad place to be...

 

[RealEstateGirl]

I wouldn't like to see more townhouses right on King St, I don't think those newer ones were appropriate in the first place. King St itself is a major downtown street, and its mid-rise scale should be extended out this way. It needs retail at grade, more private residential entrances right on King St would kill the stretch.

I quite agree egotrippin. TH's on King is just plain dumb. I don't even like the ones on the North side.at King/Sumach..no offence to anyone who lives there. They just could have been so much better. But niceness aside, King street is a MAJOR downtown street ladies and gents. Whether we like it or not. It DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT CONTAIN RESIDENTIAL..at least at grade level. Don't you all love the cozy little feeling of areas such as King/Jarvis....Danforth/Pape,......Queen West (W of Bathurst that is)....
I truly believe there is a way to bring more people into the neighbourhood and yet retain the "Corktown feel"...its been done...it can be done again.


TKTKTKTKTKTKT (sorry if too many Ts and Ks!!)
I believe that you believe that these buildings will be ugly when done, and maybe isolated on their own, they could be. However, as the area starts to take shape...and as long as SOMEONE (I dunno who, OMB, Streetcar, City Planning Dept, ANYONE!) remembers that this is KING street we're talking about....and maintains retail at grade...it should be aaaallllll...gooooooooood.

 

[RealEstateGirl]

King St. is not a major downtown street at this point. That would be like saying King St. W at Roncesvalles is the same major street as Queen at Roncey.

King St., East of Parliament, becomes much sleepier than Queen - and it should stay sleepier than Queen (which runs only a block to the north of it)

Ts & Ks:
Ummmmm........No. King street IS a major street and to say anything otherwise is to rob it of its great name and long heritage. I don't care where it is. And isn't King/Roncy, literally 2 steps from Queen/Roncy...do those two streets not sorta meet up right at the same spot???

King St. East of Parliament DOES become much sleepier than Queen and its a DAMN shame... it definitely should not stay sleepy....why on earth would we want a major street such as King...which basically carries you through the artery of the downtown core to remain sleepy? Not that we need to model ourselves after NY but can you imagine if 42nd decided to become sleepy?

Toronto is a world class city...(whether people inside or out of TO want to admit it or not..) its here. Let's treat it with respect and give it recognition it so richly deserves......

LOL

 

[RealEstateGirl]

Ego Trippin -thanks much for sharing your Corktown photos...also checked out the photos on your other thread - you take good pictures. Please know that its much appreciated.

Ts & Ks:
Happy Birthday - hope you had a good one!

REG

 

[TKTKTK]

Why must they be? It isn't like 50s-style apartments along the lines of what one finds along St. George are all the equal of Peter Dickinson's Benvenuto, either. But on balance, it's IMO not a bad urban vernacular at all--at its so-called "worst", it's still miles better than some of those high-rise condos currently proposed for Vaughan.

Well, if there's any "Pug loserness" here, it's less along the lines of something godawful like BeBloor, than something merely homely like the Glen Lake. And as the nearby St Lawrence Neighbourhood proves, "merely homely" isn't a bad place to be...

Ok, agreed on both counts. I guess because it's *my* neighbourhood... I can't help it.

 

[TKTKTK]

I quite agree egotrippin. TH's on King is just plain dumb. I don't even like the ones on the North side.at King/Sumach..no offence to anyone who lives there. They just could have been so much better. But niceness aside, King street is a MAJOR downtown street ladies and gents. Whether we like it or not. It DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT CONTAIN RESIDENTIAL..at least at grade level. Don't you all love the cozy little feeling of areas such as King/Jarvis....Danforth/Pape,......Queen West (W of Bathurst that is)....

Then go hang out there. Honestly.

I truly believe there is a way to bring more people into the neighbourhood and yet retain the "Corktown feel"...its been done...it can be done again.

Just like at King/Jarvis, Danforth/Pape, Queen West? Yawnsville.

TKTKTKTKTKTKT (sorry if too many Ts and Ks!!)
I believe that you believe that these buildings will be ugly when done, and maybe isolated on their own, they could be. However, as the area starts to take shape...and as long as SOMEONE (I dunno who, OMB, Streetcar, City Planning Dept, ANYONE!) remembers that this is KING street we're talking about....and maintains retail at grade...it should be aaaallllll...gooooooooood.

It isn't King Street we're talking about, it's Corktown. No wonder we don't see eye to eye.

Ts & Ks:
Ummmmm........No. King street IS a major street and to say anything otherwise is to rob it of its great name and long heritage. I don't care where it is. And isn't King/Roncy, literally 2 steps from Queen/Roncy...do those two streets not sorta meet up right at the same spot???

Yes, they do. And exactly like King East and Queen East, they pretty much instantly take on their own character.

 

[RealEstateGirl]

Sigh
I guess we won't agree, but that's okay. Always interesting to hear other opinions. Well let's just all agree that we want Corktown to be the best it can be!
REG

 

[badga]

I quite agree egotrippin. TH's on King is just plain dumb. I don't even like the ones on the North side.at King/Sumach..no offence to anyone who lives there. They just could have been so much better.

No offence here, I agree that the King/Sumach Townhomes could have been executed a little better. That being said, I don't think you have to worry about more TH's on King. I believe a developer would have a pretty difficult time recouping the cost of the land especially when you factor in the cost of remediation (think: Thruway Muffler). They are pretty much compelled to go multi unit multi story at this point.

Personally, I am thrilled that Streetcar is finally getting shovels in the ground on the Corktown phase 1 buildings. I do tend to question TK’s assertion that the former buildings on the 3 sites were worth preserving. 549 was not a warehouse but rather an auto repair facility sitting on toxic dirt whose front yard was as chock full of vehicles in various states of disrepair. The former Streetcar offices at 569 was nothing more than a 2 story 50-60’s brick box and 52 Sumach just single story version of the same. Even though I will be losing a lot of morning sun and evening sunsets, I don’t think there is any problem with the 5-6 story buildings on King itself and am glad that the Sumach building is only 5 stories although I think 4 would be more appropriate.

I am surprised that I haven’t heard any complaints about the RiverCity development across St Lawrence St. I think those buildings are going to be 8 or so stories.

 

[egotrippin]

I am surprised that I haven’t heard any complaints about the RiverCity development across St Lawrence St. I think those buildings are going to be 8 or so stories.

Well, when a neighbourhood is a vast expanse of dirt hills, any development is thrilling. I still think that considering the materials and setbacks in the design, the new buildings going up here will have a nominal impact. Visually at least, the added life and activity should help positively. My main concern is getting some unique retail, as opposed to the standard fast food/dry cleaners/Rabba combo that a lot of new condos get.

About Percy St, I'm surprised to learn that it's private. I bet it is indeed rare to still have privately owned streets downtown; who owns it, and will it remain private after it's paved/developed on?

And thanks for the comments about the photos RealEstateGirl, glad you liked them.

 

[RealEstateGirl]

I've actually heard (and maybe I read too) that the first phase in the River City Development to the south of King and to the East of St. Lawrence is going to be Affordable housing...so not sure how many levels it is but I know that it's all documented in the precinct plan. I'll take a look.

On a separate note, drove down Gilead Place today and finally saw the Gilead Cafe....i really like it....eclectic mix of ppl inside..alhtough didn't have time to actually stop in and eat!

Really wish I had purchased one of those townhouses though....

 

[Torontovibe]

All new buildings on King Street, even in Corktown, should have retail on the street level. Corktown would definitely benefit from more density. We need minimum heights, as well as maximum.

 

[Johnny Kay]

Everyone's favourite Cable 10 show, Structures, is doing a Corktown segment in 2 weeks!

http://www.rogerstv.com/option.asp?lid=12&rid=16&sid=129&cdate=1/22/2009

I don't have cable, let me know how it goes.

 

[TKTKTK]

Personally, I am thrilled that Streetcar is finally getting shovels in the ground on the Corktown phase 1 buildings. I do tend to question TK’s assertion that the former buildings on the 3 sites were worth preserving. 549 was not a warehouse but rather an auto repair facility sitting on toxic dirt whose front yard was as chock full of vehicles in various states of disrepair.

Not worth preserving on their own, as historic objects, but certainly worked with to both preserve the character of the neighbourhood while bringing some needed change as well. This is part of a larger conversation about, uhh, conservation.

The former Streetcar offices at 569 was nothing more than a 2 story 50-60’s brick box and 52 Sumach just single story version of the same. Even though I will be losing a lot of morning sun and evening sunsets, I don’t think there is any problem with the 5-6 story buildings on King itself and am glad that the Sumach building is only 5 stories although I think 4 would be more appropriate.

The brick boxes were simple, honest, and for the most part, well made. Their brick was tight. What replaces them will be the crappy brick we see on most new condos: wonky, gappy, and cheap looking. I doubt these buildings will be immune to that

I am surprised that I haven’t heard any complaints about the RiverCity development across St Lawrence St. I think those buildings are going to be 8 or so stories.

Not really the same thing, and certainly won't be the same architectural calibre (isn't it still Saucier and Perrote?). No Percy Street neighbour dischord, no Bright Street, no Sumach Street, No neighbours of any sort really. This is where tall, large, buildings should go (even douchebag faux warehouses). It might only be a short walk down the street, but it's an important contextual change