News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 748     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.3K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 3.4K     8 

St Lawrence Market

DSC said:
1. It smells like piss because people piss there.
2. The trees are ca 40 years old and are, apparently, 'remarkably healthy' - it would be crazy to cut them down and start again.
Click to expand...
1. People shouldn't piss there. If it wasn't so concealed, fewer people would.
2. I wouldn't cut them all down. Maybe 25%.

From north or south, you leave a bright, vibrant neighbourhood and enter a dark and depressing twilight zone. Bring in more light, natural and otherwise, and a lot of the lane's issues will improve right there, including the piss.
 
Last edited:
Option 1 gets my vote. I like that they mention space for programming which I think will play well with St Lawrence Market North. The matching to market st also improved the visual cohesion.

Anything is an improvement though 😂
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The KISS principle should apply for this space - the focus should be on quality and durability of the materials, not big design moves. Some elements of option 2 should be incorporated as general public space amenities by default.

AoD
Click to expand...
The survey doesn't appear to ask which option you prefer -- rather it asks for thumbs up/thumbs down on separate components of each option. I wish they had at least asked for a 3 or 5 point scale rather than binary up/down but I can't see how they are evaluating each option as an option if the responses are by component.
 
toonderly said:
The survey doesn't appear to ask which option you prefer -- rather it asks for thumbs up/thumbs down on separate components of each option. I wish they had at least asked for a 3 or 5 point scale rather than binary up/down but I can't see how they are evaluating each option as an option if the responses are by component.
Click to expand...

Use the comments section on each one to explain your choices, I did!
 
My key takeaways from the recommendations and report on street lighting
1. They misunderstood the purpose of Wong-Tam's motion... to review street lighting in general, not just pedestrian lighting. Hence, the name: "Update on Pedestrian Scale Street Lighting". Denzil Minnan-Wong's motion was prioritized.
2. No timeline for a new agreement with Toronto Hydro.
3. Their strategy for street lighting standards focuses on safety and accessibility, and will look at aesthetics and unique lighting only for "heritage parts of the city". Not good enough!
4. No input from Urban Design / City Planning.
5. Pedestrian lighting state-of-good-repair funding will be requested in 2023. I'm not sure if they can deal with this before the launch of the 2022 Transportation Services Budget, so I'll give this one a pass.
6. They acknowledge that additional funding may be required for decorative lighting, but do not include any details on when that funding would be requested (probably 2023 Budget, right?)
 
I'm normally anti-nimby but I think I'm ok with it. This is one of the few areas of the City that actually has a historical feel, and some noticeable historic architecture.

Even when they slap giant towers on top of the retained historic facades it doesn't really do much.
 
EddyMCD said:
I'm normally anti-nimby but I think I'm ok with it. This is one of the few areas of the City that actually has a historical feel, and some noticeable historic architecture.

Even when they slap giant towers on top of the retained historic facades it doesn't really do much.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure why you see a connection between heritage preservation/celebration and NIMBYism but it's certainly good to know that you are (probably) OK with this. The point of HCDs is that a neighbourhood of any kind) is more than a collection of individual buildings and the aim of HCDs is to try to protect this 'wholeness'.
 
Heritage preservation is important, but when they include things like the "heritage" Tim Hortons at Front and Sherbourne that is nothing but a basic brick box built in the 1930s, it gets a bit ridiculous.
 
evandyk said:
Heritage preservation is important, but when they include things like the "heritage" Tim Hortons at Front and Sherbourne that is nothing but a basic brick box built in the 1930s, it gets a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The rationale for listing this building (33 Sherbourne) is that it is representative of the industrial era of St Lawrence. The Preservation Services report notes:

"Heritage Properties The Whitfield and Pearlman & Goldberg Buildings were constructed in 1918 and 1941, respectively, and are related the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood's period of manufacturing and industrial development. The Whitfield Building at 33 Sherbourne Street was constructed to serve as office space for the John Whitfield Company, which operated the Dominion Chain Works immediately to the south at 174 Front Street East, and has subsequently been occupied by various office and light manufacturing uses. The Pearlman & Goldberg Building at 178 Front Street East was constructed as office and warehouse/factory space for the Pearlman & Goldman Company, which traded in hides, wools, and furs, before serving as the warehouse and factory for the Samuel Harris Company, which sold fabrics for the automobile industry." SEE: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-156161.pdf

Under the Ontario Regulations on heritage designation, "heritage" can include buildings and landscapes that are "important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area,"
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top