SP!RE
°°°°°°
Because our culture has a fear (yes, literally a fear) of anything that isn't new and shiny and the latest style.
Toronto The New Residences of Yorkville Plaza | 92.05m | 31s | Camrost-Felcorp | WZMH COMPLETE
- Thread starter maestro
- Start date
Because our culture has a fear (yes, literally a fear) of anything that isn't new and shiny and the latest style.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Actually i can see them building the taller 40 storey tower and at the same time doing a full gut of the 31 storey F.S. building.
yyzer
Senior Member
from the Globe......
Court blocks challenge to condos threatening view of legislature
KAREN HOWLETT
TORONTO— From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011 10:13PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011 10:14PM EST
Queen’s Park has lost its fight to preserve one of Toronto’s most prized heritage vistas.
The Legislative Assembly of Ontario has been blocked from launching a court challenge to a controversial plan to build two condominium towers that will dramatically alter the postcard image of the historic building that houses the provincial government.
In a ruling released on Thursday, an Ontario court rejected the legislature’s request to appeal a decision by the Ontario Municipal Board giving the green light to the project.
The OMB declared in its decision last March that replacing the Four Seasons Hotel on Avenue Road with 48- and 44-storey condo towers was consistent with provincial and city planning policies and rejected arguments that the project will undermine the views of the legislature.
But heritage experts have raised alarms about the project, saying the proposed towers will poke up from the gables of the 118-year-old provincial legislature, one of Toronto’s best-known landmarks, and alter the skyline looking north on University Avenue toward Queen’s Park.
The experts criticize Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government for not attempting to block the condo towers and for not putting heritage legislation in place to protect Queen’s Park from real estate projects that compromise the skyline surrounding such an historically significant building.
“Everybody agrees [legislation] should be there, but nobody agrees on who should put it there,” said Catherine Nasmith, former president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. “That’s the problem.”
Government members did not seek standing at the hearing in 2009 before the OMB on the condo project. It was left to Steve Peters, Speaker of the legislature, to oppose the project at the hearing on behalf of the Legislative Assembly. He could not be reached for comment Thursday night, so it is not clear whether he plans to appeal the ruling to a higher court. He has said the condos will have a negative impact on the view of the legislative building.
Madam Justice Alison Harvison Young of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice says in her decision that the importance of the building “does not, in itself, render the legal issues of significant importance to justify granting leave to appeal.”
The decision appeared to be just fine for Rick Bartolucci, who as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is in charge of the file. Mr. Bartolucci was not available for comment, but a spokeswoman in his office said he is “satisfied that due process has occurred.”
The real estate company behind the proposed condo towers, Menkes Developments, initially unveiled plans in 2007 calling for the demolition of the 31-storey Four Seasons Hotel and for it to be replaced with 54- and 48-storey buildings. But city planners rejected that proposal.
Court blocks challenge to condos threatening view of legislature
KAREN HOWLETT
TORONTO— From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011 10:13PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011 10:14PM EST
Queen’s Park has lost its fight to preserve one of Toronto’s most prized heritage vistas.
The Legislative Assembly of Ontario has been blocked from launching a court challenge to a controversial plan to build two condominium towers that will dramatically alter the postcard image of the historic building that houses the provincial government.
In a ruling released on Thursday, an Ontario court rejected the legislature’s request to appeal a decision by the Ontario Municipal Board giving the green light to the project.
The OMB declared in its decision last March that replacing the Four Seasons Hotel on Avenue Road with 48- and 44-storey condo towers was consistent with provincial and city planning policies and rejected arguments that the project will undermine the views of the legislature.
But heritage experts have raised alarms about the project, saying the proposed towers will poke up from the gables of the 118-year-old provincial legislature, one of Toronto’s best-known landmarks, and alter the skyline looking north on University Avenue toward Queen’s Park.
The experts criticize Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government for not attempting to block the condo towers and for not putting heritage legislation in place to protect Queen’s Park from real estate projects that compromise the skyline surrounding such an historically significant building.
“Everybody agrees [legislation] should be there, but nobody agrees on who should put it there,” said Catherine Nasmith, former president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. “That’s the problem.”
Government members did not seek standing at the hearing in 2009 before the OMB on the condo project. It was left to Steve Peters, Speaker of the legislature, to oppose the project at the hearing on behalf of the Legislative Assembly. He could not be reached for comment Thursday night, so it is not clear whether he plans to appeal the ruling to a higher court. He has said the condos will have a negative impact on the view of the legislative building.
Madam Justice Alison Harvison Young of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice says in her decision that the importance of the building “does not, in itself, render the legal issues of significant importance to justify granting leave to appeal.”
The decision appeared to be just fine for Rick Bartolucci, who as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is in charge of the file. Mr. Bartolucci was not available for comment, but a spokeswoman in his office said he is “satisfied that due process has occurred.”
The real estate company behind the proposed condo towers, Menkes Developments, initially unveiled plans in 2007 calling for the demolition of the 31-storey Four Seasons Hotel and for it to be replaced with 54- and 48-storey buildings. But city planners rejected that proposal.
LV90
New Member
thank god
Red October
Senior Member
Depressing day for the city and province. 
G
gabe
Guest
Excellent news!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yyzer
Senior Member
Depressing day for the city and province.
Why? I think the whole view corridor issue is just artificial and silly....and I look forward to seeing Queen's Park in the future, in an urban setting that will reflect where it really is.........
khris
Senior Member
That is awesome! So glad this decision was made.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Just heard on CP24 that they are going to re-appeal the decision.
DarkSideDenizen
Senior Member
...Alexandre Gustave Eiffel ran into fewer "issues."
Mongo
Senior Member
Very good news. I hope this new re-appeal that Automation Gallery mentioned fails as well.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Good, i hope they re appeal. Vistas are important, and that is one of the best ones we have. Nothing wrong with having a picture of TOronto that is not urban in setting, we don't have to appear like new york jr. all the time, we can also experiment with having a diverse range of looks in photos. And Queen's park itself IS in an urban setting. I think this is one of the only times I would rather see something shorter that maintains the view and doesn't look like a tumor growing out of one side of the legislature building, (and I sure ain't no nimby) .
.
junctionist
Senior Member
I'm proud that someone at Queen's Park is standing up for this issue. I have not heard a good reason why the view corridor shouldn't be protected. It's an urban planning achievement to have the centre of Ontario's democracy at such a prominent location at the head of University Avenue, and no trivial condo development should distract from the view of this building. Such achievements are rare and inspiring, and shouldn't be compromised for no good reason. The building itself is by definition urban since legislature buildings are always located in a capital city. The low-rise form is traditional way of city-building for a tradition that we continue to practice and admire: democracy.
Great city-building doesn't mean putting up dozens of high-rises in every possible location. High-rises have become common and will be built in great numbers, but there are locations where restraint is the most appropriate form of action, especially at a location that's a culmination of both iconic architecture and beautiful urban planning. Locations like this one are rare, and if one or two very tall buildings won't go up in order to preserve the vista, the city won't be affected in any negative way. However, its greatest urban achievements will remain uncompromised.
Great city-building doesn't mean putting up dozens of high-rises in every possible location. High-rises have become common and will be built in great numbers, but there are locations where restraint is the most appropriate form of action, especially at a location that's a culmination of both iconic architecture and beautiful urban planning. Locations like this one are rare, and if one or two very tall buildings won't go up in order to preserve the vista, the city won't be affected in any negative way. However, its greatest urban achievements will remain uncompromised.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
So they might revert back to the old design consisting of two towers?
Peepers
Banned
This shouldn't be a problem if these new towers are clad in mirror-like glass that causes them to disappear into the skyline. An example of such glass is Bay Adelaide which barely stands out under most lighting conditions (sunrise and sunset being the exception)