Toronto 10 St Mary | 197.73m | 60s | Mattamy Homes | a—A

Admittedly I never really had much love for it but I think because I only really experienced it from ground level. And at ground-level it's quite disappointing, IMO.
 
Does a building fading to the background or being "nondescript" necessitate demolition?
 
All hope is not lost:

"This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the property at 10 St. Mary Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value. The site contains a Mathers and Haldenby-designed 1957 eight-story office building. Located at the corner of Yonge and St. Mary streets between Wellesley and Bloor the property is the subject of a demolition permit that proposes to demolish this building.

Following research and evaluation, staff have determined that the property at 10 St. Mary Street meets Ontario Regulation 9/06, the provincial criteria prescribed for municipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. A demolition permit was issued by the Building Division on 2 December 2013 for the property. The designation of the property would identify the property's heritage values and attributes and enable City Council to control alterations to the site, enforce heritage property standards and maintenance, and refuse demolition. If Council issues a statement of intent to designate the property this would have the effect of voiding any permits issued for the property."
 
greenleaf said:
"This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the property at 10 St. Mary Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value.

A demolition permit was issued by the Building Division on 2 December 2013 for the property.

If Council issues a statement of intent to designate the property this would have the effect of voiding any permits issued for the property."
Click to expand...

Hows that possible without getting sued
, to issue a demolition permit over 4 months ago and now want to designate it as heritage:confused:
 
From KWT two years ago regarding 81 Wellesley (same players and incompetence, different address):

It seems that Wong-Tam's request for a heritage review didn't impede the process of the new developers acquiring a demolition permit. In fact, it's unlikely that the request was shared from one desk to another, or even that it moved very much in its own queue.

"Heritage preservation is woefully underfunded," she says. "The dignity of heritage means absolutely nothing until the city starts to change some of its policies."

Much of that change needs to come from better interaction between departments, Wong-Tam says.

"There is an enormous gap in the coordination and communication between Toronto building and Toronto heritage preservation services. And it boggles my mind that demolition would take place without consulting the local councillor."

http://www.blogto.com/city/2012/01/a_lesson_in_heritage_neglect_at_church_wellesley/
 
thecharioteer said:
From KWT two years ago regarding 81 Wellesley (same players and incompetence, different address):

It seems that Wong-Tam's request for a heritage review didn't impede the process of the new developers acquiring a demolition permit. In fact, it's unlikely that the request was shared from one desk to another, or even that it moved very much in its own queue.

"Heritage preservation is woefully underfunded," she says. "The dignity of heritage means absolutely nothing until the city starts to change some of its policies."

Much of that change needs to come from better interaction between departments, Wong-Tam says.

"There is an enormous gap in the coordination and communication between Toronto building and Toronto heritage preservation services. And it boggles my mind that demolition would take place without consulting the local councillor."

http://www.blogto.com/city/2012/01/a_lesson_in_heritage_neglect_at_church_wellesley/
Click to expand...

Good point. Would the city go through this whole process though if it were just for show?
 
Though we're talking about a much more physically "substantial" (and intensively used) building than 81 Wellesley--with a number of conscientious architectural firms holed within, to boot. It wouldn't be easy to simply vacate the place and demolish with a wink of the eye...

Another thing to remember: it's already within the study boundaries of the proposed Yonge HCD.
 
I hadn't paid much attention to this building until this application was filed, but after taking some time to digest it, I quite like it. It represents its era well. I hope it stays up (unless Lifetime hires Frank Gehry).
 
10 ST MARY ST
Ward 27 - Tor & E.York District

To rezone the subject lands to demolish the existing eight storey office building and construct a 32 storey mixed use condo building containing 255 residential dwellung units, and retail on the ground floor. A total of 49 parking spaces will be provided below grade, and a total of 316 bicycle parking spaces will be provided as well.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 14 208729 STE 27 OZ Aug 19, 2014 Under Review
 
Noticed that DCN has a defferent version of that city application above
Just wondering if the city is requesting the replacement of office space for this project

CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT BUILDING Proj: 9190999-3
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON CONTEMPLATED
10 St. Mary St, M4Y
$25,000,000 est
Note: The owner is seeking city council rezoning approvals. Concept planning is underway. The project will be forwarded to council January, 2015. Further project schedules are undetermined pending approvals.
Owner WILL NOT accept unsolicited phone calls.
Project: construction of a building which may include residential space.
Scope: 350,000 square feet; 42 storeys; 3 storeys below grade; 225 units
Development: New
Category: Apartment bldgs

http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/The-Company/Projects/Daily-Top-10/
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top