Toronto 15-17 Elm | 99m | 30s | Fora | PARTISANS

I'm usually pro-heritage but in this case I don't see the value, especially since we're getting something truly unique proposed here. If I could, I'd tell the developer they can get rid of the heritage component provided they build as promised. It seems like a tool that could be used to foster design excellence and prevent us from getting duped with a watered down end result.

My worry now is developers don't like being forced to incorporate heritage buildings, so we'll end up getting the old spite redesign.

Yes, I realize my proposal might not fall within the realm of City power, as has been discussed elsewhere when the topic of mandating higher quality designs is brought up. There's also an element of subjectivity, but I think most of us can agree this is a progressive and bold design, something that should be encouraged considering all the junk that gets foisted on Toronto.
 
Losing this design over this particular heritage building would be a damn shame. What’s being proposed will be genuine heritage in 30 years. What’s there right now is not.
 
Bjays92 said:
Losing this design over this particular heritage building would be a damn shame. What’s being proposed will be genuine heritage in 30 years. What’s there right now is not.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

****

As noted above, I'm not yet sold the proposed design is real.

FORA has yet to deliver any of its ambitious looking proposals, I'd like to see at least one go forward so I can buy in....

****

Second, while I agree this (existing) building is nothing grand, it does fit contextually into the streetscape. We have very little commercial heritage in this City, particularly of the continuous, full-block variety.

We tend to imagine preserving a facade for 3 units is sufficient, where I would argue it's borderline useless. It works so much better with appropriate context.

Our showiest row might be Front, opposite Berczy, and it's interrrupted by the SLC which is a giant carbunkle.

The HP design will improve this quite a bit, but I'd rather ditch the whole thing and have the original heritage rebuilt.

The facility that is the SLC can go anywhere.

In the same vein so can this Partisans design, it's lovely, stick it on Wellesley at Church, LOL.

I'm not really opposed to it here, per se, but I just lament that we can't keep the majority of one block as in tact heritage.
 
This one is the subject of an Appeals Report with staff seeking to oppose this at OLT, heading to the next meeting of TEYCC:


The Applicant appealed in September.

Staff objections here are such that this probably merited a refusal report. I think they are worth looking at in detail:

1705074926117.png


***** Hospital Helicopter Flightpath ****
1705074960931.png

****
1705074990118.png

1705075052850.png


The City also disagrees with the proposal to remove one tree and injure another and not replace the tree.

****

Summing up; inadequate separation with what is already extant; limits development opportunity for neighbouring sites with inadequate setback, destroys designated heritage, not consistent with contextual street wall, unacceptable wind conditions and may impair the Sick Kids helicopter flight path.

I don't see how OLT lets this one go ahead in its current form. I sure as hell hope it doesn't.

Too bad, interesting design, wrong site.
 
Council's decision here was appealed to OLT, with the heritage designation separately appealed as well.

On the application itself, one CMC was held in January of this year, no merit hearing is yet scheduled.

The Heritage Application appears to be being adjudicated in sync w/this one.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top