18 Elm | 134.09m | 39s | Westerkirk Capital | BDP Quadrangle

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
1,320
"Midevil" is an appropriate typo though I think this is fully evil. So it's Sherry Brydson herself who is having her building redeveloped?
Ah!! Here we go again! I don't like it either that they're building on top of this building. But one day it's inevitable with this runaway development crave happening. And this rendering is more attractive looking than for instance the 49-51 Yonge st development which is going to butcher that historical building's top part looking bland! This one blends in and compliments it.
 

TossYourJacket

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
1,138
Reaction score
2,915
Location
Church-Wellesley
Ah!! Here we go again! I don't like it either that they're building on top of this building. But one day it's inevitable with this runaway development crave happening. And this rendering is more attractive looking than for instance the 49-51 Yonge st development which is going to butcher that historical building's top part looking bland! This one blends in and compliments it.
I'd hadrly argue something that completely overwhelms the heritage structure "compliments it"

Also why does ruining all our heritage buildings have to be inevitable? We could actually fix our zoning laws, allowing building to happen in places other than downtown, but that's apparently too much work. So instead we're just gonna butcher every good building in this city by dumping a glass block on top of it than allow 3 story apartment buildings to be built in Forest Hill or The Annex.
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
1,320
I'd hadrly argue something that completely overwhelms the heritage structure "compliments it"

Also why does ruining all our heritage buildings have to be inevitable? We could actually fix our zoning laws, allowing building to happen in places other than downtown, but that's apparently too much work. So instead we're just gonna butcher every good building in this city by dumping a glass block on top of it than allow 3 story apartment buildings to be built in Forest Hill or The Annex.
It's is inevitable when it's amongst other tall buildings. Giving the developer a good chance to do this kind of thing. Another great example is the Dominion building on Front Street wanting to put two towers on top of it lol! When it would be nice to leave it be with some breathing space between towers. And that building definitely has more credentials not to be developed on top of it!
 

CanadianNational

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
272
Location
Downtown Kitchener
Here's a pic I took of the building back when The World's Biggest Bookstore was being demolished.

hall2.jpg
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,591
Reaction score
6,527
It's wise to remember that just because someone submits an application for a site, doesn't mean it's real. Value increase is the name of the game here. We'll leave it at that for now.
Or tl,dr: I think they're trolling us with this Mr. Towered and et al. /sigh
 

Urban-Affair

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
1,416
Location
Toronto
Separation distance at north end of the property is already below guideline. Shaving another 5M would have folks in this building and the one to the north starting right into each other's windows.

It would also eliminate almost all natural light, not only at grade, but for tenants/owners in either tower.
Exactly, which is why I was saying in the end just leaving the improvements in situ is likely best. I guess it’s a non issue if this is an up zone exercise, at least for now.
 

goodcitywhenfinished

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
595
Tell me why we value preserving victorian rowhouses at the expense of unique buildings with actual historical significance?

Toronto will not be a truly livable city until people in power accept that a majority of the cookiecutter victorians that have no significance other than being old will have to be bulldozed for lowrise housing. Either that or let people build 6-8 story laneway apartment buildings in their backyard.

Architecture looks great, BDP really doing what they can given the brief. Just please not here.
 

Doppleganger

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
210
Tell me why we value preserving victorian rowhouses at the expense of unique buildings with actual historical significance?

Toronto will not be a truly livable city until people in power accept that a majority of the cookiecutter victorians that have no significance other than being old will have to be bulldozed for lowrise housing. Either that or let people build 6-8 story laneway apartment buildings in their backyard.

Architecture looks great, BDP really doing what they can given the brief. Just please not here.
I'd argue that those 'cookiecutter' Victorians are as equally as important as preserving as say, a mid-century office tower like 505 University. They are each representative of important eras in the city's evolution, and once gone, can never be brought back. I'm all for densification, modernity and verticality(yes, even if that means, in some instances, laneways), but I refuse to accept that the present and future can't co-exist with our past.
 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,220
Reaction score
1,550
It would be better if they started the overhang at least one section (3 storeys) higher (even just on the front side).
... or create a cut-out/recess above the heritage building's tower - either a recess or a series (3 levels) of recessed balconies to visually open it up the area above the heritage tower.

Also, it's a total mistake to use the same red brick as the heritage building.
The heritage building will get lost on the mass of red brick.
 
Last edited:

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
3,165
Reaction score
3,840
Location
Leslieville
I can't see the heritage building getting "lost" at all beneath that massive modern thing squatting over it; the distinction between the two architectural eras will be nothing if not striking - or jarring, if you prefer. Either way it goes, the final selection for brick colouration will not impede your average viewer from seeing that something new has been planted on top of something much older.
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,304
Reaction score
2,385
It's is inevitable when it's amongst other tall buildings. Giving the developer a good chance to do this kind of thing. Another great example is the Dominion building on Front Street wanting to put two towers on top of it lol! When it would be nice to leave it be with some breathing space between towers. And that building definitely has more credentials not to be developed on top of it!
It's a designated heritage structure. The whole point of designating a structure is to prevent the owner from installing pink 1970s style windows. Brushing aside a skyscraper proposed addition as inevitable because there's other tall towers around is absurd. Ontario will have the most pathetic heritage system in North America should this be approved. I tend to agree this is a fantasy to up the value of the property. The issue is the site specific zoning bylaw has no expiry date. I guess I'll likely be dead at such a time

Why would the Dominion Public Building have more credentials?
 

3Dementia

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,468
Reaction score
4,930
I
It's a designated heritage structure. The whole point of designating a structure is to prevent the owner from installing pink 1970s style windows. Brushing aside a skyscraper proposed addition as inevitable because there's other tall towers around is absurd. Ontario will have the most pathetic heritage system in North America should this be approved. I tend to agree this is a fantasy to up the value of the property. The issue is the site specific zoning bylaw has no expiry date. I guess I'll likely be dead at such a time

Why would the Dominion Public Building have more credentials?

Somewhat suprisingly (ironically?) on another forum folks from cities like Chicago have occasionally applauded Toronto's (rampant ;-) facadectomy which, let's face it, sometimes includes some pretty forgettable facades. These observations from afar correctly note the improved streetscape experience versus sterile/monotonous spandrel podiums .

A Chi-town forum member recently posted a before/after photo of a rather beautiful industrial building (cornices and arched windows) that was soon to be demolished in favour of the equivalent of a... "sterile/monotonous spandrel podium". The forum member quipped "Toronto would have saved this in a minute".

Not suggesting that's appropriate here of course (or aA's similar missile strike at 49-51 Yonge), or that we can't do better at respecting our waning heritage stock.

But a different take from a different city.
 

Top