Toronto 260 High Park Avenue | 19.35m | 4s | Medallion Capital | Turner Fleischer

Pics of the abandoned work, with lots of garbage dumped around


20240612_135125.jpg
20240612_135129.jpg
20240612_135131.jpg
20240612_135201.jpg
20240612_135336.jpg
 
storeys.com

CBRE To Broker Sale Of High Park Church Conversion Under Receivership

The High Park Alhambra Church, these days, is not so much of a place of worship as an active construction site. Set to accommodate a four-storey, 70-unit condo through adaptive reuse, it’s an ambitious project that, like many others across the GTA, has been under receivership for months now. On...
storeys.com storeys.com

published yesteryday!
 
HousingNowTO said:
...and that's kind of WHY it failed. Ratio was far too much "retention & decoration" for way too little "saleable housing"...

Distressed Asset "Sizzle-Reel" video - https://f.tlcollect.com/fr2/624/95783/260_High_Park_Toronto_Video.mp4
Click to expand...

Here's the thing.

While I broadly value heritage, most particularly where I find it architecturally appealing. I felt no particular need to save this structure.

Perhaps, because I'm not religious.........

But really, I found the building rather mundane.

That's a matter of personal taste though.

May I suggest, however, that developers should have greater respect for what has value to the community (whether I agree or not)......

@ProjectEnd and @AlexBozikovic both place greater value on some modernist buildings than I would; with the same consequence you note to the pro-formas.

The question then is.........should net new housing, or net new affordable housing be a priority or even acceptable (as a goal outweighing preservation) on every site?

Don't get me wrong.........I would be ok with it on many sites others would not.............

Though........anyone who has followed ny exchanges with Alex over The Annex (not where I live)..........would know I'm also sympathetic to some buildings others are not.

*****

Here's the challenge. People, writ large, neighbours, nimbys, but also yimbys and those from far and wide will fight the demolition of buildings and areas they deem to have beauty and character.

I don't wish to protect any building as sacrosanct, my own preferences notwithstanding.

I think broad public policy goals should generally override personal preference.

But to the extent that democracy is real; and consistently overriding community preference will result in backlash, is there not some value in not imagining every site is re-purposable or intensifiable?

Should you concur w/that, maybe this site was started by the wrong developer, with an incorrect aim.
 
Northern Light said:
Here's the challenge. People, writ large, neighbours, nimbys, but also yimbys and those from far and wide will fight the demolition of buildings and areas they deem to have beauty and character.

I don't wish to protect any building as sacrosanct, my own preferences notwithstanding.

I think broad public policy goals should generally override personal preference.

But to the extent that democracy is real; and consistently overriding community preference will result in backlash, is there not some value in not imagining every site is re-purposable or intensifiable?

Should you concur w/that, maybe this site was started by the wrong developer, with an incorrect aim.
Click to expand...
...at least they managed to finish the GIANT underground parking-lot before they ran out of cash, so I think the City of Toronto's "broad public policy goals" have already been achieved on this site... ;)

1729823722192.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top