UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
All or nothing is never a good way to address that issue. And for all its faults, some preservation is better than none at all.
Toronto 5 Huntley | 209.2m | 63s | EHLP | Turner Fleischer
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
The house on the corner is cute and has a charming garden year round. My dog, and the neighbourhood rabbits will be disappointed. Hopefully the design improves.
Northern Light
Superstar
Many here have commented on the preservation (or not) of the homes here.
I indicated an open mind on this point, as they are not listed/designated, and frankly not world-beatingly great; there is also the matter of context, and I'm rarely fan of de-contextualized history.
That said, if you're going going to go the route of removing the heritage homes, I want to see some effort to make the new building fit.
That does not have to mean pastiche, but it means looking at the street-level scale/massing as someone walks by, and having it roughly mirror its heritage-listed neighbours to the east I'd also want to see materiality aligned in some measure (ie. brick) rather than the strange box above which would stick out like a sore thumb.
I also wouldn't be opposed to preservation, in whole or part as could be made to work with a proposal here, but clearly we didn't get that either.
Skimming the Heritage Impact Assessment:
Seriously ERA did you write the above with a straight face?
****
If you walked away from even referencing the heritage, then you'd better deliver one hell of a great design; this is not that.
******
For what would be a huge give to the assembler here, I also want to see 'give back'. Even a commitment to go purpose-built rental would go some distance in that regard, moreso if there were a material affordable housing component with an affordable option to the City to add to same (a discount is viable if the City were to buy units in bulk).
*****
On trees, the Landscape Plan suggests the nicest trees on the Earl frontage would be preserved though 'injured'*; but the architectural plans and the renders do not reflect this. Proponents, kindly submit plans that are in agreement with one another.
* I need to understand what the proposed injury to the trees are to assess the reasonableness of same. One minor branch prune should not be an issue, but trimming the roots would be a hard no, along with any reduction in crown height or loss of major limbs.
I indicated an open mind on this point, as they are not listed/designated, and frankly not world-beatingly great; there is also the matter of context, and I'm rarely fan of de-contextualized history.
That said, if you're going going to go the route of removing the heritage homes, I want to see some effort to make the new building fit.
That does not have to mean pastiche, but it means looking at the street-level scale/massing as someone walks by, and having it roughly mirror its heritage-listed neighbours to the east I'd also want to see materiality aligned in some measure (ie. brick) rather than the strange box above which would stick out like a sore thumb.
I also wouldn't be opposed to preservation, in whole or part as could be made to work with a proposal here, but clearly we didn't get that either.
Skimming the Heritage Impact Assessment:
Seriously ERA did you write the above with a straight face?
****
If you walked away from even referencing the heritage, then you'd better deliver one hell of a great design; this is not that.
******
For what would be a huge give to the assembler here, I also want to see 'give back'. Even a commitment to go purpose-built rental would go some distance in that regard, moreso if there were a material affordable housing component with an affordable option to the City to add to same (a discount is viable if the City were to buy units in bulk).
*****
On trees, the Landscape Plan suggests the nicest trees on the Earl frontage would be preserved though 'injured'*; but the architectural plans and the renders do not reflect this. Proponents, kindly submit plans that are in agreement with one another.
* I need to understand what the proposed injury to the trees are to assess the reasonableness of same. One minor branch prune should not be an issue, but trimming the roots would be a hard no, along with any reduction in crown height or loss of major limbs.
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...for me though, it looks like they're just plonking that building there with little regards to anything else there from the renderings. It looks imposing and oppressive...like a jackboot stomping through a bed of delicate flowers. And with little regards to the public or it's immediate neighbours. If the developers here can adequately address that while forgoing the heritage aspect, I will be open to that. But right now, the proposal is as awful as the rendered building looks, IMO....and thus is a no pass.
Koops65
Senior Member
Here is the proposal with the other nearby proposals. It looks far less lonely than it does in the render provided.
Doppleganger
Active Member
If we were gaining more than we were losing from this proposal, then I might be convinced of its merits. But is the demolition of several charming, albeit not particularly architecturally significant, homes and the resultant scarring to a beautiful treelined street with an intact terrace of charming 19th-century townhomes worth what we're getting in return, which is yet another unremarkable tower with a podium unsympathetic to its surroundings? I realize densification is necessary, but surely it should be done in a way that is complementary to the existing neighbourhood, even if that does include sometimes saving only a partial building or a facade. This proposal doesn't even pretend to 'fit in'. It is the architectural equivalent of driving a square peg into a round hole with an iron mallet. I say get back to the drawing board on this one.
cd concept
Senior Member
RickyBobby
Active Member
What is the tower just northwest? Looks about 40 storeys, south of Isabella and north of earl?
Koops65
Senior Member
I think you are referring to 10 Huntley Addition: https://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=144724
RickyBobby
Active Member
Yeah - thanks! Arcadis and TF should be fined for such horrid designs. Boy oh boy this is going to be a block of crud. Add in the Kirkor Originate and it's a tripod of junk.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
These are the three houses as they were this morning. This is my dogs favourite “stop” so I couldn’t help but add a bonus photo here. 
Bonus shot.
Bonus shot.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...it looks like it's doing more than just stopping here! 
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
It’s her go to poop spot. Kind of the perfect place. The gravel makes it easy to deal with. So ya, I’ve got the inside scoop while I scoop! 
AlbertC
Superstar
Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.
Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com
5 Huntley Street, & 2-8 Earl Street - Community Consultation Meeting
Tuesday, June 4, 2024 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM
(UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Register for webinar
If you want to attend, register now. When your registration is approved, you'll receive an invitation to join the webinar.
Host
Tiffany Ly
Agenda
City staff invite you to join a virtual Community Consultation Meeting for 5 Huntley Street and 2-8 Earl Street to discuss the planning applications seeking to permit a 63-storey residential building.
Join us at the Virtual Community Consultation Meeting to learn more about this planning application and to have your say.
Froggy
Active Member
The sign went up earlier this week.
