ProjectEnd
Superstar
They are beautiful, but the best Grossman will always be Princess Towers: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.233...4!1skWDIPCHgqU1uuVIdPCt-0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Irving Grossman designed these, along with basically the whole neighbourhood, which is one of the most intact Modernist masterplanned projects in the country. But of course, nobody cares.
this area does not lack for green space in the slightest. Not sure where that assertion comes from.. Perhaps there aren't a ton of large public parks in the centre of the neighbourhood, but basically every apartment building has large private green spaces available for residents, then there is the massive E.T. Seton Park directly to the east.. If anything, this neighbourhood's failing is that it has *too much* green space.
Not sure if you are serious, but when I started at Queen's for law school in 2008 I had a friend who lived here and the units were in absolutely atrocious shape. Locals and students alike derided the building as the ugliest in Kingston, but I had a soft spot for it - you can't deny that it is interesting, and the base hosted some decent (student-oriented) retail.They are beautiful, but the best Grossman will always be Princess Towers: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.233...4!1skWDIPCHgqU1uuVIdPCt-0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That building is arguably the ugliest in the province. It’s a unique building but definitely ugly as hell.Not sure if you are serious, but when I started at Queen's for law school in 2008 I had a friend who lived here and the units were in absolutely atrocious shape. Locals and students alike derided the building as the ugliest in Kingston, but I had a soft spot for it - you can't deny that it is interesting, and the base hosted some decent (student-oriented) retail.
You think the Forestors building will get redeveloped? It's such a big building... I guess theres a lot of land there to make 4-5 condos/office tower probablyGiven the proximity to new transit I think the overall approach is valid for this site. I am skeptical of these kinds of arguments in favour of rental replacement because most of these shortcomings can be addressed through thoughtful adaptive re-use (i.e. tower renewal) rather than wholesale demolition and replacement. It is also paternalistic to assume that existing tenants will prefer the new housing -- other than simply being new, these replacement units tend to be a relative downgrade in terms of size, layout, access to light, etc. Not a jibe at your comment at all, there is a careful balancing of competing priorities required in these situations.
However, the true travesty here is that instead of providing greater animation and an improved street edge along Don Mills Road, the west building has been set back at a silly angle to preserve a "protected upper level view corridor" as if there is anything significant whatsoever about the butchered Foresters Building, which itself will probably get redeveloped in the not-so-distant future.
Irving Grossman designed these, along with basically the whole neighbourhood, which is one of the most intact Modernist masterplanned projects in the country. But of course, nobody cares.
@innsertnamehere is correct. The area has a ton of private open space. But this being Toronto, the city doesn’t value that space, and so rather than being improved, it’s getting developed.
When I say “no one” cares, I really mean city heritage planning. In terms of architectural history, this is one of the most significant places in the entire GTHA.
HPS did a heritage survey of Don Mills a couple of years ago, and came up with a small and random list of sites. The housing to the south of Flemingdon Park, on Leeward Glenway, is now designated. But nothing in the original neighbourhood.
View attachment 370621
Completely serious. When I was at Queen's, it was just as derided, but it, along with The Landmark and Waldron Tower are the three best high-rises in the City. Head and shoulders above the rest.Not sure if you are serious, but when I started at Queen's for law school in 2008 I had a friend who lived here and the units were in absolutely atrocious shape. Locals and students alike derided the building as the ugliest in Kingston, but I had a soft spot for it - you can't deny that it is interesting, and the base hosted some decent (student-oriented) retail.
Nope .That building is arguably the ugliest in the province. It’s a unique building but definitely ugly as hell.
Resurfacing this conversation almost a year later because I've just come to see it, but I would also challenge this idea that there is no "functional parkland".Yes, there is lots of private space.
But:
a) That private space is private, users from one property are not legally permitted to use the open space on the next one.
b) The space is not conducive to any recreation use requiring large areas (sports fields, even a children's waterplay.). It's a series of small to medium fragments, often isolated from the main roads, and interrupted by fences.
It's not that such space has no value. To those for whom it is a literal backyard, or place to BBQ it's great.
But to most it is no such thing.
Even for those in an apartment with a green area around it, often said area is littered with 'no trespassing' and 'private property' signs; is not lit in such a way
to make evening/after dark usage possible and has limited site furnishings; it's also often next to surface parking and outdoor garbage areas.
Let's look, shall we?
View attachment 370622
Note the fences and the large sign with the admonitions not to loiter or trespass.
Let's continue, just up the same street, Gateway Blvd:
View attachment 370623
Look at all the residents enjoying that green space! Trapped behind a fence, and between a road and a parking lot.....
Below is the same building from the side and rear view:
View attachment 370624
Where are all the children playing? The seniors socializing? The families BBQ'ing? The dog walkers?
***
Now we're following the side street above, Grenoble:
View attachment 370625
Once again, the space is fenced off; but note, it's not even being used by residents of this very building. It's dead, orphaned space. It's also too narrow and too close to ground-floor housing to meaningfully program.
*****
I'll stop there, so as not to be unduly repetitive.
But let's move away from the idea that this community has adequate park space, even in the form of private space; because it simply isn't the case.
Further, the layout of the current buildings largely precludes much of the space from being effectively repurposed; as it would require more than just fence removal; but the removal of the ground-floor housing, at-grade parking, parking entrance/exits, garbage areas and more. and would then still be subject, in many cases, to stratification issues, being located over underground parking, which severely limits one's ability to grow large trees in many cases and means incurring a regular cycle of stripping the 'park' bare every 30-40 years to re-do the membrane of the underground parking.
Fair, perhaps; I haven't spoken to HPS staff about this site, so I can't say; but I must confess I find most of it rather unremarkable.
That's not advocacy for wide-spread demolition w/o cause; simply that any intrinsic value does radiate at first blush from my perspective.
Resurfacing this conversation almost a year later because I've just come to see it, but I would also challenge this idea that there is no "functional parkland".
The park at Ferrand Dr. is not the only programmed park. There's a children's playground at Grenoble and Vendome, one on Linkwood lane, another two along the path between Grenoble PS and the Dufresne Court tower, as well as the ones at the neighbourhood schools that are always accessible after school hours and in the summer.
Anything east of the DVP is not inaccessible as you've claimed. Spanbridge and the underpass at St. Dennis are both viable options to access parks/green spaces on this side of the DVP.
This area is also afforded with basketball courts off of Grenoble by Vendome, tennis courts by Angela James Arena, a splash pad by Spanbridge, a dog park at Vicora and Spanbridge, and a cricket pitch in the hydro corridor. Sure these are not so much passive public spaces for gathering and whatnot but there are almost always benches/seating near these programmed spaces that provide for passive recreation. Walk through the neighbourhood any summer evening and you'll see these spaces full of people engaging in both passive and active recreation.
It's true that some of the private spaces off of Grenoble and Gateway are not conducive to recreational use, but all of the Leeward/Sunny Glenway buildings from your examples have other sizable open green spaces for gathering that you aren't able to see from street view. They may not be programmed, but as I've listed above there are many nearby options for that type of recreation.
As a resident here I can say this neighbourhood lacks a lot, but we're lucky to have a wealth of parks/open space.
I think there's value in doing these sorts of neighborhood analyses, but going solely off of street view and google maps will always be second to first-hand knowledge of how these areas function and how communities use their space. While I know you are very knowledgeable and well-versed on many topics and areas on these forums, I believe you're speaking a bit out of turn here.