Toronto 7 St Thomas | 38.71m | 9s | St. Thomas | Hariri Pontarini

[Hipster Duck]

I'm kind of ambivalent about whether those houses should get knocked down. In their defense, they are occupied and in fairly good condition; they're nice examples of their time, if not extraordinary, and I guess you could say that they add some diversity to the area. On the other hand, the area is pretty diverse already, with the red brick midrise condo building across the street, the pre-war Windsor Arms hotel,the Edwardian University Apartmens and the white-walled 1 St. Thomas behind it. Also, the rowhouses are out of scale with their midrise neighbours - all of which are much more metropolitan in feel, and none of these new additions bring down the quality of the neighbourhood (The Windsor arms is a hotel with a lot of foot traffic while the base of the condo across the street houses an m0851 store with attractive displays). People aren't getting displaced and, apart from Theatre Books, none of the businesses in those rowhouses contributes to making the area more vibrant or even more varied. We aren't losing public space either; in fact, the cobblestone paving in front of these rowhouses was usually used to park cars, which is about as un-urban a land use as you can get. Finally, we have no idea what the office building will look like; I think it's safe to say that this isn't 1981 anymore, and we aren't in danger of a faceless concrete box with an obscure front entrance - but who knows?

 

[Tewder]

I think it's safe to say that this isn't 1981 anymore, and we aren't in danger of a faceless concrete box with an obscure front entrance

... but be wary the equally mundane glass box facade. Fear the glass.

 

[buildup]

Hipster,

I am persuaded by your argument. In addition to your really good points, its hard to imagine any sort of new structure being added above or behind these restored houses that wouldn't look ridiculous. Perhaps if one exceptional building existed it could be envisioned, but that is not the case and their isnt a lot of room anyway. Perhaps we are better off with a well executed building on a clean slate - in brick or limestone.

On a related note, assuming these townhouses are not listed as protected or historic, and further assuming a 9 story building is within the current density limits - would a developer need city approval on the design if they were not applying for exemptions?

 

[adma]

Hipster,

I am persuaded by your argument. In addition to your really good points, its hard to imagine any sort of new structure being added above or behind these restored houses that wouldn't look ridiculous.

Why not? Diamond/Myers et al did that schtick in the 70s, and not badly at that.

And if former/under-scale = fatally "out of scale", then you might as well condemn *any and every* old Victorian perched amidst highrises...

 

[buildup]

For the most part Victorian homes stranded (or perched) amongst highrises reflect bad holdout strategies. They may look interesting, but are certainly not profitable to the owners. Are there viable and attractive examples? I think that attractive house on Charles immediately East of 77 Charles West looks lonely.

Did Diamond/Myers take 4-5 separate houses and integrate them into a single commercial structure?

 

[ahmad.m.atiya]

Though one thing I may deduce from ahmad.m.atiya's opinion-mongering--never mind heritage sensitivity; it's more like an all-around historical insensitivity. As though the existing houses and the historical background thereof aren't even worth studying, much less preserving--to him, it's all just the dead wood of an obsolete past. A fair bet that he doesn't even know what a Goad's Atlas is--and if he doesn't, maybe he should just shut his ignorant yap before spouting on behalf of his kind of "progress".

And that even goes for the recent past hereabouts, i.e. his ignorance likely extends to such fare as the Colonnade, or Wymilwood. Doesn't know; doesn't care. Ignorance breeds insensitivity of approach. I mean, if you want to advocate demolition, please, it helps to know the playing field you're dealing with--even if it winds up subverting whatever "planning purity" you're advocating...

I find it quite ironic that you called me ignorant, yet you completely silenced my opinion without asking me to further clarify myself. This is especially ironic, since these houses that you seem to enjoy so dearly stand for diversity.

 

[adma]

I find it quite ironic that you called me ignorant, yet you completely silenced my opinion without asking me to further clarify myself. This is especially ironic, since these houses that you seem to enjoy so dearly stand for diversity.

My message is: approach urbanity like a lover, not like Dimitri The Lover.

 

[ahmad.m.atiya]

My message is: approach urbanity like a lover, not like Dimitri The Lover.

Your message was a tad overpowered by your insulting remarks towards me.

Anyways, we should get back on topic. Does anyone know when renders will be made available for this building? Is it anywhere near that stage yet?

 

[Parkdalian]

Minto is building a 10 storey office building along with a condo across the street from these houses.

Android, what building are you referring to here? I ask because I've been intrigued to know how Minto was going to turn 94 Cumberland from offices to residential. If they build new office space somewhere else, that might be their way of keeping the city planners happy.

Also, these buildings shouldn't be torn down. Complete waste if they are.

 

[adma]

I find the Sultan houses to be a delightful nucleus of 70s gentrification-era Toronto--a microcosm of erstwhile "Festival Of Festival-ness", as it were...

 

[androiduk]

Android, what building are you referring to here? I ask because I've been intrigued to know how Minto was going to turn 94 Cumberland from offices to residential. If they build new office space somewhere else, that might be their way of keeping the city planners happy.

Also, these buildings shouldn't be torn down. Complete waste if they are.

Here's the link Parkdalian; http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?640-The-St-Thomas-%28Minto-21-10s-Hariri-Pontarini%29&highlight=thomas

 

[Parkdalian]

Here's the link Parkdalian; http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?640-The-St-Thomas-%28Minto-21-10s-Hariri-Pontarini%29&highlight=thomas

Oh, I knew about the St Thomas, but I didn't know it has an office component. And there it is in the rendering, clear as day. It's sort of miserable that the University Apartment had to be torn down because Minto wants to build a residential tower on 94 Cumberland. Oy vey - so it goes, I suppose.

 

[buildup]

We're getting addresses mixed up. The St Thomas is on St Thomas, where the Universoity Avenue Apts were/are. 94 Cumberland is a few blocks North and will replace that dreary office building at Cumberland and Bellair.

 

[Parkdalian]

We're getting addresses mixed up. The St Thomas is on St Thomas, where the Universoity Avenue Apts were/are. 94 Cumberland is a few blocks North and will replace that dreary office building at Cumberland and Bellair.

No, I'm connecting the dots. For 94 Cumberland to be converted into residential, the office space will have to be moved somewhere else. I'm guessing that as Minto owns both of these properties, they'll press for the redevelopment of 94 Cumberland by pointing out their replacement at the St Thomas. Since the office component of the St Thomas is sitting pretty much on top of the University Apartment, it looks like the University Apartment might have been torn down so that 94 Cumberland could be residential. Just a guess, but it makes sense. And this should probably be in one of those threads.

 

[Student99]

No, I'm connecting the dots. For 94 Cumberland to be converted into residential, the office space will have to be moved somewhere else. I'm guessing that as Minto owns both of these properties, they'll press for the redevelopment of 94 Cumberland by pointing out their replacement at the St Thomas. Since the office component of the St Thomas is sitting pretty much on top of the University Apartment, it looks like the University Apartment might have been torn down so that 94 Cumberland could be residential. Just a guess, but it makes sense. And this should probably be in one of those threads.

Don't mean to digress further, but why the heck do you all think "The St Thomas" has an office component? The last I heard, the main tower was to be condo, and the smaller component was to be residential rental. They haven't applied for rezoning for office have they?

Oh, I knew about the St Thomas, but I didn't know it has an office component. And there it is in the rendering, clear as day.

The rendering shows the smaller component is full of balconies. I don't know too many office buildings with balconies...