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

[ahmad.m.atiya]

I find it completely absurd that people actually care about these houses. Who cares what kind of charm they preserve? does anyone here live in these houses? Why should we save such a great location for a select few (probably less than 10 people) to use? I hope those houses get demolished for anything of higher density (whether it is a condo, 9 storey office building, etc.). If anything, the sooner this mess of houses gets demolished, the better. The land value and the potential of that plot is too great for 5 or so units. I don't mind a 9 story building, I just hope that they put effort in the quality and construction.

 

[khris]

They are nice houses, but who says that they are going to be torn down for this office. We haven't seen the plans at all. Maybe they will be incorporated for all we know. Kick up a fuss when you see the plans leave them out

 

[greenleaf]

I find it completely absurd that people actually care about these houses. Who cares what kind of charm they preserve? does anyone here live in these houses? Why should we save such a great location for a select few (probably less than 10 people) to use? I hope those houses get demolished for anything of higher density (whether it is a condo, 9 storey office building, etc.). If anything, the sooner this mess of houses gets demolished, the better. The land value and the potential of that plot is too great for 5 or so units. I don't mind a 9 story building, I just hope that they put effort in the quality and construction.

Ahmad, previous effort was put into these buildings in terms of quality and construction. The fact that they remain in the shape they do is a testament to that fact. You may not see them as charming, but many people do. The immediate blocks have seen a great loss of other buildings of this era but these ones, at least from the exterior, are still in pretty good working order. At this point, consideration should be taken to preserve as much as possible.

Density is important downtown, but so is diversity. This area is so interesting because it does have these homes next to the neo-deco One St. Thomas, next to brick The Windsor Arms, the limestone and teak wood of the McKinsey Building, and soon near the glass-clad 77 Charles. All the buildings are of varying heights and are integral to the uniqueness of place. These little streets would lose a bit of the character that made the area so desirable in the first place if this row of homes were to be completely demolished.

Khristopher, you make a good point. I recognize the pressure being put on small plots like these, but I do hope the integrity of the buildings along Sultan Street remains intact.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

That's well-put, Greenleaf, thanks.

 

[junctionist]

I find it completely absurd that people actually care about these houses. Who cares what kind of charm they preserve? does anyone here live in these houses? Why should we save such a great location for a select few (probably less than 10 people) to use? I hope those houses get demolished for anything of higher density (whether it is a condo, 9 storey office building, etc.). If anything, the sooner this mess of houses gets demolished, the better. The land value and the potential of that plot is too great for 5 or so units. I don't mind a 9 story building, I just hope that they put effort in the quality and construction.

What's so messy about these buildings? They don't fit into your narrow vision for what should be done any piece of land in the area not redeveloped within the past 60 years? You come off like the kind of developer who would buy up architectural jewels of the 19th century and early 20th century in the 1950s through 1970s and destroy them, justifying the action simply because of the density ideals of modern planning and land values, sidestepping all other considerations. Yet architectural heritage and diversity is quite important to any great city and the city benefits from architectural heritage and diversity in neighbourhoods across the city, rich and poor. It seems to me that you just don't want to see the issue from an architectural or heritage perspective because that's where it gets messy.

 

[ahmad.m.atiya]

Ahmad, previous effort was put into these buildings in terms of quality and construction. The fact that they remain in the shape they do is a testament to that fact. You may not see them as charming, but many people do. The immediate blocks have seen a great loss of other buildings of this era but these ones, at least from the exterior, are still in pretty good working order. At this point, consideration should be taken to preserve as much as possible.

Density is important downtown, but so is diversity. This area is so interesting because it does have these homes next to the neo-deco One St. Thomas, next to brick The Windsor Arms, the limestone and teak wood of the McKinsey Building, and soon near the glass-clad 77 Charles. All the buildings are of varying heights and are integral to the uniqueness of place. These little streets would lose a bit of the character that made the area so desirable in the first place if this row of homes were to be completely demolished.

Khristopher, you make a good point. I recognize the pressure being put on small plots like these, but I do hope the integrity of the buildings along Sultan Street remains intact.

Good point greenleaf. I see what you're saying, but I stand by my argument, mainly because I believe that such a valuable plot of land should be shared by more than a select few.

What's so messy about these buildings? They don't fit into your narrow vision for what should be done any piece of land in the area not redeveloped within the past 60 years? You come off like the kind of developer who would buy up architectural jewels of the 19th century and early 20th century in the 1950s through 1970s and destroy them, justifying the action simply because of the density ideals of modern planning and land values, sidestepping all other considerations. Yet architectural heritage and diversity is quite important to any great city and the city benefits from architectural heritage and diversity in neighbourhoods across the city, rich and poor. It seems to me that you just don't want to see the issue from an architectural or heritage perspective because that's where it gets messy.

I see that you have chosen to completely ignore the basis behind my opinion. Let me ask you why you think that such a valuable lot should be given to a select few people? Also, what makes these houses "gems?" Is the building that replaces them not a gem? It will certainly be much more modern. Is being environmentally friendly not important to you? These houses compared to a high density building, per person are horrible. Also, these houses stand for the suburban values of old Toronto. Would you like to see a city dominated by suburban sprawl in every direction?

The way I see it is that these houses stood for values, which for the most part, are no longer part of modern Toronto (or at least not in this specific area). I'm all for converting one of these houses to a museum or some kind of public model, but to expect all of these houses to be protected and to inhibit modern development in their place is absurd. The concept completely boggles my mind.

 

[junctionist]

I see that you have chosen to completely ignore the basis behind my opinion. Let me ask you why you think that such a valuable lot should be given to a select few people? Also, what makes these houses "gems?" Is the building that replaces them not a gem? It will certainly be much more modern. Is being environmentally friendly not important to you? These houses compared to a high density building, per person are horrible. Also, these houses stand for the suburban values of old Toronto. Would you like to see a city dominated by suburban sprawl in every direction?

Not really, I said there was more to it than planning ideals and economics. Ultimately, the market's current functioning means properties in the area are available to a select few. Nine stories of development will also represent property being made available to a select few. What makes these houses gems has already been mentioned by me and others: quality construction and maintenance, the extensive terracotta details and great brickwork, the rarer form and Second Empire house at the end, as well as the diversity they contribute to the area and connection to the past amidst so much redevelopment.

If there's already a gem there, why throw it away? You don't need to ask a polished stone collector to know that simultaneously obtaining gems and throwing away others is counterproductive. Demolition and construction creates a lot of pollution. This issue has nothing to do with sprawl. Sprawl is fueled by infrastructure expansion decisions and the need for cheap real estate. It is up to planners and governments mandate higher density suburbs and encourage the redevelopment of parking lots and non-heritage buildings for higher density.

The way I see it is that these houses stood for values, which for the most part, are no longer part of modern Toronto (or at least not in this specific area). I'm all for converting one of these houses to a museum or some kind of public model, but to expect all of these houses to be protected and to inhibit modern development in their place is absurd. The concept completely boggles my mind.

Actually, these houses very much stand for values that are part of modern Toronto. As a whole, they're mixed use, with goods and services being sold, as well as residences. They represent diversity, not suburban homogeneity. There's space for further development, too. It's certainly not absurd to preserve functional and desirable buildings that are attractive and part of the city's heritage, especially when the city isn't low on development opportunities. In fact, it's the most reasonable course of action to take towards building a beautiful, stable, prosperous and vibrant city in the long term.

 

[sodapop]

those houses are spectacular... i'm really starting to want this thing cancelled

 

[neuhaus]

The development is only 9 stories tall, so maintaining the existing old houses is doable and would actually be a nice design element as it wouldn't appear to be engulfed by a giant tower (like 1 Bedford and other condos that has an element of facadism involved).

 

[adma]

And there's 70s-style precedents close at hand--Hazelton Lanes, etc. Maybe it's worth revisiting; maybe that's indeed what the developers have in mind, for all we know.

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...

 

[adma]

However, if there's a hypothetical urban-aesthetic argument *against* retention, look catercorner at the "Windsor Arms solution"--I suppose, as a false and prepostrous antithesis to said "70s-style precedents".

 

[buildup]

i've been wondering for years how this row of houses would get resolved. Clearly they are beautiful and contribute in a huge way to the "enclave". In fact they almost single-handedly give this area its small intimate feel with support from the Univesity apts and the apts on the North side of Sultan.

That said, the property needs to generate a return. Possibilites include converting each building into high-end homes, but the conversion would be expensive and the square footage would be small. The interiors would need to be gutted which would ruin the historic charm.

Another option is creating commercial offices for small professional firms or whatnot but, again, few could afford the rent which I imagine would exceed triple AAA downtown commercial.

I conclude that absent some philanthropist willing to restore these buildings at a loss, the only option is restoring them but making it economical by infilling the area behind in some non-overwhelming manner.
Hopefully that is what is being contemplated.

But something needs to happen soon because viewed up close these buildings are deteriorating under the occupation of low-end commercial renters.

 

[adma]

But something needs to happen soon because viewed up close these buildings are deteriorating under the occupation of low-end commercial renters.

Not to the degree of Yonge + Gould, though--either on the deterioration or the "low-end commercial" front...

 

[Tewder]

Good point greenleaf. I see what you're saying, but I stand by my argument, mainly because I believe that such a valuable plot of land should be shared by more than a select few.



I see that you have chosen to completely ignore the basis behind my opinion. Let me ask you why you think that such a valuable lot should be given to a select few people? Also, what makes these houses "gems?" Is the building that replaces them not a gem? It will certainly be much more modern. Is being environmentally friendly not important to you? These houses compared to a high density building, per person are horrible. Also, these houses stand for the suburban values of old Toronto. Would you like to see a city dominated by suburban sprawl in every direction?

The way I see it is that these houses stood for values, which for the most part, are no longer part of modern Toronto (or at least not in this specific area). I'm all for converting one of these houses to a museum or some kind of public model, but to expect all of these houses to be protected and to inhibit modern development in their place is absurd. The concept completely boggles my mind.

Your principles here are not necessarily wrong but be careful of blinkered thinking. It is dangerous to apply any urban approach or ideals thereof in a blanket way without looking at exceptions, and Heritage is just about one of the most important exceptions, or should be at least! ... and all the more so in a city/region where Heritage resources are limited and dwindling. From this perspective and in this context it would be completely misguided to ignore the heritage/cultural value of this group of buildings in favour of almost any other urban values... and surely you would be intelligent enough to understand this regardless of whether or not you understand the specific heritage/cultural issues that are implicated here.

 

[buildup]

However, if there's a hypothetical urban-aesthetic argument *against* retention, look catercorner at the "Windsor Arms solution"--I suppose, as a false and prepostrous antithesis to said "70s-style precedents".

The way to handle the Windsor Arms is to avoid looking directly at the tower itself, which is easy for a pedestrian because of the setback. And only take in the hotel section peripherally. In this way the scale of the project contributes nicely.