Toronto 75 on The Esplanade | 99.97m | 29s | Harhay | a—A

thecharioteer said:
In a perfect world, and if one was looking at correcting the urban design mistakes of the past, the parking garage and apartment building above it would be demolished and rebuilt further west to open up the visual connection of Church Street with the waterfront (notwithstanding the train corridor and the Gardiner). Rebuilding of social housing was done at Regent's Park; why not here? (I already know the answer; just dreaming...)
Click to expand...

Actually you are NOT dreaming. The Lower Yonge Precinct Plan that is currently in its final phases of creation is recommending that Church Street be brought south under the rail berm to link with Cooper Street. While this would not mean that this monstrosity would have to be demolished it will certainly change it. Of course, there is not funding to do this (yet) but it does look as though it will be in the long-term plan for Lower Yonge. There will probably NOT be a visual connection but may be a physical one.
 
Last edited:
DSC said:
Actually you are NOT dreaming. The Lower Yonge Precinct Plan that is currently in its final phases of creation is recommending that Church Street be brought south under the rail berm to link with Cooper Street. While this would not mean that this monstrosity would have to be demolished it will certainly change it. Of course, there is not funding to do this (yet) but it does look as though it will be in the long-term plan for Lower Yonge. There will probably NOT be as visual connection but may be a physical one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, tunneling underneath would do nothing to restore sight lines, and even if they were restored, you still have the rail line and the Gardiner in the way as was mentioned. In an ideal world, A LOT of things would be done differently, but heavy industry shaped our downtown rather than good urban planning.
 
slicecom said:
Unlike Regent Park, the social / co-op housing in the St. Lawrence neighbourhood is working brilliantly and is a thriving community.
Click to expand...

In fact the RP model was partly based on the experiences from St. Lawrence. In any case as others have mentioned tearing that building down for the sake of restoring a view corridor is a lost cause given the railway berm and the Gardiner. I can see the parking structure retrofitted though.

AoD
 
Also, tunneling under the tracks wouldn't be restoring sight lines so much as creating one, given that church street never extended further than it does now. Which doesn't mean that in a perfect world it wouldn't be nice to do.
 
slicecom said:
Yeah, tunneling underneath would do nothing to restore sight lines, and even if they were restored, you still have the rail line and the Gardiner in the way as was mentioned. In an ideal world, A LOT of things would be done differently, but heavy industry shaped our downtown rather than good urban planning.
Click to expand...

The role of the railways cannot be underestimated. For a more complete analysis, see my thread in the Photo section titled The Esplanade 1907, particularly the posts regarding the decades long debate on the design and construction of the railway viaduct:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/the-esplanade-1907.20768/
 
thecharioteer said:
In a perfect world, and if one was looking at correcting the urban design mistakes of the past, the parking garage and apartment building above it would be demolished and rebuilt further west to open up the visual connection of Church Street with the waterfront (notwithstanding the train corridor and the Gardiner). Rebuilding of social housing was done at Regent's Park; why not here? (I already know the answer; just dreaming...)

1913:



Today:

Click to expand...
It would definitely be awesome to have a lake view down Church St.

Is the rail corridor really that much of a barrier here? I mean it would at The Esplanade, but from Front street wouldn't the elevation give a sightline over the tracks if that above ground parking lot and building were removed?
 
There isn't any chance that above ground parking lot and building will be removed, so the very practical side of me is wondering 'why even bother speculating on what the view would be?'. I can't even wrap my head around anyone finding the necessary funds to get a walkway built through the garage and under the rail berm to get a pedestrian connection established at the south end of Church. There are just so many other priorities for tax or Section 37 dollars that this seems like far too expensive a move for the benefits it would bring. (I can't imagine that there would be enough Section 37 funds from the 75 The Esplanade project to do this, let alone be available for anything else the area may need.)

Meanwhile, the TPA is not in the habit of making alterations to its garages that would decrease the number of parking spaces on offer.

42
 
interchange42 said:
There isn't any chance that above ground parking lot and building will be removed, so the very practical side of me is wondering 'why even bother speculating on what the view would be?'. I can't even wrap my head around anyone finding the necessary funds to get a walkway built through the garage and under the rail berm to get a pedestrian connection established at the south end of Church. There are just so many other priorities for tax or Section 37 dollars that this seems like far too expensive a move for the benefits it would bring. (I can't imagine that there would be enough Section 37 funds from the 75 The Esplanade project to do this, let alone be available for anything else the area may need.)

Meanwhile, the TPA is not in the habit of making alterations to its garages that would decrease the number of parking spaces on offer.

42
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, of course! That's why I said I was just dreaming.....
 
I appreciate your dream, but wanted to nip in the bud any speculation growing beyond that, as inevitably we'll be having to deal with posts from people asking when the garage is coming down!

42
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Preliminary Report from the Sept TEYCC:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-82711.pdf

AoD
Click to expand...


The tower setbacks are only proposed for the 8th floor and above, yet the housing on top of the parking lot at the rear begins on the 6th floor. Is this legal? Also, the plans mention an 'access podium' for the rear housing, but this isn't just an access podium, it houses a lobby, bike storage, recycling room and mail room. Should the distance between this and the new building not be 12.5 meters as well? I'm a newbie to these planning documents, any help is appreciated!

Also, to the South of the proposed building is a lane, if there is a lane present, aren't tall buildings supposed to be distanced 12.5 meters away from the middle of the lane?
 
Community Consultation takes place Tues 27 Oct at 65 Church St (St James Cathedral Centre, at King) between 7-9pm
 
I wish I saw that post sooner!... would have been able to swing by after school and see what's up.

Did anyone attend?
 
I did! We'll likely have a front page story on it this week, but I'll say in the meantime that residents of 55 The Esplanade (the TCHC building atop the parking garage just to the south) were definitely not pleased with the height of the building.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top