Toronto Bungalow on Mercer | 62.79m | 17s | Kalovida | Scott Shields

Pics taken Mar 11, 2012


515sv.jpg



RRNpc.jpg
 
Woah!! I didn't know this proposal existed. This is my ideal kind of infill; I love how it's such a skinny sliver of a building squeezed into this bit of space. I wish more of the city used space so efficiently, like in Manhattan. It's so frustrating that two of city staff's criticisms are exactly what's amazing about this: It comes right to the sidewalk rather than shying away in ridiculous setbacks, and it has no car parking. Those are two things that should be encouraged nowadays.
 
Application: Demolition Folder (DM) Status: Not Started

Location: 24 MERCER ST
TORONTO ON M5V 1H3

Ward 20: Trinity-Spadina

Application#: 13 228454 DEM 00 DM Accepted Date: Aug 29, 2013

Project: Apartment Building Demolition

Description: Proposal to demolish existing three-storey warehouse building. No replacement building is proposed at this time. See 11-261965 STE for rezoning to allow for new 21-storey residential building; see also 11-274363 ZPR 00, 01, 02 and 03. Facade to be deconstructed and reconstructed at a later date.
 
In regards to the above reference to Manhattan, I both agree and disagree.

On the infill side, yes I agree, we need more of this. Maybe not in this exact location, as the King/John intersection is already insane, but more of this in general.

On the other hand, it is buildings just like the current existing heritage one that line the neighbourhoods of Chelsea and the Lower East Side that make those areas as charming and valuable as they are. So if one were to fix it up, but retain the structue, it would also be an example of "Manhattanization", just another kind.
 
Roy G Biv said:
I still can't picture the buyer here:

-high income
-no car or plans to buy a car
Click to expand...

this is me, exactly. haven't even had a driving license since 2011, make way more money than i can spend, can't imagine living anywhere i couldn't easily walk to everywhere i want to get to. as far as toronto goes, there's literally nowhere to drive to, i can't think of anywhere i'd like to go that i'd need a car to do so.
 
My only fear in situations like this is they go ahead with the demolition only to later give up on the tower (or sell), and at the end of the day nothing happens for years less an empty site and / or parking lot.
 
They're out-of-date on that. What was settled on prior to the OMB hearing (and ratified by the OMB) was a 15-storey building, no parking.

The City wanted a minimum of 3 storeys of commercial at the bottom, but the settlement only requires 2 it seems.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top