|501 ft / 153 m||47 storeys||!|
|Status: Pre-Construction||Completion: TBD|
Category: Condo, Rental, Retail
Except for the facade, the buildings are historyThe tower seems to be placed behind the Charles Street Edwardian apartments and the adjacent heritage building at 634 Church Street, which is also maintained.
Manhattan is being reconfigured on the inside but it is being retained in full, not torn down and reconstructed later.Except for the facade, the buildings are history
The front portions of the existing heritage buildings will be retained and incorporated into the base of the proposed building. The overall proposed height is 162 metres (167.4 including mechanical equipment).
I guess I shouldn't have assumed. This area needs to retain as much history as it can - Charles St. will be quite the contemporary canyon.
There's a whole hell of a lot in there, but really? Paris and Rome "know a thing or two about NOT destroying their past?" You really want to go there?Agreed. And the heritage buildings will be seriously compromised by the placement of a tower OVER top of the fine Edwardian buildings at 68 and 70 Charles St. E. This kind of bricolage is ugly and disruptive--can you say RCMI on University? It also destroys that most vital of things, quality of life. Turning the corner from hectic, traffic-heavy Sherbourne St. onto Charles St. heading west, you feel a weight come off your shoulders. The low-rise apartments are pleasing because of their manageable scale, fine detail, and eye-soothing natural materials and colours. They tell us how people lived and create a warm, inviting streetscape. This is about our past and our present, including HOW WE FEEL WHEN WE WALK DOWN THE STREET!!!!!
Glass towers are about as impersonal and monotone as it gets. Our real lives happen at street-level, not at 40+ storey towers that copy one another with no regard for style or substance. Yet while I was highly dismayed to see the signs regarding the development proposal, it wasn't that surprising. This seems to be the path we're on in T.O., and despite protection of certain heritage features in this particular proposal, the changes will alter the beauty and feel of the street. At this pace (and with fires claiming other properties), pretty soon, we'll have no idea of the historic city, which can never be retrieved once it's gone.
To say that historic buildings have to make way for change is so short-sighted. The most satisfying, compelling architecture--and the best human experience--can often be found in historic structures. Paris and Rome know a thing or two about NOT doing away with their past. And so do the millions of tourists who travel thousands of kilometres to seek that experience in those cities every year.