Toronto The Gloucester on Yonge | 147.82m | 44s | Concord Adex | a—A

a basic massing of what something on this site could look like:

599yonge.jpg
 
And getting aside from the "subway capacity" or "raw density" argument: in the relative pecking order of Yonge frontages, this is like the Maitland-to-Alexander front, i.e. distinctly on the "replace" side of the ledger. Five, it ain't.

Incidentally, in lieu of a costly-Yonge-line-expansion-that-may-never-come, anyone consider the possibility of turning the Yonge bus into a more frequent (and not merely rush-hour) affair?
 
587-599 YONGE ST doesn't seem to include the whole 2s complex at the corner of Yonge/Gloucester ?!?

599 is Jessy's according to the attached google map ... there's still 5 more storefronts left ?
 
canarob:

Just because areas along subway lines should be intensify doesn't translate into a carte blanche for density. How 49s is justifiable at a site that is pretty much limited by the low-rise nature of the surroundings remains to be demonstrated. As adma have stated - this isn't a Five.

AoD
 
Many years ago Toronto residents stopped the Spadina expressway and exclaimed that Toronto was a “transit town”. Problem is, while they stopped the construction of the expressway, they forgot to build the transit.

Yen years ago I used to have to take the subway everyday from Union to Eglinton. Even then it was packed during rush hour - now it’s much, much worse - I would rather change jobs to another city than have to deal with that sardine subway everyday. Couple that with the longest commute times in the world and it easy to see we are building an unsustainable mess.

I don’t think a single "DRL" will solve this, and it looks like it will be many, many years before a transit plan gets built as subways take ten to fifteen years to build (including approvals, environmental, funding issues etc) assuming anyone can finally agree that we need subways.

Intensification is a great thing but you have to couple it with improved and expanded transit or the city is going to choke on it's own success.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
canarob:

Just because areas along subway lines should be intensify doesn't translate into a carte blanche for density. How 49s is justifiable at a site that is pretty much limited by the low-rise nature of the surroundings remains to be demonstrated. As adma have stated - this isn't a Five.

AoD
Click to expand...

Across the street is a 24-story apartment building (15 Dundonald). I wouldn't want to turn Dundonald into a street of highrises, but I would argue that it's existing context is lowrise along the main part of the street with highrise at Yonge and Church (41 Dundonald, 17 storeys). Also, if Five is going to be directly across Yonge, I don't know how different this project will really be. Or is it more a question of not wanting Yonge lined with Five-like developments?
 
Even if this project retains the Yonge street facades (which looks to be the case), I do hope it's set back a bit as not to loom over the street like 501 Yonge does.
 
Maybe not the entire block, but the two buildings closest to Dundonald could potentially be kept.

The building closest to Dundonald is clearly of some value, but looking at various views of the building beside it, that one looks like a set of storefronts that have been reclad.

Could be totally wrong though, and in any case, that one (if it's actually older than it looks) is probably be too far gone for restoration.
 
cdr108 said:
587-599 YONGE ST doesn't seem to include the whole 2s complex at the corner of Yonge/Gloucester ?!?

599 is Jessy's according to the attached google map ... there's still 5 more storefronts left ?
Click to expand...

I think the 2 stories white brick building is 597 & 599 Yonge. The Waffle place, the Records store and the Shawarma place (where Coffee Time used to be) are all 599 Yonge all the way to the corner of Gloucester.
 
**** off and leave BarVolo alone!

We have arguably the best pub in North America, with a bright illustrious history, and we are thinking of demolishing it to build this?

We'll end up like Hong Kong at this pace.

I'm all for building condos everywhere so long as they are an improvement over what there is. In this case we'd be destroying a huge part of the city's brewing and cultural heritage. The building Volo is at could so easily be spared from the destruction.

http://www.ratebeer.com/RateBeerBes...Best+Beer+Bars+2012&file=bars_places_2012.csv

For reference, Hong Kong then and now:

old-hk-new-hk.jpg


This development may forever destroy my relationship with this city.
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
Maybe not the entire block, but the two buildings closest to Dundonald could potentially be kept.

The building closest to Dundonald is clearly of some value, but looking at various views of the building beside it, that one looks like a set of storefronts that have been reclad.

Could be totally wrong though, and in any case, that one (if it's actually older than it looks) is probably be too far gone for restoration.
Click to expand...

I took a look through the City's heritage property inventory and none of the properties listed in the development app came up.

My initial assumption was that the two houses (7 & 9 Gloucester) were the buildings that would be retained.
 
jje1000 said:
Maybe not the entire block, but the two buildings closest to Dundonald could potentially be kept.

The building closest to Dundonald is clearly of some value, but looking at various views of the building beside it, that one looks like a set of storefronts that have been reclad.

Could be totally wrong though, and in any case, that one (if it's actually older than it looks) is probably be too far gone for restoration.
Click to expand...

Not sure if 7 & 9 Gloucester have any type of heritage designation but they seem in good shape and worth preserving. Perhaps this is the portion to be retained - especially since 11 Gloucester, the end row house is not included in the project.

http://www.tobuilt.ca/php/tobuildings_more.php?search_fd3=2808
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top