Toronto No7 Rosedale | 16.76m | 4s | Platinum Vista | Hariri Pontarini

Looks like city staff have been cowed by a moneyed and well-organized NIMBY campaign. Yes, South Rosedale has a certain diversity in its built form, but it's a stretch to say that the neighbourhood's heritage will be damaged by the demolition of a few ranch-style houses.
 
Blovertis said:
Looks like city staff have been cowed by a moneyed and well-organized NIMBY campaign. Yes, South Rosedale has a certain diversity in its built form, but it's a stretch to say that the neighbourhood's heritage will be damaged by the demolition of a few ranch-style houses.
Click to expand...

Not just any old "ranch-style house".

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rea...al-style-to-torontosrosedale/article38031356/

(Don't mind my belatedly revisiting this thread; I was out of commission relative to UT for a month. But it's telling that nobody sought to even post that link in this thread, in all that time I was absent...)
 
adma said:
Not just any old "ranch-style house".

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rea...al-style-to-torontosrosedale/article38031356/

(Don't mind my belatedly revisiting this thread; I was out of commission relative to UT for a month. But it's telling that nobody sought to even post that link in this thread, in all that time I was absent...)
Click to expand...

What good does preserving this structure do if it is obscured by anachronistic landscaping, and is not open to the public? I bet the interiors have been adulterated to shit, too. 26 new units in the core of the city would do Toronto a lot more good than preserving this house.

"A meaningful building that, in Europe, would be charging admission at the door." This ain't no Villa Tugendhat.

Tear 'er down. It is a waste of municipal resources to fight this at the OMB.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well, isn't called Our Rosedale for a reason :rolleyes: Anyone want to make bets that OMB will go easy on this?

AoD
Click to expand...

Doubtful. The OMB turned down 214-218 Keewatin and 49-51 Lawrence. Both were closer to subways, and were stacks as opposed to true apartments. If it weren't for the heritage demo refusal they might have had a hope at a positive planning staff report - now I would say this application is dead as a doornail, but I would love to be wrong.
 
PMT said:
Planning recommends that Council send staff to oppose this development at the LPAT: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-117596.pdf
Click to expand...

"While Planning staff is satisfied that the proposal meets some of the criteria for new development within Neighbourhoods... HPS staff have determined the proposal is not in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan as it relates to Heritage policies, and does not meet the South Rosedale HCD guidelines. As a result, City Planning has determined that the proposal to demolish and replace the existing heritage buildings does not have regard for the matters of provincial interest under the Planning Act, is not consistent with the PPS and does not conform with the Growth Plan with respect to matters of heritage conservation."

The first sentence means there is hope for development in the yellow belt. The heritage designation is another thing, but it is completely irresponsible that it took staff almost 2 years to work out that these properties warrant retention. Also, if we are designating 1940's and 50's buildings as heritage that imposes some severe limits on demolition.
 
This got very interesting yesterday at TEYCC. If you've got headphones at work, it's well-worth listening in:


In short, there's a bit of Staff infighting going on here. Planning are begrudgingly accepting of this while Heritage wants to elevate the status of the three houses from a 'C' to a 'B', thereby making demolition almost impossible. KWT and other Councillors weren't impressed that Staff would allow an applicant to go through a two year planning process with something like 14 meetings with the community only to take this position at the very end. A lack of transparency and certainty in the process is not only a deterrent, it could be construed as illegal.

Interesting stuff for sure. It's now going to Council without a recommendation. KWT has advised that Lintern (not by name) get his troops in line before the 23rd.
 
ProjectEnd said:
This got very interesting yesterday at TEYCC. If you've got headphones at work, it's well-worth listening in:


In short, there's a bit of Staff infighting going on here. Planning are begrudgingly accepting of this while Heritage wants to elevate the status of the three houses from a 'C' to a 'B', thereby making demolition almost impossible. KWT and other Councillors weren't impressed that Staff would allow an applicant to go through a two year planning process with something like 14 meetings with the community only to take this position at the very end. A lack of transparency and certainty in the process is not only a deterrent, it could be construed as illegal.

Interesting stuff for sure. It's now going to Council without a recommendation. KWT has advised that Lintern (not by name) get his troops in line before the 23rd.
Click to expand...

Time stamp?
 
From Adamson Associates' 80th anniversary materials (see page 4): http://www.adamson-associates.com/sites/all/themes/aaa/images/anniversary.pdf

By the early 1940s, traces of the International Style of modernism began to appear in Adamson’s work as the firm experimented with the application of this new aesthetic in plans for the 'Sun House' in the Rosedale area of Toronto in 1944. This break with the more traditional styles of the past was virtually confirmed in 1945 with the completion of a dramatic office and showroom facility for the Crothers Manufacturing Co. in Leaside, Toronto and was commissioned to prepare a similarly striking design for the Canadian Nashua Paper Co.’s office and factory in Peterborough, Ontario in 1946.​
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top