Toronto One Front | 170.86m | 49s | Larco | a—A

[ProjectEnd]

Said it before, will say it again - some buildings should be treated as sacrosanct - no untoward alterations, additions and densification en masse - this is one case.

AoD

Eh, I can't say I subscribe to this. I'm very much a 'the only constant is change' type when it comes to cities. The idea of preservation is only about half a century old, while urban areas go back to the dawn of civilization.

Unfortunately Toronto has some kind of fetish with touching every historical building in sight, no matter what it is. The only buildings that are safe are Queen's Park and City Hall. Asides from that, this city/province will just allow for practically anything to be hacked up.

Yeah, that's it. People just get their 'kicks' demo-ing heritage buildings here. Or, it could be that there are so many prescriptive guidelines about where new density can't go, it gets put onto places where the zoning or OP says it can. We can't develop employment areas or touch the Yellowbelt, so where are new buildings going to go? Avenues and Centres, which, especially in the core, are chalk full of heritage buildings.

I'd certainly trade stricter protections for these structures if it means that we get to move into the the two aforementioned areas. Since that's not going to happen, we'll continue to lose our built heritage so that single family detached buildings can remain sacrosanct.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Eh, I can't say I subscribe to this. I'm very much a 'the only constant is change' type when it comes to cities. The idea of preservation is only about half a century old, while urban areas go back to the dawn of civilization.

Yeah, that's it. People just get their 'kicks' demo-ing heritage buildings here. Or, it could be that there are so many prescriptive guidelines about where new density can't go, it gets put onto places where the zoning or OP says it can. We can't develop employment areas or touch the Yellowbelt, so where are new buildings going to go? Avenues and Centres, which, especially in the core, are chalk full of heritage buildings.

I'd certainly trade stricter protections for these structures if it means that we get to move into the the two aforementioned areas. Since that's not going to happen, we'll continue to lose our built heritage so that single family detached buildings can remain sacrosanct.

The constant is change - but change of what kind? There is no requirement that equate change to taking a form of an ill-fitting tower grafted on top a Beaux-Arts structure.

AoD

 

[ProjectEnd]

It's certainly weird, yes, but let me start clearing out the yellowbelt and we can keep those Beaux-Arts structures pristine! Toronto makes choices and this is a direct reflection of those values.

 

[daniel_kryz]

Disgusting, and I'm sure it'll still get approved.

 

[interchange42]

Disgusting, and I'm sure it'll still get approved.

Toronto has no power to reject redevelopment based on whether anyone thinks a plan is disgusting or not. It's all about fitting a proposal into various planning regulations, and if the developer is prepared to protect the heritage aspects of a site, then the City cannot say no just because.

42

 

[junctionist]

The constant is change - but change of what kind? There is no requirement that equate change to taking a form of an ill-fitting tower grafted on top a Beaux-Arts structure.

AoD

Good point. I also disagree with @ProjectEnd's assertion that the idea of preservation is only half a century old. It's been happening for hundreds or even thousands of years. We've seen the deliberate preservation of Roman structures and buildings from various eras in Europe. Even in Toronto, a relatively young city, the city's 2nd city hall facade was preserved and incorporated into the current St. Lawrence Market South building when it opened in 1902.

 

[Jonathan Carruthers]

This is a job for the best of the best if it is to be pulled off successfully. I have not seen one project by Toronto based architects in the last twenty years that could instill a high degree of confidence in complementing and/or augmenting this highly visible heritage gem (mild confidence in HP or Moriyama). If plans for the Larco/aA project at 34-50 King East are any indication, this could be nothing but a defacement.

Is Larco ready to dig deep into it's own pockets? Does aA have the creative vision? Does city planning have the will or power to make this a notable exception in terms of it's hands off approach to design? Sadly on all three counts, I highly doubt it. Like the quality of design starting to rear its head upon the waterfront, this could be another embarrassment for the City of Toronto in more ways than one.

Larco's shifty business practices do not instill confidence in a successful outcome and could be the tip of a very unwieldy ice burg.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...ord-stashed-money-in-offshore-tax-havens.html

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This is a job for the best of the best, if it is to be pulled off successfully. I have not seen one project by Toronto based architects in the last twenty years that could instill a high degree of confidence in complementing and/or augmenting this highly visible heritage gem. A mild degree of confidence would be HPA or Moriyama, but that's about it. If plans for the Larco/aA project at 34-50 King East are any indication, this could be nothing but a defacement.

Is Larco ready to dig deep into it's own pockets? Does aA have the creative vision? Does city planning have the will or power to make this a notable exception in terms of it's hands off approach to design? Sadly on all three counts, I highly doubt it. Like the quality of design starting to rear its head upon the waterfront, this could be another embarrassment for the City of Toronto but this time, in more ways than one.

For example, Larco's shifty business practices do not instill confidence in the possible end result and could be the tip of a very unwieldy iceburg..........https://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/richest-people/rich-100-lalji-family/
and, https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...ord-stashed-money-in-offshore-tax-havens.html

My what a nasty company - so CLC disposed a property to a company like this? *tsk tsk* May the pox fall on this project.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

I have not seen one project by Toronto based architects in the last twenty years that could instill a high degree of confidence in complementing and/or augmenting this highly visible heritage gem (mild confidence in HP or Moriyama)

KPMB is calling w/r/t their work on the National Ballet School, Royal Conservatory of Music, Rotman, and some of their national/international preservation/expansion work (Global Centre for Pluralism, Princeton Economics Dept). Also I think HPA's work on 7 St. Thomas, Casey House, Max Gluskin House, and the Alliance Francaise should instil more than mild confidence in their ability.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

KPMB is calling w/r/t their work on the National Ballet School, Royal Conservatory of Music, Rotman, and some of their national/international preservation/expansion work (Global Centre for Pluralism, Princeton Economics Dept). Also I think HPA's work on 7 St. Thomas, Casey House, Max Gluskin House, and the Alliance Francaise should instil more than mild confidence in their ability.

Those projects involve totally different scales, and rather different contexts.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Those projects involve totally different scales, and rather different contexts.

AoD

For sure, though they are indicative of those firms' ability to sensitively and successfully rejuvenate and expand upon a heritage context, and it's not as if either of those firms are inexperienced with projects of this scale (without a heritage component); taken together, my point was simply that I think it's not reasonable to completely rule out the possibility that there are Toronto-based firms that could deliver an excellent heritage expansion project of this scale.

More broadly, I think many are a little too quick to denounce the abilities of some local architects -- especially given that many of the people who actually work at those firms are the first to bemoan the lack of creativity and ambition of most Toronto developers -- without considering some of the excellent work they've completed.

(Not to get too off-topic, but Exhibit A in this regard is the work of Adamson, who are world renowned for what they do; they don't get much attention because they don't act as design architects, but I think it's nonetheless nice to throw them some love and appreciation.)

 

[Allandale25]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270792460273401856

 

[interchange42]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270792460273401856

That gist of that is that the third Case Management Conference at LPAT has been moved to October 5, 2020, while Larco and the City talk further and while the Toronto Preservation Board reviews the heritage plans.

42

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Of course, I appreciate the complexities of the process and mediating between interests. I'm new here, but work in development, have a masters in planning and lurked the forums for years, so I'm pretty familiar with the process.

It's more just my frustration with the City's attitude towards heritage conservation, which is a joke. We have no regard for protecting the interiors of buildings, content with maintaining a facade or two. We have no framework for maintaining heritage buildings or restoring them in the City as a whole, other than piecemeal designations.

City Staff pick and choose between which planning guidelines apply in certain contexts. Planning is inherently subjective - which is a good thing - the decisions that have driven this to be where it's at are the result of the guiding principles from staff, who fixate on certain things but fail to see the bigger picture.

It's been years since I've been inside, but given that it's government office space, used hard and renovated many times, I doubt that there is much interior worth saving, unless one has a fetish for 1990s drywall and overhead light fixtures.

 

[DSC]

It's been years since I've been inside, but given that it's goverement office space, used hard and renovated many times, I doubt that there is much interior worth saving, unless one has a fetish for 1990s drywall and overhead light fixtures.

You are absolutely right, read the Heritage Report in the Building Documentation on the City site. Most of the building was a customs warehouse and NEVER had much memorable spaces. Really the only room worth saving is the ":Great Hall" which is illustrated in the Report. (It is like an old fashioned banking hall with counters where one went to(argue about) and pay duty on imported goods that you picked up from the rear loading docks and this is certainly high on the City's (and the developers) list of things that must be protected.