Toronto St Lawrence Market North | 25.3m | 5s | City of Toronto | Rogers Stirk Harbour

How are the setbacks/terraces unattractive?

Yes, some people were pissed, not becaue of the unused back door, but because of the noise from the super-loud exhaust. It's not an active commercial laneway. Your views on this might be more persuasive if you had your facts right.

The city was involved, and the restaurant is buying a new, quiet one.
 
Not at all - but you can hardly whinge that no one supports your arguement when you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Fine, then.

Yes, some people were pissed, not becaue of the unused back door, but because of the noise from the super-loud exhaust.
Click to expand...

That, and the music, and the noise of breaking bottles in the recycling bins (which are kept at the back). Again: having residences face a commercial laneway -- which is in fact "active," with several businesses backing onto it -- is not the best planning solution. I know the King E. strip was much quieter when it was built.

AP, as to the more important aesthetic point: this is purely subjective. I think the precast "lintels" and cladding on the setbacks are quite clunky-looking. You disagree.

I'm sure we've lost everyone else, but back to the main point: should the North Market and other buildings in the area use a vocabulary red brick and stone? sure -- if it is well done. The St. James is a well-meant and only halfway well-executed example. It shows that a trad. vocabulary in itself does not make a good building. It's far from the worst and I apologize for using the verb "suck." But it's by Quadrangle, and if the city gets some hack architects to do the North Market, that is sure to be undistinguished. Which would be a shame/

I have no personal stake in this, by the way -- sorry to offend anyone who does.
 
The residents also used to complain about the antique market vendors setting up at 5 o'clock on Sunday mornings. Life in the big city.

My former neighbours looked at a unit on one of the terrace levels. They liked the big awnings, but found the place rather small. No doubt the upper levels are the most spacious.

I find it clever, though not necessarily admirable, how the bulk of this building is disguised by setbacks. I don't think it attains the same level of non-specific historicist rapture as Market Square does though. That's still the one to beat, if you value said approach.

But I also think we can do better than follow that route. I agree with Citywriter about the KPMB building as offering the right sort of contemporary style benchmark to aim for, as an example of the approach I outlined earlier, which I think is a healthier one. We've established the historical roots of this district with tons of vaguely Georgian and Victorian and Edwardian stylings, so let's be unashamedly current in our building styles ... and move on!
 
I agree with Babel with respect to the north market. As preservationist as I am, and as much as I love heritage architecture and faux historicism when well executed, I think the only way to expand a true landmark is to go modern. I'm thinking of Beaubourg/Centre Pompidou in Paris, or the Pyramide at the Louvre, or the Crystal at the ROM... Previous generations have left their additions to well-loved and iconic buildings creating iconic landmarks that are constantly evolving, remaining relevent. I like this approach as far as these important sites go, though I'm happy to see the overall tone of the neighbourhood preserved through the historicist approach.
 
I think the only way to expand a true landmark is to go modern. I'm thinking of Beaubourg/Centre Pompidou in Paris
Click to expand...

...except that the optimal thing would have been to leave Les Halles be in the 70s rather than destroying it.

OTOH anybody offering to recreate Les Halles in the here and now ought to be shot on sight--no different from those lunkheads and Trumpians who want to recreate the Twin Towers...
 
and the music, and the noise of breaking bottles in the recycling bins (which are kept at the back). Again: having residences face a commercial laneway -- which is in fact "active," with several businesses backing onto it -- is not the best planning solution. I know the King E. strip was much quieter when it was built.
Click to expand...

You really need to get your facts straight. The laneway is inactive, and is, in fact, private property, the only business that opens on to it is that new restaurant. The apartments above that African furniture store do too, but that's it. And the only issue 39 Jarvis residents had with the new restaurant was the fan. The recycling bins for the restaurant are not in the courtyard at 39 Jarvis.
 
St Lawrence Market North Building (4s)

I am town for a few days this week (U.S. Thanksgiving) and did a thoroughly invigourating 3 hour downtown walk in the snow yesterday. On my travels I noticed a zoning application has been placed on the parking lot just behind the market on the Esplanade. Thats the parking lot that will be turned into a park when the 50 storey condo and townhouse development thats on the adjacent parking lot to the south of this parking lot and backing on the rail line is completed.

The application is a notice by the city to use the parking lot for 3 years as a temporary market site. I can't remember the exact wording but I am sure it means that the hidious eye sore on the north west corner of Front and Jarvis is finally getting the wrecking ball and being replaced by something more in keeping with the original market across the road.

We have a rendering on this board somewhere of the proposed new building that the city is going to put there. It's done in the victorian style and looks quite handsome. It really fits in well and nicely augments the 19th century architecture thats already in the area. Maybe some one can locate and post the rendering on the board.
 
I too would love to hear more on this, mainly, is it happening and WHEN?

Various things I recall from past discussions:

1. There will be underground parking beneath the new North Market, and it will be accessed through the existing lot beneath the Market Square Dominion, hence no need to additional entrances from Jarvis or King, as were previously much discussed.

2. While the new North Market is being built, a temporary structure will be built on the parking lot south of the Market, to take care of the regular activities such as the Saturday farmer's market and Sunday antique market. Afterwards, the temporary structure will be torn down and the lot used for something more permanent (I have variously heard this may be a box store or yet another condo development with retail on the bottom floor. Extending the Crombie Park and building slightly to the south would be much better, in my opinion.)

3. Probably directly unrelated to the above, I recently heard that one company has purchased all the buildings along the west side of Market St. between Front and Esplanade, including the car repair place, which is now closed. These will all be completely restored, and that stretch of Market St. will be made into a pedestrianized street, extending the pedestrianized area already existing to the north which goes from Front to King between the North Market and the Market Square shops.

I heartily support all the above changes... let's get started!
 
As far as I know, the issue of access to parking under the new market building is unresolved. There are three proposals for an entrance: 1) Off Jarvis, with a new mid-block light to facilitate this 2) Off King, where the fountain is now, thus removing part of the park on the closed portion of Market Street 3) Through the Market Square garage, although the Market Square residents are understandably not that keen on public access to their garage.

There were some reports that the city had agreed to lease the upper floors of the new North Market for courts or offices for court services. I don't know if that is still in place. It was at least a year ago that I heard that.
 
3) Through the Market Square garage, although the Market Square residents are understandably not that keen on public access to their garage.
Click to expand...

The Market Square residents against this are more concerned about extra traffic in the garage, especially at the Church entrance. The first two levels of parking are a public pay lot so they really have no say here. The resident parking is on the two lowest levels which are closed to the public by a card activated garage door. Opening the parking under the North Market through Market Square would not change this in any way.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top