Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A

"Beijing may have bulldozed 90% of its history and heritage, yet even with the mistake and what is left, the forbidden city and its cultural offerings will always possess more history and heritage than Toronto will ever have. It is just a different league. Nobody thinks about North America when history is considered. When the rest of the world was experiencing tens of dynasties along with all the rich civilization, Canada was still a no man's land."

This comment really reflects the ignorance of Canada's history and is particularly insulting to our native people who had sophisticated and complex societies that spanned large parts of Canada and the US and until they were decimated by Europeans.

I don't think Canada's history is any less rich that China, France etc. It's simply different. And I don't think "richness" of a society alone can be measured by grand monuments or length of dynasties.

Yes cities change and grow and cannot be "preserved" in a museum. But there has to be balance. It is worth saving our architerual past because our past in part defines us who we are today and just as new buildlings continue to reflect our evolution and growth, and ambitions as a city and people.
 
Opinions like kkgg7's are why so little of the Roman Forum is left, or why the Coliseum is only 1/5 of what it was.

Did you know at one point those 2000 year old cities were under 200? What if they decided at that point that they had no history and "wiped the slate clean"? Opinions like that are why beautiful old downtown Toronto was razed for concrete, why the Armouries were demolished for the York County Couthouse, why the Beard Building was demolished, etc.
 
adma said:
Well, kkgg7's now listed as "banned", so the point's more or less moot.
Click to expand...

Philistine comments mays upset the chattering classes, but look what happened - they elected a Philistine council and get the last laugh (for a while). The urge to wipe clean is never a moot point unfortunately.
 
mckarisma said:
Isn't he just maybe trolling? He surely can't believe that we should just fire bomb the entire east side of the downtown? And did he mention Queen? I love queen, both east and west, and the band. Maybe we should erase all cultural history that isn't "modern" as well. I understand the desire to see towers of glass and steel across the downtown, but weaved in to the current fabric would create a more pleasant and much more interesting place to reside and work.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's why 501 Blue Jeans Tower should be weaved into Yonge St. It makes no sense not to put a nice shinny new glass tower there... it's within walking distance of 2 subway stops. But... if we wanna save our heritage buildings the city should ensure that there's heritage building fund for each and every heritage building so that maintenance is done on these buildings annually and is each is checked and a minor 5 year capital plan is in place for each one, and checked so that they don't fall into disrepair. That white building on NE corner of Church and Wellesley is a prime example. It has that classic french look yet... it needs a maintenance or eventually it's going to have to be replaced... Because we all know that once buildings pass a certain threshold it's going to cost more to repair than to rebuild... and as a result we get "fires" like the one at Yonge and Gould... and we all lose the battle to retain buildings that actually have significant historical value to Toronto. If we think that all of Toronto's Victorian housing stock has that "historical" quality... I'd like to know .... the answer to this question... In 50-100 years from now do we save all those St. Jamestown Project Housing Towers?
 
macookie said:
if we wanna save our heritage buildings the city should ensure that there's heritage building fund for each and every heritage building so that maintenance is done on these buildings annually and is each is checked and a minor 5 year capital plan is in place for each one, and checked so that they don't fall into disrepair. That white building on NE corner of Church and Wellesley is a prime example. It has that classic french look yet... it needs a maintenance or eventually it's going to have to be replaced... Because we all know that once buildings pass a certain threshold it's going to cost more to repair than to rebuild...
Click to expand...

I agree, unless the city is in the business or has a lot of money to buy these so called historical sites and renovate/retrofit them properly, you are going to see many of these aging structures falling apart due to landlords not having the funds to maintain them according to the more rigorous building codes

I know if i was the building owner of an old structure here in Toronto, i would be scared to death of the city slapping a historical designation on the property...it would just mean that i would be better off having nothing, then spending my life savings away trying to keep up with its designation, let alone not be able to get back market value...

To bad...unlike many countries in Europe, where certain local municipal governments match euro for euro on their investment...Something definitely has to done here in Toronto to help the building owner with that situation..
 
macookie said:
If we think that all of Toronto's Victorian housing stock has that "historical" quality... I'd like to know .... the answer to this question... In 50-100 years from now do we save all those St. Jamestown Project Housing Towers?
Click to expand...

Maybe the fact that there was some lament over the loss of their Regent Park predecessors will tell you something.

tumblr_lwlx10UNwz1qcu5xao1_500.jpg
 
Good example. Isn't one or two of Dickinson's RP apartments remaining?
 
If property owners can't afford to keep their properties in good shape and do repairs, then maybe they shouldn't be property owners in the first place. If I had a Victorian row home in Cabbagetown I wouldn't be looking to the city to foot my repair bills.

We neglect our historic buildings because frankly no one cares - not the property owners, not the city and not (most) people of Toronto.

I frankly would prefer to save our Victorian housing stock when I see some of the crappy condo towers that are going up.
 
The majority of St Jamestown is privately owned and you have to wonder if it ever will make sense to demo buildings with an average of 500 units. Gaps in the urban landscape can be filled and through streets added without touching the towers (the school on the other hand)
 
I wonder if my NimbyTecture firm has legs or I should head back to the studio of gloom?

A modest proposal:

501yongemassingv4jan302.png


-top of tallest tower is about 36-40s
-tallest tower is south, building steps down to the north
-large warehouse-style floorplate to the south reflects massing of hotel to the south, suitable for large retailer
-"slab" podium is one large massing but broken up to appear less threatening
-keeps historic Yonge St narrow lot sizes/retail fronts intact
-would be red brick to top of "slab"--ie to about 12s
-towers would be brick (or precast brick panels like the Florian) and glass
-public and private gardens on terraces/top of parking podium

Still a work in progress tell me what you think!
 
Last edited:
wow ... the massing is very nice UD ... I'm certainly liking the various 'stepping' in the building form a lot ~ (though it may be too costly for a builder from an economics perspective)
 
Thanks for sharing that, urbandreamer. Starter as it is, it still treats the site better than the current proposal. I like the way you've preserved the 'finger' shaped lots that line a lot of Yonge Street, and used them to produce stepped roof areas and interest. That could make for a enjoyably variegated facades, too. See: Slusenholmen
 
Last edited:
Flip the towers so that the parkette on Alexander Street isn't shadowed late summer afternoons
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top