Toronto The Charles at Church | 152.7m | 47s | Aspen Ridge | BDP Quadrangle

agoraflaneur said:
The tower seems to be placed behind the Charles Street Edwardian apartments and the adjacent heritage building at 634 Church Street, which is also maintained.
Click to expand...

Except for the facade, the buildings are history:eek:

The front portions of the existing heritage buildings will be retained and incorporated into the base of the proposed building. The overall proposed height is 162 metres (167.4 including mechanical equipment).
 
I guess I shouldn't have assumed. This area needs to retain as much history as it can - Charles St. will be quite the contemporary canyon.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Except for the facade, the buildings are history:eek:

The front portions of the existing heritage buildings will be retained and incorporated into the base of the proposed building. The overall proposed height is 162 metres (167.4 including mechanical equipment).
Click to expand...

Manhattan is being reconfigured on the inside but it is being retained in full, not torn down and reconstructed later.
 
167.38 m or 549.15ft. Seems perfect for its location. You just knew the towers were going to work their way across Charles. My guess is there are more to come. Lobby looks like it could be very intersting based on the line drawings. (Are "line drawings" the correct term?)
 
Last edited:
http://ward27news.ca/events/february-3-628-church-street-community-consultation

February 3 – 628 Church Street Community Consultation
This is the statutory public meeting for a re-zoning application that has been filed for 68, 70 Charles Street East, 628, 634, 636, 638 Church Street.

Area residents and stakeholders are invited to participate in this consultation to provide feedback on the application submitted.

Date: February 3, 2015
Time: 6:30pm
Location: 519 Church Street, Ballroom (Second floor)

To speak with Planning, please contact:
Jennifer Renaud
Planner, Downtown Section, Community Planning
Phone: 416-392-7554
Fax: 416-392-1330
Email: jrenaud2@toronto.ca
 
agoraflaneur said:
I guess I shouldn't have assumed. This area needs to retain as much history as it can - Charles St. will be quite the contemporary canyon.
Click to expand...


Agreed. And the heritage buildings will be seriously compromised by the placement of a tower OVER top of the fine Edwardian buildings at 68 and 70 Charles St. E. This kind of bricolage is ugly and disruptive--can you say RCMI on University? It also destroys that most vital of things, quality of life. Turning the corner from hectic, traffic-heavy Sherbourne St. onto Charles St. heading west, you feel a weight come off your shoulders. The low-rise apartments are pleasing because of their manageable scale, fine detail, and eye-soothing natural materials and colours. They tell us how people lived and create a warm, inviting streetscape. This is about our past and our present, including HOW WE FEEL WHEN WE WALK DOWN THE STREET!!!!!

Glass towers are about as impersonal and monotone as it gets. Our real lives happen at street-level, not at 40+ storey towers that copy one another with no regard for style or substance. Yet while I was highly dismayed to see the signs regarding the development proposal, it wasn't that surprising. This seems to be the path we're on in T.O., and despite protection of certain heritage features in this particular proposal, the changes will alter the beauty and feel of the street. At this pace (and with fires claiming other properties), pretty soon, we'll have no idea of the historic city, which can never be retrieved once it's gone.

To say that historic buildings have to make way for change is so short-sighted. The most satisfying, compelling architecture--and the best human experience--can often be found in historic structures. Paris and Rome know a thing or two about NOT doing away with their past. And so do the millions of tourists who travel thousands of kilometres to seek that experience in those cities every year.
 
I live on Sherbourne and walk across Charles, Isabella and Earl everyday, and yes there are a couple spots I really enjoy that are lower built form particularly earl st with all the old houses, but I find Charles st exciting, my favourite part of walking these streets is seeing the cluster of high rises behind the historic buildings. These buildings are not being torn down, they are simply incorporating new additions. Look at how amazing, James Cooper, or 5ive turned out? The Selby looks really promising as well. I'm sorry for the residents in this building (including a friend of mine) who will have to relocate even if they are having their units replaced. but really I do not think this is an assault on aesthetics. I love these projects that build off of older structures the juxtaposition is unique and interesting. For the record I think RCMI is a success, and quadrangle has a really nice portfolio, at least this isn't a lack luster firm doing the addition. I was more sad to see the green space at church and isabella go.
 
HappyAboutHeritage said:
Agreed. And the heritage buildings will be seriously compromised by the placement of a tower OVER top of the fine Edwardian buildings at 68 and 70 Charles St. E. This kind of bricolage is ugly and disruptive--can you say RCMI on University? It also destroys that most vital of things, quality of life. Turning the corner from hectic, traffic-heavy Sherbourne St. onto Charles St. heading west, you feel a weight come off your shoulders. The low-rise apartments are pleasing because of their manageable scale, fine detail, and eye-soothing natural materials and colours. They tell us how people lived and create a warm, inviting streetscape. This is about our past and our present, including HOW WE FEEL WHEN WE WALK DOWN THE STREET!!!!!

Glass towers are about as impersonal and monotone as it gets. Our real lives happen at street-level, not at 40+ storey towers that copy one another with no regard for style or substance. Yet while I was highly dismayed to see the signs regarding the development proposal, it wasn't that surprising. This seems to be the path we're on in T.O., and despite protection of certain heritage features in this particular proposal, the changes will alter the beauty and feel of the street. At this pace (and with fires claiming other properties), pretty soon, we'll have no idea of the historic city, which can never be retrieved once it's gone.

To say that historic buildings have to make way for change is so short-sighted. The most satisfying, compelling architecture--and the best human experience--can often be found in historic structures. Paris and Rome know a thing or two about NOT doing away with their past. And so do the millions of tourists who travel thousands of kilometres to seek that experience in those cities every year.
Click to expand...

There's a whole hell of a lot in there, but really? Paris and Rome "know a thing or two about NOT destroying their past?" You really want to go there?
 
Presumed new renderings taken from the development application portal. There's a few more so take a look for yourself here:
http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...ion=init&folderRsn=3631335&isCofASearch=false

68charles.png
68charles2.png
 

Attachments

  • 68charles.png
    68charles.png
    629.6 KB · Views: 2,447
  • 68charles2.png
    68charles2.png
    628.3 KB · Views: 1,852
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top