Automation Gallery
Superstar
My My, in that rendering it looks butt ugly and short.
Last edited:
|
|
|
596 Church Street (Church 18 Holdings, 25s, RAW) DEAD
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
SP!RE
°°°°°°
I don't see why we need a point tower here anyway. This city has forgotten about midrises entirely, and that would suit the character of the Village strip far better.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
The proposal has been rejected based on a number of issues so the onus is now on the developer to come back to the Planning Department to rectify their concerns. A neighbourhood "working group" will be formed at some point which will address the concerns to the developer in hopes of working out a more satisfactory proposal or compromise. Down the road there's always the OMB if it gets to that. The City Councillor Kristyn Won-Tam was there, she didn't speak unless she did so after I left. If I recall, she's not one to be in the pockets of big developers, her roots are firmly planted in the community and I have a good feeling she'll be listening and fighting for her constituents. She's my patio lady!
Towered
Senior Member
I'm all for new developments and towers and the like most of the time, but this is one awful proposal that should be rejected outright. The heritage buildings should be kept fully intact, not chopped in half or insensitively facedomized. This could be done with giving the tower a smaller footprint. One need only take the example of Five on Yonge. In exchange, allow them to build taller. Hell, give them 50 stories if they want - what really matters is what happens at street level, which is where this proposal utterly fails.
Design Wallah
New Member
dear god. it's tawdriness is breathtaking. this one may inspire a whole near category of pug awards.
marsh
Active Member
i agree the design is truly awful and completely inappropriate for the location. I hope the developer comes back with something more appropriate.
greenleaf
Senior Member
From: Toronto OpenFile: "Church-Wellesley group chalks up temporary win"
"On Feb. 23, the developer that had applied to raze a block of heritage buildings asked the city for a six-month hold on its proposal to build a 25-storey condo development. As reasons for reconsidering, the developer cited objections raised by the planning department, Ward 27 councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam and the neighbourhood association.
The city returned the developer’s rezoning and demolition application in December with a recommendation to deny it. Church 18 Holdings could have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, but instead it stuck by a spokesman’s original statement that it was “looking forward to working with the community.”
City planner Willie Macrae says he’s not surprised that the developer is rethinking its proposal. The heritage committee, for one, strongly recommended that the city reject the proposal, writing that it “is totally out of scale with the rest of the block,” and would “result in total loss of the heritage character … of the streets.”"
"On Feb. 23, the developer that had applied to raze a block of heritage buildings asked the city for a six-month hold on its proposal to build a 25-storey condo development. As reasons for reconsidering, the developer cited objections raised by the planning department, Ward 27 councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam and the neighbourhood association.
The city returned the developer’s rezoning and demolition application in December with a recommendation to deny it. Church 18 Holdings could have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, but instead it stuck by a spokesman’s original statement that it was “looking forward to working with the community.”
City planner Willie Macrae says he’s not surprised that the developer is rethinking its proposal. The heritage committee, for one, strongly recommended that the city reject the proposal, writing that it “is totally out of scale with the rest of the block,” and would “result in total loss of the heritage character … of the streets.”"
whatever
Senior Member
If I was the developer I'd shelve the project, too. Way smarter (development-wise) to wait for the Church/Isabella and Church/McGill projects to go ahead and set precedents for height along the strip. Then they can come in a couple years from now and propose something in the ~30s range and have other nearby buildings to point to when they make their argument at the OMB.
Not saying I'm in favour of that big a tower at that location, mind you. Just saying if I was a developer that's what I'd do.
Not saying I'm in favour of that big a tower at that location, mind you. Just saying if I was a developer that's what I'd do.
marsh
Active Member
so glad that this proposal is not going ahead!
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Right on, some developers just think they can do what they want to a neighbourhood, keep whats there and spruce it up.. it sure beats out that ugly proposal.
Last edited:
DC83
Senior Member
Amen! I didn't know one person who was in favour of this development! Keep it as-is! The Village should concentrate on smaller in-fill projects to keep it's intimate setting. How about developing that Beer Store land?
CanadianNational
Senior Member
^ Amen.
I think most of the architecture on this block needs renovation and saving, not this belittling fate. I think the building on the corner of Church and Gloucester is the only one that might merit demolition.
Actually, some people might not agree with me, but I think that whole block from Wellesley to Dundonald on the west side of Church could go. All if it. Dear ol' Slack's and Progress Place could be reincorporated after construction (on an upper office floor?), and a proper LCBO put in.
A theatre could be the jewel in a complex like this - kinda like the Castro in San Fran? Talk about a community magnet. A good place to have midnight screenings, shows, etc. A long and lovely strip of high-ceilinged retail here could be a boon. A kind of village-sized One Bedford.
The buildings from Dundonald to Isabella are, I think, are barely beneficial to the street. It's too bad that when they were built, Church Street was seemingly not considered at all.
One building I'm anxious to see readapted or redeveloped is the terrible saggy old thing on the North-East corner of Church and Wellesley. I went into the bathhouse in the basement of it once, and as I was laying out my towel to take the air, a huge cockroach fell out of the ceiling, and scampered down my back. I didn't stay.
I'm amazed the place hasn't collapsed or gone up in flames. I hope something's done soon, though I don't know if there's much left to save. But if the historic buildings at Adelaide and Sherbourne and the Shangri-La site can be restored, then maybe this one can be too.
I think most of the architecture on this block needs renovation and saving, not this belittling fate. I think the building on the corner of Church and Gloucester is the only one that might merit demolition.
Actually, some people might not agree with me, but I think that whole block from Wellesley to Dundonald on the west side of Church could go. All if it. Dear ol' Slack's and Progress Place could be reincorporated after construction (on an upper office floor?), and a proper LCBO put in.
A theatre could be the jewel in a complex like this - kinda like the Castro in San Fran? Talk about a community magnet. A good place to have midnight screenings, shows, etc. A long and lovely strip of high-ceilinged retail here could be a boon. A kind of village-sized One Bedford.
The buildings from Dundonald to Isabella are, I think, are barely beneficial to the street. It's too bad that when they were built, Church Street was seemingly not considered at all.
One building I'm anxious to see readapted or redeveloped is the terrible saggy old thing on the North-East corner of Church and Wellesley. I went into the bathhouse in the basement of it once, and as I was laying out my towel to take the air, a huge cockroach fell out of the ceiling, and scampered down my back. I didn't stay.
I'm amazed the place hasn't collapsed or gone up in flames. I hope something's done soon, though I don't know if there's much left to save. But if the historic buildings at Adelaide and Sherbourne and the Shangri-La site can be restored, then maybe this one can be too.
Last edited:
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
City council will be deciding on whether or not to grant Heritage Designation to the Church Gloucester "Mansions" this Tues, July 12th (photos below). If you support saving these historic buildings please send a brief email supporting the designation of these buildings. Please cite item TE8.9 and send to the City Clerk, Mayor Ford and Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam (Ward 27), below are their email addresses so you can easily copy & paste:
clerk@toronto.ca; mayor_ford@toronto.ca; councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca
Every email counts!!!
To view the designation document, here is the link (you have to scroll down to "TE8.9"):
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisio...on=doPrepare&meetingId=4419#Meeting-2011.CC10
clerk@toronto.ca; mayor_ford@toronto.ca; councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca
Every email counts!!!
To view the designation document, here is the link (you have to scroll down to "TE8.9"):
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisio...on=doPrepare&meetingId=4419#Meeting-2011.CC10
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
Of course, keep in mind that in a rogue Ford-mayoralty situation, just one "property rights" fly in the ointment can be enough to overrule an otherwise overwhelming pro-designation consensus. (Maybe. Though not if KWT can help it, I'll suppose.)
CanadianNational
Senior Member
This went up in 2009, showing the block and recommendations:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-22247.pdf
Now these are most definitely just my opinions:
I think 580-582 and 592 Church should remain untouched. Happily, 580-582 are listed. 592 (the yellow brick apartment building), is not listed, but is one complete building. With some serious TLC, it could probably clean up real good. I think a facedectomy would be an awful fate for it. It should be saved.
67 Gloucester: This Gloucester Mansion apartment building I think should also be perfectly retained in it's entirety. It should not be touched. It's lovely and classic.
596 Church: The other Gloucester Mansion building on the corner at is presently part dump, part pretty. It looks like what was an original house at the back was partly demolished and built right out to the sidewalk at the front. The back portion is actually quite lovely. The front part is an lousy block of a thing.
If there was some way to restore the building back to one integral, good looking structure, I'd be for it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have too many qualms about demolishing this one. It's a bad corner building.
584 Church: This house is currently operating successfully as a spa. Although it doesn't add much to the street life, it's not a pain either. Seeing as it's not a blight or a difficulty, I don't think it needs to be altered.
If someone followed my rules (har!) I don't see how a tower could go here. I would rather see a developer focus their attention either south or north where there are really problematic gaps and buildings on the streetscape.
I've highlighted empty lots - or buildings that have lifeless fronts that don't contribute much to the street - in pink.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-22247.pdf
Now these are most definitely just my opinions:
I think 580-582 and 592 Church should remain untouched. Happily, 580-582 are listed. 592 (the yellow brick apartment building), is not listed, but is one complete building. With some serious TLC, it could probably clean up real good. I think a facedectomy would be an awful fate for it. It should be saved.
67 Gloucester: This Gloucester Mansion apartment building I think should also be perfectly retained in it's entirety. It should not be touched. It's lovely and classic.
596 Church: The other Gloucester Mansion building on the corner at is presently part dump, part pretty. It looks like what was an original house at the back was partly demolished and built right out to the sidewalk at the front. The back portion is actually quite lovely. The front part is an lousy block of a thing.
If there was some way to restore the building back to one integral, good looking structure, I'd be for it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have too many qualms about demolishing this one. It's a bad corner building.
584 Church: This house is currently operating successfully as a spa. Although it doesn't add much to the street life, it's not a pain either. Seeing as it's not a blight or a difficulty, I don't think it needs to be altered.
If someone followed my rules (har!) I don't see how a tower could go here. I would rather see a developer focus their attention either south or north where there are really problematic gaps and buildings on the streetscape.
I've highlighted empty lots - or buildings that have lifeless fronts that don't contribute much to the street - in pink.
Last edited: