Lawrence Orton Project

[Northern Light]

@AlexBozikovic has an excellent column in the Globe (currently not paywalled) looking at the renewal of 3947 Lawrence Avenue East and the surrounding buildings. This is a TCHC site, which has now undergone some standard 'Tower Renewal' type work with new windows and balcony railings, and been given a new childcare centre.

Next up will be a renewed lobby and cladding.

Column here:

A public housing tower gets a daycare, and a new lease

City-run daycare designed by Toronto architects SvN, with renovation of the tower with ERA Architects, captures the challenges that such projects present

www.theglobeandmail.com

Here's a 'before shot' via Streetview:

Current state, also via Streetview (from January)

This is more recent still and from SvN's website:

Lots of renders and tracking progress pics here: https://svn-ap.com/projects/lawrence-orton-community-and-daycare/

****

Very good project so far, looking forward to seeing more.

****

Additional observations:

Very isolated community in that it is surrounded by ravine parklands on 3 sides:

Through fronting all that ravine parkland, access to same is fairly poor. There is no access point on the west side of the bridge, and with a six-lane version of Lawrence, one would likely need to cross at the traffic light at many times of day.

Access to the ravine is almost 500M away:

Though seemingly parks rich, the site actually lacks a park with a playground or sports amenities in close proximity.

There are many school yards relatively close, but access is often cumbersome.

It's fairly clean access, but over 500M to Willow Park Jr. Public school to the south-east.

Galloway Road public school is across an uninviting bridge, and almost as far 'as the crow flies'; but access appears to require a longer trip with no visible cut-throughs from Kingston Rd.

This section of Lawrence in general is not very hospitable to pedestrians. But the bridge strikes me as an acute barrier, particularly in winter.

Wider sidewalks, with snowmelt systems; cycle tracks, attractive railings and parapet walls would do wonders here.

 

[junctionist]

It’s incredible how higher density housing was built here with such inadequate infrastructure for pedestrians despite all the potential for greatness. To cut people off from ravines and from the amenities of the surrounding community by massive arterial roads and poor or missing pedestrian connections is the epitome of poor urban planning.

 

[interchange42]

It’s incredible how higher density housing was built here with such inadequate infrastructure for pedestrians despite all the potential for greatness. To cut people off from ravines and from the amenities of the surrounding community by massive arterial roads and poor or missing pedestrian connections is the epitome of poor urban planning.

Everyone assumed everyone would have a car back then, or that a bus every 20 minutes would be just fine for the few who didn't.

42

 

[AlbertC]

There's a page about the Lawrence Orton Project on LGA's website which says it's in progress. Looks like they could be involved with the renewal of the surrounding buildings around the tower:

https://lga-ap.com/project/residential/tchlawrenceorton

 

[AlbertC]

Some commentary and more photos available of the Lawrence Orton project in this Azure article:

(Almost) Never Demolish: Reviving Social Housing Through Preservation

Across North America, these architects and community leaders are fostering more socially and environmentally sustainable modes of rebuilding publicly run housing.

www.azuremagazine.com

 

[Northern Light]

Some commentary and more photos available of the Lawrence Orton project in this Azure article:

(Almost) Never Demolish: Reviving Social Housing Through Preservation

Across North America, these architects and community leaders are fostering more socially and environmentally sustainable modes of rebuilding publicly run housing.

www.azuremagazine.com

Its an interesting piece; but one that skips over, or gives short shrift to some crucial reasons for demolition.

It isn't merely a matter of buildings in a poor state-of-repair, nor designs (ie tower-in-the-park) that are out of favour) that prompt demolition.

Three other factors come into play.

1) The cost and hassle of extensive rehabilitation, particularly if most residents remain, vs the cost of simply starting over. The hassle is not merely one for the provider of public housing, but also the residents, who may have to endure years, or
even a decade of construction noise and dust.

2) A need to re-intergrate communities to their surrounding environs. Many of these communities were built in an isolated way, roads were not run through them, or were closed if they once had. Buildings often turned their backs on main streets, and parks and other services were often sited, if offered at all, in a way in which only poor residents would use those blocks/services, resulting in a lower standard of care, and often less safety as well. Fixing that often requires substantial displacement of existing buildings.

3) The need/desire to promote mixed income communities. By and large, even a well-rehabbed public housing building will not attract market owners or tenants, assuming units were available (still some displacement). If you're going to move to mixed income, that requires not simply new, but replacement buildings. That requirement isn't simply about the quality or appearance of the one building either, its about erasing a troubled community's image.
Relatedly, assuming you could attract market-tenants to rehabbed older buildings, that still requires some displacement.

The above, is not, to my mind, advocacy for wholesale demolition, where none of the above reasoning applies.

If an existing development is well integrated into its surroundings, can be physically rehabbed with minimal displacement/infill, is already mixed income, or small enough in size that's not seen as important, then by all means, lets keep
and rehab the existing building stock.

I merely offer that the article is as reflexive in its aversion to demolition, as housing agencies have been in promoting same.

 

[Northern Light]

This project would seem to be headed to a round 2 as reflected in @AlbertC 's posting above.

On the agenda of TCHC's BIFAC Ctte is a report recommending ~8M in works at this site.

https://www.torontohousing.ca/events/Documents/BIFAC/2022%20BIFAC/Jan%2027%202022%20BIFAC/Item%206B%20-%20VAC21505%20CA%20Site%20Building%20Repairs%20and%20Retrofit%20at%203943%20to%203945%20Lawrence%20Avenue%20East%20(RFP%2021129-PP).pdf

From said report:

Interestingly, the report expresses some concern that the bid came in under the internal cost estimate; after confirming the lowest bidder understood the scope of work correctly, the recommendation is move forward.