The Kingsway

[Edward Skira]

It's no different than the buildings on Yonge Street having little impact on Rosedale or Forrest Hill.

 

[Malthus]

That's not a hard rule though by any means though. It would depend on a variety of things (ie. design, massing, neighbourhood issues, etc.)

Yeah, I agree with this. My remarks were particular to a residential neighbourhood whose distinctive or attractive feature is its unique streetscape.

 

[Malthus]

It's very unfortunate that they went with the Kingsway marketing. There's a chance that this might not do anything for Dundas retail. That's something that residents should demand from this developer. Of course the Kingsway is great for the houses and character, and it's definitely worth preserving. If condos are restricted to Dundas, and if they're designed properly, very little is going to change in the neighbourhood. In fact, with another retail strip nearby, it might just become a better place to live.

Yeah, I'm only tangentally aware of this particular development. Of course I've been by, but I don't know exactly what is planned (other than what's available in the articles and on the web).

I'm located at the other end of the Kingsway, so it won't directly affect me either way.

 

[Malthus]

It's no different than the buildings on Yonge Street having little impact on Rosedale or Forrest Hill.

Not sure I agree with that. Each situation has to be looked at individually; in this case, they are seemingly doing more than simply putting up a building fronting the street, it would appear they are encroaching into the neighbourhood as well - at least, according to what I've read.

 

[adma]

If anything's a threat to the Kingsway, it isn't condo encroachment, it's dopes replacing 20s/30s/40s dwellings with "in character" schmaltz--some of whom might be among those up in arms over condo encroachment, for all we know...

 

[Malthus]

If anything's a threat to the Kingsway, it isn't condo encroachment, it's dopes replacing 20s/30s/40s dwellings with "in character" schmaltz--some of whom might be among those up in arms over condo encroachment, for all we know...

There is certainly some of that about. So far, not a whole lot, thankfully.

Owning an original 1932 house myself, I can sort of understand why people would want to do it. The houses are beautiful inside and out, but they are 80 or so years old, which makes them expensive to upkeep - generally speaking everything needs renovation. We just spend a large pile of cash fixing up the original leaded glass windows and making them into thermal windows (we kept the original glass and frames, added clear glass on each side). Last winter, we often had ice forming on the *inside* of the windows.

Much can be done with careful renovation over time, but not everything. For example, there is no easy way to add insulation to the uninsulated walls. The walls don't appear to have easily accessed hollows for blowing insulation in, and replacing the walls on the inside would require removing the original wood panelling (which would subtract from the character of the place). Another possibility would be to add it to the outside and stucco over it, but this would change the whole look of the house.

Another practical issue is the narrowness of the staircases and enteranceway. It is very difficult to move stuff around.

Thing is, for some reason builders these days appear (as far as I've seen) to be quite unable to copy the original style of these houses. They seem to try, but what they create does not have the same spirit as the original. For myself, I prefer to live in a house with some character in spite of the inconveniences. I think the vast majority in the neighbourhood feel the same way - certainly if it is a McMansion you want, it would be a lot cheaper to but it elsewhere.

That being said, from my perspective it is not either/or: both condo encroachment and replacement housing are threats, albeit of a different nature; and so far at least, from what I can see both threats are pretty mild.

 

[Jarrek]

Much can be done with careful renovation over time, but not everything. For example, there is no easy way to add insulation to the uninsulated walls. The walls don't appear to have easily accessed hollows for blowing insulation in, and replacing the walls on the inside would require removing the original wood panelling (which would subtract from the character of the place). Another possibility would be to add it to the outside and stucco over it, but this would change the whole look of the house.

There is a method of blowing in polyurethane foam insulation into uninsulated wall cavities. It's expensive, but all you're left with are little holes in the wall. You might want to look into that.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Thing is, for some reason builders these days appear (as far as I've seen) to be quite unable to copy the original style of these houses. They seem to try, but what they create does not have the same spirit as the original. For myself, I prefer to live in a house with some character in spite of the inconveniences. I think the vast majority in the neighbourhood feel the same way - certainly if it is a McMansion you want, it would be a lot cheaper to but it elsewhere.

We have very skilled tradespeople to build our houses, but we are missing the craftsmen/women that were trained in carving decorative details, creating marble inlays or making stained glass windows, etc.

I know we can do it, though. The Hindu temple up in Rexdale was meticulously carved by artisans from India and it looks just like the real thing. Perhaps we should look into extending temporary work visas for people with these skills.

 

[Malthus]

There is a method of blowing in polyurethane foam insulation into uninsulated wall cavities. It's expensive, but all you're left with are little holes in the wall. You might want to look into that.

I know about that; I asked an 'expert' and was told that houses built in this era are apparently not suitable for that procedure.

 

[Malthus]

We have very skilled tradespeople to build our houses, but we are missing the craftsmen/women that were trained in carving decorative details, creating marble inlays or making stained glass windows, etc.

I know we can do it, though. The Hindu temple up in Rexdale was meticulously carved by artisans from India and it looks just like the real thing. Perhaps we should look into extending temporary work visas for people with these skills.

It seems to be more a question of overall style than one of craftsmanship. It is difficult for me to explain, as I'm no builder, but each house in the area is somewhat different, while maintaining an overall similarity in theme. They are often assymetric or otherwise irregular, but it works - modern houses in the same "style" tend to be somewhat lifeless compositionally in comparison, they have a more generic look about them.

 

[Jarrek]

I know about that; I asked an 'expert' and was told that houses built in this era are apparently not suitable for that procedure.

Why is that?

 

[Malthus]

Why is that?

Apparently, it's the way the walls were originally made. Old houses built before around 1940 allegedly do not have the type of regular wall cavities (created by predictable framing) required for this procedure.

I'm just repeating what I was told, I'm certainly not an expert on the matter.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Re: why we can't build houses like we used to. Even if we employ skilled artisans, we usually do so on 3000+ sq.ft monsters that are totally out of scale with the lots they sit on. There are decent new McMansions but they typically hit the property line on multiple sides and have awful landscaping. Throw in a double car garage and a double height entryway/spiral staircase and no amount of carvings will recapture the atmosphere of the older homes.

 

[Edward]

Most of older Toronto is cookie cutter boxy houses built right up to the property line with little land. The difference with the new areas is landscaping and the lack of large driveways. Majestic old trees make a huge difference.

 

[adma]

Apparently, it's the way the walls were originally made. Old houses built before around 1940 allegedly do not have the type of regular wall cavities (created by predictable framing) required for this procedure.

I'm just repeating what I was told, I'm certainly not an expert on the matter.

Ask someone who knows heritage. It doesn't matter whether your house qualifies as "historic"; just so long as you have advice from a specialist in the field...