Toronto 250 University | 155.76m | 47s | Northam | Arcadis

Ottawan said:
As it is and should remain, taken today:

View attachment 143191
Click to expand...

Agree but I've given up expecting actual historic preservation in Toronto. If we can take the Concourse Building down and re-erect 2 walls, I don't see what hope there is for this one. Facadectomies equal preservation in this city.

We'll get some walls to remind us of what once stood there and a tower above it. 98% of this building will end up at the city dump like all the other historic buildings we 'preserve'.
 
isaidso said:
We'll get some walls to remind us of what once stood there and a tower above it. 98% of this building will end up at the city dump like all the other historic buildings we 'preserve'.
Click to expand...

No it won't
 
isaidso said:
Agree but I've given up expecting actual historic preservation in Toronto. If we can take the Concourse Building down and re-erect 2 walls, I don't see what hope there is for this one. Facadectomies equal preservation in this city.

We'll get some walls to remind us of what once stood there and a tower above it. 98% of this building will end up at the city dump like all the other historic buildings we 'preserve'.
Click to expand...

The Concourse Building was subject to approvals almost 20 years old. That's not the case here.
 
Gee, don't know what all the drama is about? if you keep it intact and build the right tower above,
..after all it's University ave where tall and taller shouldn't be a problem
 
Automation Gallery said:
Gee, don't know what all the drama is about? if you keep it intact and build the right tower above,
..after all it's University ave where tall and taller shouldn't be a problem
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. Not every building in Toronto needs a 40+ story plopped on top of it because "we need more density". Especially a gem of a historical building such as this one. If we're going along with that thought process, we might as well start plopping towers on top of buildings like the CBC Broadcast Centre, the ACC, the St.Lawrence Market, etc. no matter how flawed the logic of the proposal would be.
 
My take: Leave it alone.

Imagine a building designed by an award-winning local architect. More than half a century old, it’s solidly built and beautifully detailed, wrapped in granite accented with brass. Now imagine sticking a 44-storey stack of condos – clumsily designed, awkwardly detailed – on top of that.

A terrible idea, right? Yet this is exactly what’s at stake with a new development application for 250 University Avenue, a building constructed for the Bank of Canada in 1958...
 
A major problem for buildings that deserve heritage protection is that we don't have strong enough laws to protect them (and therefore keep the value of the land down), nor a property tax regime that's favourable to preserving smaller buildings. 401 Richmond is only going to be saved because of a new tax class for arts and culture hubs. Don't want to have to fight this fight for each threatened building? Get involved in advocacy for an improved the heritage protection system.

42
 
Now i'm actually curious, who/which groups would be the appropriate people to contact regarding trying to preserve this building? Personally, I have no shame in contacting them whatsoever.

I'm sure most Torontonians would be against this particular type on non-sense going up if they heard about it, but most of them aren't aware that this proposal is even out there.
 
I'm sure the developer did his homework before purchasing this building and knew very well if they didn't touch the shell they could apply to the city in a good manner to build over top,
.. whats wrong with that? now its up to the city to decide if its the right or wrong project for this half a century structure

Wow, people here are so freaked over this, imagine the sleepless nights they'll have when Larco finally proposes 1 or 2 - 60-80 storey skyscrapers over top and back of the beautiful Dominion of Canada building.:D
 
One thing I've been wondering about: was the original building designed to accommodate extra storeys? (Often they are.)
 
What a piece of crap. The challenge was building something compatible with something that is perfectly executed. That's hard, but they failed.

On its own, next door, nearby, I think it could be considered compatible.

It seems there is nothing a developer doesn't think could have a tower added to. I am reminded of some other crap on University, like the Royal Canadian Military Institute. Really, that building should have been relocated.

Why the existing building is not heritage-designated is beyond me.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top