yyzer
Senior Member
No offence to AnnH, but I think that anyone looking for "respite" while living only a couple of blocks from Yonge & Bloor is being just a bit unrealistic....
Toronto Nicholas Residences | ?m | 35s | Urban Capital | Core Architects
- Thread starter jaborandi
- Start date
Solaris
Senior Member
I see the proposed development on this site as merely 'evolution of the City' where intensification happens and NIMBY-ism fight back
while I do not agree with the 44s idea, heights comparable to existing towers along Bay should be expected here ... to expect no high density in redevelopment proposals (or no developments) may be unrealistic in areas of regeneration such as this (where towers are going up nearby such as 77 Charles W, Casa, BSN, U condos etc)
a possible solution that may come out of the consultation / design modification process could be twin point towers at reduced heights ... gaps between the towers will reduce shadow impacts and cast shorter shadows ... just my thoughts
while I do not agree with the 44s idea, heights comparable to existing towers along Bay should be expected here ... to expect no high density in redevelopment proposals (or no developments) may be unrealistic in areas of regeneration such as this (where towers are going up nearby such as 77 Charles W, Casa, BSN, U condos etc)
a possible solution that may come out of the consultation / design modification process could be twin point towers at reduced heights ... gaps between the towers will reduce shadow impacts and cast shorter shadows ... just my thoughts
bgd
New Member
agreed, the modernist block across the street is much more of a blight on the area than this proposed tower could ever be.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
a possible solution that may come out of the consultation / design modification process could be twin point towers at reduced heights ... gaps between the towers will reduce shadow impacts and cast shorter shadows ... just my thoughts
Is this project not planned north of these residential homes.
androiduk
Senior Member
^ Yes, you're right. There should be no shadow problems since the other 3 corners at this intersection contain high rises ranging between 10 & 28 storeys. I live about a block and a half away from this development and I don't have a big problem with it, although I'd like the height reduced by about 10 storeys. It's too bad they can't incorporate the existing buildings into the design since they certainly add a lot of charm to the street.
adma
Superstar
From the Inventory of Heritage Propertiesm covering this stretch of St Nicholas...
45 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual Part of row of houses at 45-63 St. Nicholas St.; 1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
47 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual SEE 45 St. Nicholas Street
49 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual Part of row of houses from 45-63 St. Nicholas St.; 1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
51 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual Part of row of houses from 45-63 St. Nicholas St.; 1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
53 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual Part of row of houses from 45-63 St. Nicholas St.; 1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
55 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual Part of row of houses from 45-63 St. Nicholas St.; 1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
57 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual Part of row of houses from 45-63 St. Nicholas St.; 1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
59 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual Part of row of houses from 45-63 St. Nicholas St.; 1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
61 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual Part of row of houses from 45-63 St. Nicholas St.; 1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
63 ST NICHOLAS ST Residential 27 Architectural Contextual Part of row of houses from 45-63 St. Nicholas St.; 1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
79 ST NICHOLAS ST Commercial 27 Architectural Warehouses -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
81 ST NICHOLAS ST Commercial 27 362-2006 Architectural Warehouses -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974,DESIGNATION BY-LAW ENACTED BY CITY COUNCIL on May 25, 2006
85 ST NICHOLAS ST Commercial 27 362-2006 Architectural Warehouses -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974
androiduk
Senior Member
^ According to this list, the properties where the developer wants to build aren't heritage. The proposed developments address is 67 St . Nicholas. The protected warehouses @ 79, 81 & 85 St. Nicholas are farther north between St. Mary & Charles St. They currently house an art gallery, a make-up school and a high tech gym.
Solaris
Senior Member
Heritage Listing vs Designation
further to androiduk's comment, I'd like to point out that the Subject Site here is addressed as "15 St Mary St, 65+67 St Nicholas St" which are not listed nor designated as heritage properties.
See St Nicholas Street heritage properties listing at: http://app.toronto.ca/heritage/search.do?number=&street=ST+NICHOLAS+ST&ward=&district=&details=&details2=&type=
With respect to Victorian townhouses to the south at 45-63 St Nicholas St, these properties are only listed for heritage interests and not designated heritage properties, and hence would not be protected from redevelopment under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA).
The B-grade office to the immediate north @ 702 Yonge St is not listed nor designated heritage. The warehouse @ 79 St Nicholas St is listed but not designated heritage. But it should be noted that the warehouses @ 81-85 St Nicholas St are actually designated heritage properties subject to protection under the OHA .
further to androiduk's comment, I'd like to point out that the Subject Site here is addressed as "15 St Mary St, 65+67 St Nicholas St" which are not listed nor designated as heritage properties.
See St Nicholas Street heritage properties listing at: http://app.toronto.ca/heritage/search.do?number=&street=ST+NICHOLAS+ST&ward=&district=&details=&details2=&type=
With respect to Victorian townhouses to the south at 45-63 St Nicholas St, these properties are only listed for heritage interests and not designated heritage properties, and hence would not be protected from redevelopment under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA).
The B-grade office to the immediate north @ 702 Yonge St is not listed nor designated heritage. The warehouse @ 79 St Nicholas St is listed but not designated heritage. But it should be noted that the warehouses @ 81-85 St Nicholas St are actually designated heritage properties subject to protection under the OHA .
adma
Superstar
Though I wouldn't mind if it were--ditto with 10 St Mary to the north (where the E.R.A. architectural office is located).
To some degree, as a final and inflexible judge of merit, take the Inventory of Heritage Properties with a grain of salt--though maybe less for what it includes than for what it leaves out. A lot of the time, it's a creature of fortuitous chance and circumstance. All the same, take seriously what it *does* include, even if it's "only" listed...
DarnDirtyApe
Active Member
If I had my way I'd blow up 25 St. Mary's and build some imitation ye olde Victorian buildings in it's place. I'd imagine the population density would be the same as the current tower-in-a-park.
Feel free to denounce me now for my Cheddingtonista views...
Feel free to denounce me now for my Cheddingtonista views...
ganjavih
Senior Member
Feel free to denounce me now for my Cheddingtonista views...
Personally, I think the Cheddington has been unfairly maligned on this forum.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Save St. Nick? From what? Could you please explain (beyond knee-jerk height reactions) why this is not a good idea?
Personally, I think the Cheddington has been unfairly maligned on this forum.
No. It's gross. Its treatment here has been fully deserved.
Archivist
Senior Member
Solaris, I find that map quite interesting. Is it something that is publicly available?
I can't believe we've gotten into the Cheddington again! My goodness it's vile, and very unkind of ganjavih to post it again for me to see it on a cold blustery Wednesday morning. What did we do to you? Are you angry at us?
I can't believe we've gotten into the Cheddington again! My goodness it's vile, and very unkind of ganjavih to post it again for me to see it on a cold blustery Wednesday morning. What did we do to you? Are you angry at us?
Solaris
Senior Member
urbandreamer
recession proof
Clearly, the tower in the park thingy must be blown up. And replaced by a 6-10 story red brick Saucier+Perotte building, sort of like their New College building only with an interior courtyard, only an apt building. This condo proposal should be turned down--maximum of 10 stories here, because this "old Toronto streetscape" should be preserved.