Toronto Nicholas Residences | ?m | 35s | Urban Capital | Core Architects

St Nicholas - Community Consultation Update

The Community Consultation meeting was held last night.

The gym was packed! And overwhemingly, the people who attended were opposed to the developer's plans. You should have heard the collective gasp when the developer showed computer generated pictures of how the building would look on St. Nicholas. (The tower literally obliterated the sky and looked to me like some giant alien had invaded the street).

In response, Kyle Rae basically told the developer that they need to go back to the drawing board and he also asked the city to consider the heritage value of the planing mill, which they are doing.

Thank you to all of you showed up at the meeting (or simply offered your encouraging words of support on this forum).

The battle isn't over but this is a fantastic start!

ps. In response to the last message - I personally know the owners love their homes and take care of them and that couple owners recently spent thousands of dollars on repairs. I honestly think they show pride of ownership and I don't understand where you are coming from.
 
That's disappointing. I think this is where we should be seeing much more growth. It's the correct place for it to happen. It's the houses that shouldn't be there anymore if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
khristopher said:
That's disappointing. I think this is where we should be seeing much more growth. It's the correct place for it to happen. It's the houses that shouldn't be there anymore if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I agree, at the moment in a 1/2km radius to this location there are over 10 buildings of the same or greater height going up.
 
Okay then, it's pre-Crombie 1972 all over again. Everything left that's low-rise Victorian residential (or in Yonge's case, commercial) ought to go in the name of "intensification"...

It's funny how nobody in this thread's really pointed out what makes the cottages most charming and distinctive: not simply the bay-n-gable form, but the fact that they're each named for trees (Oak Cottage, Beech Cottage, etc). Surely, *that's* gotta tug at the pro-heritage heartstrings...
 
It's not so much a choice of leaving everything alone here or knocking it all down in the name of progress, which wouldn't be progress at all would it? 'Progress' would be developers taking more care to appreciate the specific contexts of their sites, whether they be heritage in nature or not. In this case a compromise is called for, and I find it hard to believe that it is impossible to conceive of a design that is respectful of the existing built form and scale while still adding some much-desired density. Maybe this just isn't an appropriate location for 1 Bloor-type development, no matter what else is going up in proximity, but that doesn't mean that a certain degree of density wouldn't work either. Cities are always more interesting when there are these little diverse pockets here and there and as Adma suggests, even in areas which support this sort of development in general, it would be incredibly ignorant to indiscriminately bulldoze everything in the belief that bigger and more dense is *always* the right response. Lazy developer. They can do better here.
 
Count me in with the opponents. I have no problem with height--in fact, there are very, very few recent projects I felt were truly out of scale in an opposition-worthy way. I'm actually disappointed, for example, that the proposed Royal Alex tower has been scaled back.

But in my ideal world, we would keep it to the main streets, where the sky should be the limit. One of Toronto's main strengths is the maze of Victorian bay-and-gables that begins just off the main drags in most of the central city, and those spatial transitions from high-rise to low are one of the city's great pleasures. Manhattan has managed this too, especially on the Upper East Side (west of Lex) where the high-rises are pretty much exclusively on the arterial roads. The effect is magical.

So I say yes to tall towers on Yonge, Bloor, College, King, Avenue, Dundas, whatever. But on St. Nicholas, and other streets like it? No way. We toy with our back streets at our peril. There is plenty of space for intensification elsewhere.

(NB: should note that there are some back streets where I think towers are fine--St. Thomas or Charles, to name two. But these are much less harmonious than the St. Nicholases and Granges and Macphersons of the world).
 
We're not talking about the bulldozing of the cottages, they are not at risk here. We're talking about the two buildings closest to the intersection of St. Mary & St. Nicholas.
 
I'm going to chime in here and say that although I generally support towers and welcome them, although I am in support of the development of the Distillery District, although some of the materials produced by those opposed to this plan were not well done (c'mon folks, your case is not helped by contrasting only the small cottages with the huge building beside, ignoring the many other existing towers in the area) - I still prefer exactly what is there on the site to the proposed tower.

Talking as if the cottages ought to be ripped down seems to me a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes cities - and Toronto - great and livable. And the cottages aren't even up for question. The former mill that is there is quite beautiful in its own way, even if not on the Inventory.

Personally, I believe the fracas is for nothing. This proposal is going to move ahead, either to be approved by the city or the OMB in much its current form, and in my view it will sit on the books for a good decade while the housing market recovers. No chance of anything getting built there, and ten years is a long time. As someone who does a lot of research into past approvals and projects, we tend to underestimate how many things get approved yet not built.
 
Thanks for the images androiduk ... haha funny no one showed these obvious pics before ... we all can truly see what residents are trying save in the debate here ~

attachment.php


attachment.php


IMHO ... I can see why these buildings weren't designated heritage, please name ANY architectural significance in these building?? nothing I could care to list ... its a box with NO FACADE DETAILS ... at best I can only see the facade of the mill (3 storey in 2nd picture?) incorporated into the final building design ... but even that mill doesn't seem that outstanding looking (very well maintained nonetheless) :)
 
Solaris, you know I love your posts, so I will respectfully disagree. Architectural merit is just one of reasons for a heritage designation, as I'm sure you are aware. Buildings can be heritage because of their context, their history, their associations. For instance, the decidedly unremarkable abode of East York firebrand mayor True Davidson is a heritage building, because of its association with the city.

The north building is uninspired. The south building is handsome, has loads of character and I will be sad to see it go - it may speak nothing to you, but to me it says a lot about the city and where it has been. As well, I cherish older buildings because their re-use potential is so much greater than newer buildings, especially with a condo above. As has been pointed out so many times, the retail that does end up in the base of condo towers is almost always uninspired, almost all the time. This could be a fabulous restaurant, house cheap offices for community groups, I don't know, it seems brimming with potential to me.

Having said all this, I wouldn't even necessarily say that it should be on the inventory, or that its existence should stop this project in its tracks, more that it's passing weighs on me.
 
Solaris said:
IMHO ... I can see why these buildings weren't designated heritage, please name ANY architectural significance in these building?? nothing I could care to list ... its a box with NO FACADE DETAILS ... at best I can only see the facade of the mill (3 storey in 2nd picture?) incorporated into the final building design ... but even that mill doesn't seem that outstanding looking (very well maintained nonetheless).
Click to expand...



The beautiful texture of the red brick? The elegant formality of the windows and brick surrounds? The urban scale? The heritage interest of the building's past as a mill? The pleasant feel and unexpected experience that the street with its mill and cottages offer? There is a lot to recommend the street in its existing form. This doesn't meen that development cannot or should not occur, but lets have development that embraces the assets of its context and contributes to it.
 
Last edited:
The ideal situation of course would be for the developer to put up a reasonably sized building and incorporate the 2 current buildings on the corner. Let's hope they can figure things out that way. Yes Archivist, it would weigh on me too. Good choice of words. The idea about the corner building being used as a restaurant is excellent. Maybe high end French cuisine.
 
Androiduk - are you suggesting that Le Matignon move a few doors down into the mill? I'm not sure how often they fill their seats in their present cottage location.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top