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

interchange42 said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes, I 'm sure they survive due to their tiny location, although they do have a good reputation. I was thinking something along the lines of Scaramouche. Or how about re-opening Bemelman's there, that would make everybody within 15 square miles happy.
 
St Nicholas

I don't know how many times I have to say this - we are not anti-development! We just want a development that respects the history and character of the street and that will enhance the neighbourhood.

We are also not against intensification but intensification doesn't mean erecting a skyscraper on every available peice of land in downtown Toronto. Just because we are surrounded by highrises doesn't automatically justify more highrises in the neighbourhood or on our street. This is a circular argument. At one point the entire neighbourhood was low rise - St Nicholas is and was evidence of that and so is some of the existing buildings on St Joseph and Irwin - as soon as one highrise goes up the developer points to that highrise as an excuse to erect more.

The current proposal was unacceptable for many reasons, which have already been discussed on this site, so I won't rehash it again.

The developer has been asked to go back and rethink their design. I think the suggestion that the existing mill building be preserved and incorporated into any new development is excellent!

I hope that the developers will take our concerns at heart and will come up with a design that will truly enhance the neighbourhood. We will take a fresh look at any new design they come up with.
 
^ Sounds good marsh. Just keep in mind that the developer is holding most of the good cards here. They own the land, the city wants more density and there's always the OMB. Two things you should also consider. If you go in screaming & yelling at the developer and ask for unreasonable concessions, they will just exclude you from the equation and take their chances with the OMB. If you demand a property that they can't make a decent profit on, then the project will probably suffer in some way. There has to be some give and take on both sides but I would start getting used to the fact that you're going to have a highrise of some kind on that corner.
 
thank you for the well balanced reality perspective androiduk :) ... the story needs to be told
 
Why would anyone want to protect the mill? It's hideous and does not fit the character of the cottages and the street.

Sure it's an old building, but that's about all it is. There are plenty like it with the exact same architecture found in every single small town in Ontario. We're not losing a piece of history by demolishing this square eyesore.

Now the cottages, I agree, save them. But they aren't even in the cards to be taken out. Just those two buildings on the north corner.

I'm still failing to understand why there is a public outcry on this one. Keep the good looking history (cottages), and get rid of history's blight (mill).
 
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course, and mine doesn't see the blight that Musters' does in the mill. The more northerly of the two buildings means nothing to me however.

Androiduk: Yes on Bemelman's, I heartily concur! Not that that would ever happen...

Janbe, it amazes me that you're essentially telling homeowners on this street to just roll over for the developer. Yes, change is coming to St. Nicholas St., but a company buys land for redevelopment knowing that piece of land has a context surrounding it. This smallish property exists within quite a complex context, which goes from 24 storeys across the street to 2 storeys immediately south of it. While the developer is going to look at the City's intention to intensify and say 'right off Yonge St., give us 44 floors', they are doing that knowing that they are going to get knocked back quite a bit, and will look practically altruistic when they come back with something that shows some sensitivity to the context south of them. If they are really smart they will propose to leave the mill as is, in situ, as a concession.

Marsh, you guys have to give up on 6 storeys. The developer will be granted more than that, and if you are not willing to see that your concerns will be left out of the equation when that deal is worked out, especially if it goes as far as the OMB. I don't think you have a hope of keeping it any lower than 24 storeys, because that exists across the street, and I would be very surprised if the builder weren't granted a couple more than that. Not much more though. See if you can get the developer to leave the mill as is as a buffer, and be prepared for a rectangular tower filling the entire site at the north end at around 28 floors. So give the City a little more space to here, as you do not want this to go to the OMB where the City will end up with less leverage in getting Section 37 benefits for your community.

42
 
musters said:
Why would anyone want to protect the mill? It's hideous and does not fit the character of the cottages and the street.

Sure it's an old building, but that's about all it is. There are plenty like it with the exact same architecture found in every single small town in Ontario. We're not losing a piece of history by demolishing this square eyesore.

Now the cottages, I agree, save them. But they aren't even in the cards to be taken out. Just those two buildings on the north corner.

I'm still failing to understand why there is a public outcry on this one. Keep the good looking history (cottages), and get rid of history's blight (mill).
Click to expand...

Okay, count me in with those who don't necessarily find the mill that heartstoppingly unique or exceptional or even something absitively, posolutely worth preserving--generically speaking, there's plenty like it all around (not that that's bad or anything). But unless your urban aesthetic sensibility's suspended in 1955 or 1965 or something, "hideous", "eyesore", "history's blight" is a little on the hyperbolic side, isn't it? And as far as its "not fitting the character" goes...uh, beyond the industrial/commercial-next-door-to-residential part, how is that really the case--especially since the building seems to have settled in and adapted itself to Regis College quite comfily, at no harm to its surroundings? Honestly, if your "good looking history vs blight" urban/heritage approach ruled, a good deal of non-residential Toronto (the Kings, Liberty Village, etc) would *never* have seen adaptive reuse, Kensington wouldn't be worth cherishing, and Jane Jacobs would have been laughed out of this town as a lunatic. If such stuff was truly such a hideous eyesore and blight, why is it not uncommon to see it being cherished and adaptively reused all across the province?

If you wanna argue against the mill, don't use such obtuse arguments that are amateurishly ignorant as to the *broader* scope of what "heritage sensitivity" means in 2008. It only undermines your case.

Then again, as I think of it, and this may sound NIMBY-haywire to the pro-development crowd, but...consider the whole St Nicholas/St Mary/Yonge/Irwin block as it currently stands, and how it forms a remarkably polyglot-yet-cohesive, intensive, interesting unit of ever-adapted urban form that hasn't seen much in the way of non-cosmetic physical change in well over a half century (i.e. since the north Regis and Scientology buildings). Hey, concerned neighbourhood interests, let's take a more ambitious step here--why not commission an heritage-conservation-district-style urban/historical study of the entire block? Given the block in question, my gut judgment is: it fits...
 
I'm an owner and a long-time resident at Polo I, right behind the proposed St. Nicholas site. Like most people I'm not opposed to development of the site, though I would like to enhance the look of the area as much as possible. I think there's a risk that those opposed might "win" a height reduction to 25 stories, but have it turn out to be generic, concrete forms. Alternatively, a 45 story building with a wonderful atrium that either compliments (or beautifully contrasts) the row houses would be a better outcome.

The area I think would benefit from more pedestrian traffic, and there could also be the possibility of extending the brick roadway north to Charles (they recently extended it south of Irwin).

One thing no one has mentioned yet - at the south end of this block there's a three story, commercial building (the NE corner of St. Nicholas and Irwin) which houses a hair salon, printing shop, etc. I could imagine some developer putting that package of land together, along with the Ethiopian restaurant and the now-closed bar and bringing forward a proposal there as well. The row houses could be sandwiched between two different developments!
 
eloodi95 said:
One thing no one has mentioned yet - at the south end of this block there's a three story, commercial building (the NE corner of St. Nicholas and Irwin) which houses a hair salon, printing shop, etc. I could imagine some developer putting that package of land together, along with the Ethiopian restaurant and the now-closed bar and bringing forward a proposal there as well. The row houses could be sandwiched between two different developments!
Click to expand...

Re the N side of Irwin, from the Inventory of Heritage Properties...

6 IRWIN AV Residential 27 403-76 Architectural Contextual Part of a row of houses at 6-14 Irwin Ave., c.1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974 DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL on August 18, 1976
8 IRWIN AV Residential 27 403-76 Architectural Contextual Part of a row of houses at 6-14 Irwin Ave., c.1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974 DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL on August 18, 1976 (heritage easement agreement, Registered CT977982, Sept. 14/88)
10 IRWIN AV Residential 27 403-76 Architectural Contextual Part of a row of houses at 6-14 Irwin Ave., c.1884 -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974, DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL ON August 18, 1976
12 IRWIN AV Residential 27 Architectural Contextual As above
14 IRWIN AV Residential 27 Architectural Contextual As above
 
adma said:
Then again, as I think of it, and this may sound NIMBY-haywire to the pro-development crowd, but...consider the whole St Nicholas/St Mary/Yonge/Irwin block as it currently stands, and how it forms a remarkably polyglot-yet-cohesive, intensive, interesting unit of ever-adapted urban form that hasn't seen much in the way of non-cosmetic physical change in well over a half century (i.e. since the north Regis and Scientology buildings). Hey, concerned neighbourhood interests, let's take a more ambitious step here--why not commission an heritage-conservation-district-style urban/historical study of the entire block? Given the block in question, my gut judgment is: it fits...
Click to expand...

Great post Adma.

Good ideas from Interchange too. Compromise will be the key. The area is diverse and can handle different shapes and sizes of building as long as there is cohesion/respect at street level which is what makes these streets so appealing and unique for the immediate downtown core area.
 
Amen to that - and to the comments by interchange and adma. We can enjoy Mr. Peanut, and the gingerbread houses, and the mill too - if done well.
 
I like the idea too of commissioning a heritage study for the entire area. The area is full of beautiful historic buildings - like the rowhomes of St. Joseph street, the wharehouse and renovated apartment building on St. Joseph, the low building (which houses an art gallery) on St. Nicholas, south of Charles.

I also like the idea of extending the cobblestones up to Charles Street. Extending the cobblestones south of St. Joseph to Wellesley and the improved lighting has made a huge difference. It used to be down right scarey and I would never walk it. Now I walk that alley/lane all the time and see lots of other people do so too. In fact, walking down that lane gives me a feeling of wharehouse district which I quite enjoy. I actually think the renovated apartment building on St. Joseph, which preserved the original brick structure, is a good design. In fits the site well and preserved the history and the highrise component is set back and not in your face on the street.

I think the challenge with the St. Nicholas street is site is that it is such a small site.

I am still hopeful that we can reach an accomodation with the developers but in the meantime I think we (the residents) who care about the history of this neighbourhood should do what has been suggest - get a heritage study of the entire area so there can be some cohesive development that takes into account the character of the neighbourhood.
 
Marsh, bear in mind that a heritage study will likely take many months: fewer if the area studied is small, or more the larger the area gets, and even determining what area should be studied will take time. Meanwhile, the City only has so much time before it must respond to the developer's applications as the project moves through the development process. You need to know how this project fits into the STAR system, which is spelled out here. You'll find lots more on the City's website that you'll need to know about the development process.

Keep us posted.

42
 
Do you care about this one?

I'm curious what the Nicholas Nimbys (that sounds like Charles Dickens novel), think of the 49 storey tower planned for 11-19 & 25 Nicholas St?

Not sure if there is a thread for this yet.
JOYONGE DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION (Diamond Corp)
Also 608-618 Yonge St. & 5-9 St. Joseph St.
 
BMyers - does that have anything to do with this aging proposal?

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top