Toronto Regent Park Central Park & Aquatic Centre | ?m | ?s | TCHC | MJMA

John Bently Mays wrote a sympathetic article about the building:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/architecture/as-regent-park-rebuilds-a-pause-to-consider-what-came-before/article9146731/

"Each of these award-winning blocks is a 14-storey stack of spacious two-level apartments that spread across the entire width of the building. When I visited one of the three-bedroom suites a few years ago, I found it to be a fine, honest expression of what mattered to the humane modern architects of mass housing in Mr. Dickinson’s day: excellent cross-ventilation, copious natural lighting, density without a sacrifice of privacy, and a strong sense of the social and communal. If the elevators were not kept in working order as time went by, if mindful maintenance was allowed to slide, if poverty wrecked the lives of the inhabitants – none of that is the fault of the architecture, which embodies a style of serious social conscience that should never be forgotten."

But...

"TCH, it should be noted, is not simply hell-bent on bulldozing everything standing in the way of its bright, shiny redevelopment scheme....[Mr. Burr said,] that the building is not viable for a conversion to a market condominium building, and any efforts to modify the building to meet current energy efficiency standards will significantly alter the functionality of the suites, and the exterior of the building, thus eliminating the original design intent.”

I guess I find it hard to believe that either the building is so far behind in code that it can't be renovated. If that's the case - what are people still doing in there? I guess that this, and other housing stock was falling far enough behind in repairs, efficiency and general modern building code specs that the only solution was to get people out wholesale - and tear them down, rather than try more piecemeal. Still, it's hard to believe that if the building was well and truly gutted, nothing could be done.
My second point of disbelief comes from the fact that even if bringing a tower up to code does impact the suites within, would it really be worse than many of the shoe box and closet-sized condos going up in the city, made of cardboard and spit? These have quite interesting layouts. I think in this case, where there's a strong enough general will, there could be a way. But - expensive to renovate, probably looking like an affront to former residents if it went condo, and unloved for decades - I think the general populace would rather spend the money on something brand new.
 
Last edited:
Most people who know heritage and architecture would agree that this building is significant enough to be deemed heritage. Heritage preservation is important in building a great city. It should be renovated.
 
Sure, but at what cost? And to whom?

I'm no gravy train snake-oil-salesman but considering the costs involved, I'm not sure that renovation would be the best use of funds.
 
The skip-stop hallway arrangement alone makes for really interesting unit layouts. Seems to have been a great success in some Toronto projects, such as at 20 Niagara (and the new TCHC Block 32 in CityPlace)... in fact, I'm surprised we don't see it done more often! I wonder if they could market units in this building as condominiums or market rentals to make up for the extra costs potentially involved in rejuvenating/modernizing the building.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but at what cost? And to whom?

I'm no gravy train snake-oil-salesman but considering the costs involved, I'm not sure that renovation would be the best use of funds.

It's labour intensive to repurpose a building like this, but it is sustainable in terms of embodied energy, carbon footprint etc. I should be behind preserving this one, but I have to be honest and admit that I'm indifferent. I find these 1950's projects depressing. The designs and urban thinking that spawned them never embodied any real vision or optimism, more of a demeaning paternalism. At a Corktown meeting I heard Pam Mcconnell state matter-of-factly that the building that they were going to restore was in fact coming down I think due to cost and hazards like asbestos (often a red herring).
 
Sure, but at what cost? And to whom?

I'm no gravy train snake-oil-salesman but considering the costs involved, I'm not sure that renovation would be the best use of funds.

TCH will fund it like the rest of Regent Park. Maintaining heritage and renovating good housing is an excellent use of funds. The Regent Park public/private partnership seems to have been quite effective at building higher-budget projects with excellent architecture, finishes and amenities. I don't see a renovation and restoration project as unreasonable.
 
Has anyone ever seen plans, sections, blueprints or elevations for any of these buildings? If so, I'd love to see some pictures, or some info on where to find them.
Also - I can't find a single shot of the interior of these buildings anywhere (though I haven't been to the Toronto Archive in person). Has anyone ever seen pictures of the apartment units in or close to their original state?
 
Sure, but at what cost? And to whom?

I'm no gravy train snake-oil-salesman but considering the costs involved, I'm not sure that renovation would be the best use of funds.

TCH will fund it like the rest of Regent Park. Maintaining heritage and renovating good housing is an excellent use of funds. The Regent Park public/private partnership seems to have been quite effective at building higher-budget projects with excellent architecture, finishes and amenities. I don't see a renovation and restoration project as unreasonable.

We don't know what the renovations are expected to cost however, so how can we know if this would be "reasonable" or not? Right now, TCH is facing a massive repair deficit and are under significant pressure to catch up. Many would consider anything extra to be frivolous spending, whereas others will find something extra acceptable. Just how much extra would have to be spent here to make the units livable over what the outright replacement building will cost is the key. So far, we are being told the difference is too great. I'd like to know what the figures are…

42
 
I wholeheartedly disagree. Renovating a 60 years old building is a massive deal. The costs are almost alway higher than new consruction. The units are large with little opportunity to subdivide. I think it's well within reason to expect renovation costs would exceed a million to per unit.
 
It's true that we have to see some reliable numbers. But renovating a building that's in good structural shape for the same use as before is generally not a big deal.

Altering the fundamental floor-slab structure of a building is 'not a big deal?' Not to mention things like asbestos removal and any other remediation one may encounter in the process?
 
Has anyone ever seen plans, sections, blueprints or elevations for any of these buildings? If so, I'd love to see some pictures, or some info on where to find them.
Also - I can't find a single shot of the interior of these buildings anywhere (though I haven't been to the Toronto Archive in person). Has anyone ever seen pictures of the apartment units in or close to their original state?

they do exist in the city docs for 14 Blevins as part of ERA's heritage review of it.
 
I wholeheartedly disagree. Renovating a 60 years old building is a massive deal. The costs are almost alway higher than new consruction. The units are large with little opportunity to subdivide. I think it's well within reason to expect renovation costs would exceed a million to per unit.

Is that an educated guess, or just a guess? A $million per unit seems exceedingly excessive.
 
Steel studs are going in for the brick at 180 Sackville

0cSDC1z.jpg
 

Back
Top