Toronto Residences at the RCMI Condos | 134.72m | 42s | Tribute | Zeidler

All I can add is that they might want to consider offering a combination of Autoshare and Zipcar vehicles. Each offers a payment structure ideal for different types of trips, and as a loyal member of Zipcar myself, I could never use Autoshare! They might also want to remove these cars from the general public reservation page, otherwise the cars might get used up by non residents.

Otherwise, I agree - let the market decide. Surely there are 300 people willing to buy a downtown condo with no parking. If not, go back to the drawing board and add parking.

On a side note, car sharing is more popular than you would think. My building has a zipcar lot, but most of the time I am forced to use another slightly farther lot because all of the cars are booked. In the last month, I've rented 10 zipcars, of which maybe 2 were from my local lot. For certain trips, I find myself booking a car days in advance, which almost defeats the entire purpose of car sharing.
 
Great decision

This is a great decision.

Put bluntly, requiring parking in new downtown development is contrary to providing affordable housing, and is contrary to sound ecological policy.

Particularly when the proposed development will all but sit on top of a subway station.

There may be reasons to oppose this development (though saving the current building in its current form is not likely one of them)

But parking is most certainly not.

As to staff morale, I among many others have told them time and again that this min. parking nonsense had to go. If they are too intransigent then their morale needs some chopping down. I wouldn't be proud of myself if I were championing only over-priced housing that was ecologically unsound. Their professional expertise is dubious at best.

***

As to lefties.....isn't Case Ootes still on Community Council, seems he didn't oppose this either (though I wouldn't call that a reference.....):D
 
taal said:
Vaughn turned that project down yet likes this one?

Does this mean it's going ahead??


Please oh please don't demolish it until they have enough sales!
Click to expand...

Vaughn didn't do anything himself really. He supported the Gansevroot project and this one with planning staff recommended refusal and council approved both proposals presumably due to his support.

It doesn't mean its going ahead. It just means its zoning is approved notwithstanding any OMB appeals.

Agreed on the not demolishing the building until its 100% a go. That would be unforgivable.
 
Northern Light said:
This is a great decision.

Put bluntly, requiring parking in new downtown development is contrary to providing affordable housing, and is contrary to sound ecological policy.

Particularly when the proposed development will all but sit on top of a subway station.

There may be reasons to oppose this development (though saving the current building in its current form is not likely one of them)

But parking is most certainly not.

As to staff morale, I among many others have told them time and again that this min. parking nonsense had to go. If they are too intransigent then their morale needs some chopping down. I wouldn't be proud of myself if I were championing only over-priced housing that was ecologically unsound. Their professional expertise is dubious at best.

***

As to lefties.....isn't Case Ootes still on Community Council, seems he didn't oppose this either (though I wouldn't call that a reference.....):D
Click to expand...

I'm uncertain how demolition of the historic building in favour of another generic condo is a great decision. Why do you have such a cavalier and dismissive attitude towards a unique structure? What is it that you hate so much about it that you want to see it relegated to such a degraded status?
 
I'm with jaborandi on this.....this is no way to treat an historic building....

I mean, where do you stop? Say, let's demolish that pesky Sony Centre, so that the L Tower can be built more cheaply....
 
Sony Centre

Since you asked.

I would mind if we tore down the Sony Center too. Its very unattractive, I hate the way it addresses just about every street it abuts.

I am all for preserving aesthetically pleasing buildings, of any era.

I am beyond irked that the Uptown and University Cinemas have been torn down, both were indisputably grand pieces of architecture, not to mention a great place to see a movie!

I would have loved to see that heritage building at Front + Yonge preserved or the post office on Adelaide.

But I honestly can say this building does much for me, in its current state, in its current context.

It feels quite out of place, and it doesn't even look very nice.

If its context had been protected, if it were in original mint condition, I would seriously entertain preserving it.

As it stands, I don't see it as much of a loss.

Sorry.

:(
 
The whole having permission to DEMOLISH the RCMI comes as news to me, having worked with Tribute on this before the summer. Everything we did was based on preserving the RCMI.

Glad to see the tower approved, but sad to see the RCMI going.

I will post renderings of the proposal that saved the RCMI soon, since it is now dead.
 
I wonder if by "demolish" they really mean "dismantle and store the facade off-site so that it can be reconstructed at a later date". That's all that was ever really talked about in the first place (it wasn't like the building could've stayed where it is while construction took place).

But then given the state of the facade I wonder if there's anything there even worth saving, or if it would just be more straightforward to construct something new that looks like something old (like what was done at Jazz, if I'm not mistaken)
 
This is, as far as I know, breaking new ground in terms of the lack of parking. Yes the place is almost on top of a subway station, and yes many people downtown don't have cars. But many of these people still want to drive at least some of the time (see Chuck's comment a few posts above), and there just may be the occasional out-of-town visitor looking for a place to park. It will be interesting to see how that aspect plays out.
 
Whoops

Obviously, ( I hope) I intended to say "I don't have any affection for the building in its current context and state"

I missed a negative! :eek:

****

I hasten to add that the report I originally read on this project called for demolition and reassembly of the facade and certain key elements of the RCMI in a state better than present (give or take a new tower on top)

Which I would support.

But I stand by the fact the building as it is today, no longer (sadly) anything special.
 
Home Top Stories
'Car-free' condo: 42 storeys, no parking

September 16, 2009 04:09:00
Donovan Vincent
CITY HALL BUREAU
A controversial 42-storey condo building that will be built without permanent parking spots cleared a key hurdle yesterday.

The Toronto-East York community council overruled city staff skeptical about the dearth of parking to allow a plan that provides for only nine car-share rental spots, plus 315 spaces for bicycles.

The condominium would go up on the site of the century-old Royal Canadian Military Institute on University Ave. near Dundas St., which would be demolished, with elements of its facade preserved at the base and a thin tower above.

"If you look at the evidence of what sells downtown, the majority of units under 750 square feet in the downtown core sell without parking,'' said Stephen Deveaux, a vice-president with the developer, Tribute Communities. Parking spots typically add $20,000 or more to the cost of a downtown condo.

Deveaux called the project, which still needs approval from full city council, an opportunity to design and market an "environmentally progressive building." With so many jobs and handy transit nearby, the units will sell, Deveaux said.

A staff report on the condo plan in May gave it thumbs-down, citing, for one, the lack of parking. It stated the car-free plan "runs counter to expert study and experience."

The idea materialized when Tribute realized the narrow site would provide "challenges" to constructing a parking garage.

Councillor Adam Vaughan, who represents the ward, called the car-free building "an interesting experiment and statement about the future of downtown living.''

It also won praise yesterday from Franz Hartmann, co-executive director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance, who said such buildings are uncommon – if they exist at all. "In the past it was natural to allocate parking spots, but in 21st century Toronto, where we're battling climate change, we don't need that any more,'' he said.

The few parking spots in the plan will be devoted to car-share arrangements, whereby residents can rent a car as needed by the hour.

The plan involves tearing down the decaying Royal Canadian Military Institute building, a private club constructed in 1907 that is on the city's inventory of heritage properties, and replacing it with a 6*1/2-storey structure that maintains elements of the façade. Above would rise a 35*1/2-storey condo tower with about 315 units, mostly one-bedroom.

The $65 million project is the fruit of a partnership between Tribute and the 1,500-member club. Construction could begin as early as next year and be done by 2013.

The building will continue to provide space for the club, its library and its extensive archival collection of military artifacts – including the seat of Baron von Richthofen's Fokker Triplane, its most famous item.

Though the institute's board has approved the project, several members at large oppose it.

Member Brian Lawrie told the community council that in 2007 Vaughan had "enthusiastically endorsed" keeping the building intact, calling it a "rare remnant of University Avenue's early days as a quiet boulevard dominated by trees, not highrises." He noted that the councillor had done a "180-degree turn" the next year by endorsing the demolition and condo project.

Normally, building plans follow a formula for how much parking space should be allowed; current standards, if applied to the building, would provide approximately 140 parking spaces for residents.

"To assume a residential development of the project's scale might be totally car-free runs counter to expert study and experience," the staff report stated. "Although there are many households in the downtown (area) without cars, it would be highly unlikely to find 315 of them permanently concentrated in one building."

It also stated that, "exempting the project from the city's parking standards would create a negative precedent that undermines the integrity of the parking provisions of the zoning bylaw."

But the project got the green light after Vaughan suggested a series of amendments to bring the building into what he later described as "better conformity" with the area.

The only way to save its museum and artifacts is to redevelop the site, Vaughan told the meeting.

The project goes to city council later this month for final approval.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top