Toronto St Lawrence Market North | 25.3m | 5s | City of Toronto | Rogers Stirk Harbour

interchange42 said:
There's no view from that place on the extreme left! How'd that separation distance get past the Low Buildings Guidelines?

42
Click to expand...

More importantly, those fences in front of the buildings kill street life. Why would the design review panel allow such anti-urban design? Maybe they were too busy worrying about the height being a few inches too tall for the Low Buildings Guidelines.
 
I like the design, but wouldn't a more appropriate permanent extension to the main market be to the south where the temporary market is now? Pedestrian flow is a big problem that is not being addressed with the new north market design (no tunnel, no bridge). A permanent "south market" would work well because users in the main market could walk south across a new covered bridge right into the the 2nd floor of the new south market. This new bridge crossing the Esplanade could be wide enough to allow space for tables and places for buskers. Overall, this approach would be simpler, and there is no great need for another park in that spot of the temp market (what is eventually envisioned) given the extensive liner park to east of Jarvis.
 
The market certainly works better where it is now as long as you're trying to get to/from it. When the vendors are set up outside it though, it feels like there's much less space to actually walk through the area than there was with the old location. People end up spilling out onto the road because people buying produce block off the whole sidewalk.
 
Toronto's buried treasure: Surprising discoveries at St. Lawrence Market, Summerhill LCBO

two surprising discoveries buried underneath the city have Toronto looking back at its past.
At St. Lawrence Market, new construction brought up evidence of three previous markets – the earliest was in 1831.

More + some old pics.........http://www.citynews.ca/2015/09/09/t...veries-at-st-lawrence-market-summerhill-lcbo/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a look mainly at the temporary Farmer's Market but it also shows a bit of the north market, which won't be around much longer.
 
Update from the Nov Government Management Committee Meeting:

The St. Lawrence Market North Redevelopment Project is being implemented in 3 major phases as follows:

Phase 1
Design and construction of a Temporary Market Building at 125 The Esplanade and client move. This phase was completed in June 2015.

Phase 2
Demolition of the existing St. Lawrence Market North Building at 92 Front St. including archaeological assessment and environmental remediation of the site in advance of new construction.

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the site revealed that the St. Lawrence Market North property has been the home to a market and market activities since at least 1803. The first permanent brick market building was erected on this site in 1831. The north end of the structure served as the Town Hall, and after 1834, the City Hall. The building was subsequently destroyed by the 1849 Toronto fire and replaced with new buildings in 1851, 1904 and the current north market building in 1968.

A Stage 2/3 archaeological assessment of the site was conducted by Golder Associates Ltd. in September 2015. Archaeological evidence for all phases of occupation of the Market has been recovered including foundation piers and a large arched flagstone sewer from the 1831 building, and the original pre-development ground surface preserved within the interior courtyard of the 1831 building.

In light of these significant archaeological findings, the next step is to receive the Official Report on the Stage 3 investigation findings approved by the Provincial Authority Having Jurisdiction. This Report will set the formal requirements for the subsequent required Stage 4 investigation including parameters for recovery of artifacts and mitigation of development impacts to ensure the conservation of structures that are of important historical value in the North St. Lawrence Market Redevelopment site. Following assimilation of this Report and its potential cost and schedule impacts to the project, the project will proceed with Stage 4 investigation. The existing building must be demolished to allow full site access before Stage 4 investigation can safely occur. The City's Archaeology Consultant has advised that this added step will result in project delay of 6 to 12 months depending on the extent and significance of further archaeological findings.

Phase 3
Design and construction of New St. Lawrence Market North Building. The Design Development Stage of the new St. Lawrence Market North Building has been completed. The project is currently in the Bid Documents Stage where City cost checks are required prior to calling for tenders.

The potential cost impact of a 6 to 12 month delay to the project schedule will be assessed upon receipt of the approved Stage 2/3 Archaeological Assessment Report from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport which will confirm the requirements for Stage 4 archaeological mitigation. Review and approval of the Stage 2/3 Archaeological Assessment Report is anticipated by the end of November 2015.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-85208.pdf

AoD
 
TL;DR: City can't get a bid price for construction of the new building until they have a firm construction date. Construction date can't be set until archaeological assessment timeline is determined. Archaeological assessment can't happen until the current building is demolished to allow for full site access. Thus the city is seeking funding to demolish the current building.

Also: "Year to date spending (as of September 30, 2015) is $2.081 million and it is estimated that only $2.6 million or 15.0% of the 2015 approved cash flow of $17.315 million will be spent by year-end." So we're probably looking at more delays, unfortunately.
 
At some point value engineering will become relocating the temporary tent to the south and make it the 'new' north market.
 
What's the rationale for a North Market building anyway? Maybe the city should sell the property to a developer...
 
The rationale is that we have a civic market function that needs space, and that we have courts that need space.

42
 
Agreed.

We should let the cheapskates know that we are not interested in a death-by-a-thousand cuts to this building.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top