My initial thought was that this tower wouldn't look too out of place among the recently built or under construction, boxy, balconied architectural clusterf**ks of Church St., but certainly not within eyeshot of Yonge St.. But then a cursory glance at the detritus we've already greenlighted, built or are building on or around TOs main street soon brought me to my senses and reassured me that, yes, this one will do quite 'nicely' here. I certainly realize that not every tower that goes up in TO can be a Gehry or a Foster and Partners masterpiece, but surely the good folks at city hall have some responsibility for establishing guidelines for what is or isn't acceptable on Canada's most famous street. As for the mid-century structure, I'll admit I've never been a fan of it. Unlike the building currently owned by the Scientologists decaying before our very eyes across the street or the former Shell Oil Building at 505 University Ave., threatened with demolition, I've never looked at this one and thought to myself, "Gee, this is one building I sure hope they can save.". Having said that, I do accept that beauty is often in the eye of the beholder, and I rationalize that if developers take the effort to preserve a building like this, then perhaps it bodes well for more significant structures better representative of the era(again, my opinion peppered with a modicum of wishful thinking). An argument can also be made that, in light of our dwindling stock of mid-century buildings, all specimens, including the more 'gangly' ones, are equally deserving of preservation. Admittedly, I'm not quite there on that yet, but I am certainly open to some friendly persuasion!
 
Last edited:
Collingwoodbuildinglover said:
So going to show my newness here and ask what is being referenced to when you talk about Young's angular plane?
Click to expand...
It's pronounced young but spelled Yonge.
The angular plane has been set by the city to protect what is one of the most important streets in the country from being consumed by developments, basically it is two lines drawn from the street, East and West, going up at a 70° angle. Buildings cannot be built inside the angular plane.
The goal is to preserve the heritage architecture of the street and keep the street a sunny shopping destination. You can read more on blogto and see pictures.
Queen St. has similar rules to protect it, so does Spadina Ave., and Church St. in The village was supposed to...
 
Red_Bulmer said:
It's pronounced young but spelled Yonge.
The angular plane has been set by the city to protect what is one of the most important streets in the country from being consumed by developments, basically it is two lines drawn from the street, East and West, going up at a 70° angle. Buildings cannot be built inside the angular plane.
The goal is to preserve the heritage architecture of the street and keep the street a sunny shopping destination. You can read more on blogto and see pictures.
Queen St. has similar rules to protect it, so does Spadina Ave., and Church St. in The village was supposed to...
Click to expand...
So as I just walked down Yonge yesterday all I have to say is would it kill someone to plant some trees talk about depressing
 
Collingwoodbuildinglover said:
So as I just walked down Yonge yesterday all I have to say is would it kill someone to plant some trees talk about depressing
Click to expand...
The subway line is under the street, also subway stations, The Path network and all the other stuff that runs under a street so there really isn't much space for trees with the large pedestrian volume.
I believe there is some trees and greenery planned in the street re-design that would mostly pedestrianize Yonge, although it is very delayed.
Here is the project page yongeTOmorrow
 
Last edited:
Red_Bulmer said:
The subway line is under the street, also subway stations, The Path network and all the other stuff that runs under a street so there really isn't much space for trees with the large pedestrian volume.
I believe there is some trees and greenery planned in the street re-design that would mostly pedestrianize Yonge, although it is very delayed.
Here is the project page yongeTOmorrow
Click to expand...
Well I can see with the fact that it seems like every time one project finishes on Young Street another starts it being difficult to get the revitalization underway I know in Collingwood we have one street that has been due to be rehabilitated since 2010 but every time it gets close to shovels in the ground they basically start another development along it and then hit pause saying they are waiting for all development to be finished to move forward
 
Doppleganger said:
My initial thought was that this tower wouldn't look too out of place among the recently built or under construction, boxy, balconied architectural clusterf**ks of Church St., but certainly not within eyeshot of Yonge St.. But then a cursory glance at the detritus we've already greenlighted, built or are building on or around TOs main street soon brought me to my senses and reassured me that, yes, this one will do quite 'nicely' here. I certainly realize that not every tower that goes up in TO can be a Gehry or a Foster and Partners masterpiece, but surely the good folks at city hall have some responsibility for establishing guidelines for what is or isn't acceptable on Canada's most famous street. As for the mid-century structure, I'll admit I've never been a fan of it. Unlike the building currently owned by the Scientologists decaying before our very eyes across the street or the former Shell Oil Building at 505 University Ave., threatened with demolition, I've never looked at this one and thought to myself, "Gee, this is one building I sure hope they can save.". Having said that, I do accept that beauty is often in the eye of the beholder, and I rationalize that if developers take the effort to preserve a building like this, then perhaps it bodes well for more significant structures better representative of the era(again, my opinion peppered with a modicum of wishful thinking). An argument can also be made that, in light of our dwindling stock of mid-century buildings, all specimens, including the more 'gangly' ones, are equally deserving of preservation. Admittedly, I'm not quite there on that yet, but I am certainly open to some friendly persuasion!
Click to expand...
The Scientology building is kinda a better looking (abeit more run down) version of this building. I think you just strip all of the brick elements and replace them with glasses, and repaint the whites components. I love brick elements but this one is not it....
 
Red_Bulmer said:
The subway line is under the street, also subway stations, The Path network and all the other stuff that runs under a street so there really isn't much space for trees with the large pedestrian volume.
I believe there is some trees and greenery planned in the street re-design that would mostly pedestrianize Yonge, although it is very delayed.
Here is the project page yongeTOmorrow
Click to expand...

Yonge Tomorrow will add trees, eventually, but not to this segment. Yonge Tomorrow stops at Carlton for now.

It will go further north............eventually. Maybe 2032......
 
Red_Bulmer said:
It's pronounced young but spelled Yonge.
The angular plane has been set by the city to protect what is one of the most important streets in the country from being consumed by developments, basically it is two lines drawn from the street, East and West, going up at a 70° angle. Buildings cannot be built inside the angular plane.
The goal is to preserve the heritage architecture of the street and keep the street a sunny shopping destination. You can read more on blogto and see pictures.
Queen St. has similar rules to protect it, so does Spadina Ave., and Church St. in The village was supposed to...
Click to expand...
75 degree plane. And OPA 183 / SASP 382 / North Downtown Yonge Planning Framework have largely been cast aside now that there's approved precedent - this proposal included - that breaks through that artificial 'limit'. The angular plane be dead.
 
Tyrang said:
The Scientology building is kinda a better looking (abeit more run down) version of this building. I think you just strip all of the brick elements and replace them with glasses, and repaint the whites components. I love brick elements but this one is not it...
Click to expand...
As I stated, I don't find the building particularly attractive, but I certainly won't rule out a decent restoration making me a convert. As for the Scientology building, here's hoping it someday gets the same treatment as is proposed for its neighbour. Though very different, both buildings are representative of a time when Toronto was a much smaller city with big city ambitions. The preservation of both, located in such a high-profile location, would be a fitting reminder of how Yonge St., and the downtown core in general, have evolved over the past 60-odd years.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top