Northern Light
Superstar
The substantive changes here are: (From the Cover Letter)
Statistical Summary:
Statistical Summary:
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
The Minor Variance has been approved at CoA with the only condition being minimum amenity space provisions
70Challenger
Active Member
This corner is rough, hope this gets started soon.
karledice
Senior Member
Looking good! Love the heritage preservations and integration!
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
Minor stat changes in an otherwise technical resubmission:
- -1 residential unit (without redistributing the unit mix)
- -4 bike parking
- Slight reduction of GFA
Northern Light
Superstar
Revised Heritage Easement Agreement to the next meeting of TEYCC:
It will allow full tear down of the Margaret Grimmon Houses on Richmond, and full reconstruction is not required either.
From the above:
***
Buildings as - is:
What we were supposed to get (restoration to original below)
What we will get instead:
Peter frontage:
It will allow full tear down of the Margaret Grimmon Houses on Richmond, and full reconstruction is not required either.
From the above:
***
Buildings as - is:
What we were supposed to get (restoration to original below)
What we will get instead:
Peter frontage:
Doppleganger
Active Member
These two houses are fine examples of the distinctive 'Bay and Gable' style that was once prevalent in what is now this part of downtown, and no doubt would add charm and historical context to the development and the area. Their demolition would be regrettable but there are still enough examples of this style elsewhere in the city that their loss would not be tragic. What does concern me is the almost docility of the city in accepting the developer's consultant report at seemingly face value. As stated by the city, "the poor condition of the masonry prevents meaningful conservation of these buildings." This indicates a disturbingly low threshold by the city for the demolition of a heritage structure. If we had used that as our baseline for preservation in the mid-1960s, then St. Lawrence Hall, which was in terrible condition before restoration and even suffered a near-total collapse of its eastern wing onto Jarvis St., might have been demolished. Indeed, by the 2000s, this thinking seems to have already been entrenched, as evidenced by the loss of 'Walnut Hall', a terrace of beautiful mid-19th century Georgian-style townhomes listed on the national historic register that had been allowed to deteriorate to the point of near collapse in 2007. If the will had existed, and a rapid 'emergency response' rescue had been initiated soon enough, this building might still be with us today. If we allow our heritage structures to deteriorate at the hands of negligent owners and then allow something as reparable as 'deteriorating masonry' to be the benchmark for demolition, then heritage preservation in this city is in even more trouble than I thought.
Last edited:
70Challenger
Active Member
Isn't the render implying a replica would be built like the other house on site that had to be torn down after catching fire?
SPA file continues to advance with another technical resubmission. NOAC has not been issued yet.
On permits: shoring, new build & associated building permits have been applied for & undergoing examination.
Demolition permit for 120 Peter has also recently been applied for:
On permits: shoring, new build & associated building permits have been applied for & undergoing examination.
Demolition permit for 120 Peter has also recently been applied for:
