Lenser said:
OK, the UT consensus appears to be that it's horrid. That said, I wonder what the chances are of this thing going through nonetheless?
Click to expand...
The property was listed on the Inventory of Heritage Properties in 1973 and designated under the Ontario Heritage Act in 1978 under Bylaw 508-78. Because of the designation, a Heritage Permit is required to make any alterations to the building. Thus City Council has the legal authority to refuse applications that would adversely affect a property's heritage attributes. City Council has 90 days to make a decision on a heritage permit application, and can either approve it, approve it with conditions, or refuse it. If City Council refuses a permit application or approves it with conditions, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
 
I think it’s great; heritage building pretty much untouched, housing for students, surface parking lot turned into a public plaza.
The struggling commercial stretch of college just west of this will get a boost from new residents, as well as Baldwin Village to the south.
My only concern is that they provide enough elevators and service elevators for the large number of students they are stacking here.
 
Red_Bulmer said:
I think it’s great; heritage building pretty much untouched, housing for students, surface parking lot turned into a public plaza.
The struggling commercial stretch of college just west of this will get a boost from new residents, as well as Baldwin Village to the south.
My only concern is that they provide enough elevators and service elevators for the large number of students they are stacking here.
Click to expand...
If the definition of 'pretty much untouched' means losing a quarter of a handsome late-19th century 'Richardsonian Romanesque' building designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, that was designed by EJ Lennox, one of this city's pre-eminent late 19th-early 20th century architects who also designed Old City hall, the Ontario Legislature, and Casa Loma among others, then yes, I suppose you're correct. But this building is more than just another heritage structure; it is a fine representative of a style of architecture that is now critically endangered in Toronto, and as such, I argue that it deserves to be preserved in its entirety. Allowing this development to go forward sets a terrible precedent by signalling that there are essentially no heritage buildings left in this city worthy of a 'hands off' designation, and that concerns me a great deal. Though I appreciate the need for student housing, as far as this project is concerned, I say not here, not in this space.
 
Last edited:
Doppleganger said:
If the definition of 'pretty much untouched' means losing a quarter of a handsome late-19th century 'Richardsonian Romanesque' building…
Click to expand...
We have to take our heritage wins in this city, it is not going to be just a façade and that is rare in Toronto.

I believe the quarter of the building being lost is an addition, that shorter part on the back, and if not, it certainly has less heritage value (circled in red in the photo below).

The installation of elevators and fire escape stairs in that quarter of the building (shown in the plan below) will allow everyone to use and enjoy the building.

The interior of the building has been gutted already and renovated into modern offices, probably not what people imagine it looks like.
www.bortolotto.com

Bortolotto - Rotman South

See how our architecture interior design services revitalized and rejuvenated the Rothman South heritage building at University of Toronto
www.bortolotto.com www.bortolotto.com

IMG_4505.jpegIMG_4506.jpeg
Cheers, have a great day
 
If the tower was clad in bricks or at least bronze-coloured piers to match the heritage building at its base, this could be an outstanding addition to the neighbourhood. But alas .... this is Toronto.
 
I do think a warmer tone would enhance and compliment the heritage structure.
On a side note it's getting tired referring to 'this is Toronto' by some all the time.
 
I encourage everyone to look at the revised architectural drawings submitted last week (https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...s/?id=5513712&pid=218186&title=149-COLLEGE-ST).

The floorplate is still 840 SM. The tower is set on the west lot line with zero setback (is there a limiting distance agreement with U of T who owns the old Board of Education Building to the west?) and a 3M setback from the schoolyard (a LDA with the TDSB?). It is 5.8M back from the north lot-line.

My suggestions would be (IF anything happens at all) would be to reduce the floorplate to the Tall Buildings requirement of 750SM which would result in a further setback of the tower from College of about 4M. The tower should also be positioned on the lot-line to the south, which would increase the setback from College a total of 7M. Added to the current 5.8M setback the total tower setback would be 12.8M. The glass portion in the base (if one maintained the current 2.15M inset) would be 14.95M. If the glass portion was increased to at least 3M, the setback would be 15.8M. This massing should be the starting point of any discussions.
 
LUVIT! said:
I do think a warmer tone would enhance and compliment the heritage structure.
On a side note it's getting tired referring to 'this is Toronto' by some all the time.
Click to expand...
Well, how many recently completed buildings with warm tones can you name? In fact there are probably MORE proposed buildings with warm tones that were subsequently changed to the standard white/ grey/ black than there are newly built towers with warm tones. Ah, yes, but other cities are full of dull- looking buildings too. That may be true, but most of them have sunnier weather to compensate for the dull colours (as a matter of fact, a lot of cities with sunny weather have brightly painted buildings). The biggest disappointment is that with all the towers built on top of richly detailed and warm-coloured heritage bases, hardly any developer chooses to pay tribute to the original buildings by extending the same warm tones to the towers. Instead, they justify it by saying they don’t want the towers to distract from the restored bases. Sounds like something you’d find on Truth Social …
 
thecharioteer said:
I encourage everyone to look at the revised architectural drawings submitted last week (https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...s/?id=5513712&pid=218186&title=149-COLLEGE-ST).

The floorplate is still 840 SM. The tower is set on the west lot line with zero setback (is there a limiting distance agreement with U of T who owns the old Board of Education Building to the west?) and a 3M setback from the schoolyard (a LDA with the TDSB?). It is 5.8M back from the north lot-line.

My suggestions would be (IF anything happens at all) would be to reduce the floorplate to the Tall Buildings requirement of 750SM which would result in a further setback of the tower from College of about 4M. The tower should also be positioned on the lot-line to the south, which would increase the setback from College a total of 7M. Added to the current 5.8M setback the total tower setback would be 12.8M. The glass portion in the base (if one maintained the current 2.15M inset) would be 14.95M. If the glass portion was increased to at least 3M, the setback would be 15.8M. This massing should be the starting point of any discussions.
Click to expand...

They must have an agreement they would not freely give up development rights...maybe U of T will co-own it or this could be another Campus One situation whereby all zoning precedent doesn't matter because "U of T" can only speculate for now.
 
realpolytics said:
They must have an agreement they would not freely give up development rights...maybe U of T will co-own it or this could be another Campus One situation whereby all zoning precedent doesn't matter because "U of T" can only speculate for now.
Click to expand...
The City routinely asks for a copy of a limiting district agreement if an application is substantially sub-standard with regards to setbacks. Neither the Planning Rationale Report nor ERA's Heritage Impact Assessment mentions the potential impact on the Board of Education Building (which itself is listed, not designated on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties, being designed by Page & Steele in 1961).
 
Item at TEYCC is going to be deferred (again)...
1757624084870.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top