Losing this design over this particular heritage building would be a damn shame. What’s being proposed will be genuine heritage in 30 years. What’s there right now is not.
 
Bjays92 said:
Losing this design over this particular heritage building would be a damn shame. What’s being proposed will be genuine heritage in 30 years. What’s there right now is not.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

****

As noted above, I'm not yet sold the proposed design is real.

FORA has yet to deliver any of its ambitious looking proposals, I'd like to see at least one go forward so I can buy in....

****

Second, while I agree this (existing) building is nothing grand, it does fit contextually into the streetscape. We have very little commercial heritage in this City, particularly of the continuous, full-block variety.

We tend to imagine preserving a facade for 3 units is sufficient, where I would argue it's borderline useless. It works so much better with appropriate context.

Our showiest row might be Front, opposite Berczy, and it's interrrupted by the SLC which is a giant carbunkle.

The HP design will improve this quite a bit, but I'd rather ditch the whole thing and have the original heritage rebuilt.

The facility that is the SLC can go anywhere.

In the same vein so can this Partisans design, it's lovely, stick it on Wellesley at Church, LOL.

I'm not really opposed to it here, per se, but I just lament that we can't keep the majority of one block as in tact heritage.
 
This one is the subject of an Appeals Report with staff seeking to oppose this at OLT, heading to the next meeting of TEYCC:


The Applicant appealed in September.

Staff objections here are such that this probably merited a refusal report. I think they are worth looking at in detail:

1705074926117.png


***** Hospital Helicopter Flightpath ****
1705074960931.png

****
1705074990118.png

1705075052850.png


The City also disagrees with the proposal to remove one tree and injure another and not replace the tree.

****

Summing up; inadequate separation with what is already extant; limits development opportunity for neighbouring sites with inadequate setback, destroys designated heritage, not consistent with contextual street wall, unacceptable wind conditions and may impair the Sick Kids helicopter flight path.

I don't see how OLT lets this one go ahead in its current form. I sure as hell hope it doesn't.

Too bad, interesting design, wrong site.
 
Council's decision here was appealed to OLT, with the heritage designation separately appealed as well.

On the application itself, one CMC was held in January of this year, no merit hearing is yet scheduled.

The Heritage Application appears to be being adjudicated in sync w/this one.
 
innsertnamehere said:
This looks great as long as we collectively decide to ignore the east west elevation, conveniently left out of the renderings.. (yes, that is a 100 metre tall blank wall)

View attachment 475896
Click to expand...
Good catch. The first 50 or so metres (roughly 16 storeys) you won't be able to see bc of the TCHC building at 25 elm - which also has a blank wall at its east face.

The rest of the blank wall (above 50m) is likely bc Fora has not yet secured an LDA with TCHC. Presumably, the TCHC building will be redeveloped at some point...
 
The OLT has ruled to remove the property (15 Elm) from the heritage register based on it failing to meet at least two of the following criteria (specifically it did not meet criterion 8):
• Criterion 1: Is the Property a rare, unique, or early example of a style, type, or expression?
• Criterion 5: Does the Property have historical value, or associative value, because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture?
• Criterion 7: Does the Property have contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area?
• Criterion 8: Does the Property have contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings?
Click to expand...

The appeal of the rezoning itself remains active with two adjourned merit hearings so far this calendar year:

No permit activity apart from the heritage demolition application.
 
If the demolition is strictly commercial; without the heritage designation, I don't believe there are grounds to deny the permit.

Perhaps others could comment.
 
Paclo said:
The OLT has ruled to remove the property (15 Elm) from the heritage register based on it failing to meet at least two of the following criteria (specifically it did not meet criterion 8):


The appeal of the rezoning itself remains active with two adjourned merit hearings so far this calendar year:

No permit activity apart from the heritage demolition application.
Click to expand...

Hold on..... from the Decision:

1745434890652.png


1745434793554.png


Does this not uphold the designation? But alter the description of the reasons for same?

The decision states that the designation meets 3 of the criteria, and the Act requires it meet a minimum of 2.
 
^So the OLT has overstepped their decision on this?
 
I love Partisans work. The bonus is that this building does not overwhelm the street, even though 8 Elm is going to 97 storeys or whatever it's doing. Let's hope the developers don't suddenly want to triple the height.
 
J Martin said:
I love Partisans work. The bonus is that this building does not overwhelm the street, even though 8 Elm is going to 97 storeys or whatever it's doing. Let's hope the developers don't suddenly want to triple the height.
Click to expand...
There is no 'developer' and there is no 'building'. This is a picture on paper, nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top