Undead
Senior Member
...proposals all over the City have been refused in the past and continue to be.
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Spooderman
New Member
It Looked nice too
Northern Light
Superstar
It Looked nice too
It's not dead, it has been appealed to the OLT.
Speaking of which...........
Here is a link to the case information:
No dates set yet.
jmi22
Active Member
I know, just poking fun. That being said I'd really like to see this thing built.
Northern Light
Superstar
First CMC here was held yesterday, March 10, 2026.
No follow up dates yet.
No follow up dates yet.
Northern Light
Superstar
The above CMC was conducted, next CMC date is May 22nd, 2026.
No Merit Hearing yet scheduled.
No Merit Hearing yet scheduled.
AptCommunity
New Member
The OLT hearing is now set for February 2027
Separately, Toronto Preservation Board recommended refusal of the alteration of 50 Park (which is a heritage building): https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-286557.pdf
But it was pretty clear in the OLT meeting that the developers' lawyer didn't think the heritage issue was going to stop them. He basically said that heritage didn't end up mattering on a separate case he was involved in (the Japanese Cultural Centre demolition at 123 Wynford).
Separately, Toronto Preservation Board recommended refusal of the alteration of 50 Park (which is a heritage building): https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-286557.pdf
But it was pretty clear in the OLT meeting that the developers' lawyer didn't think the heritage issue was going to stop them. He basically said that heritage didn't end up mattering on a separate case he was involved in (the Japanese Cultural Centre demolition at 123 Wynford).
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
So this plan, which leaves the building completely intact and puts a high-quality tower next to it, is apparently bad heritage planning. But any facadectomy that sticks a front facade onto a garbage new tower with a stepback is good heritage planning.
HPS needs a total reset.
HPS needs a total reset.
AptCommunity
New Member
I am also confused by the buildings with a facade out front and then a tower that looks like a jack-in-the-box popped out.
But re: 50 Park Rd:
But, either way, it sounds like the developer feels like they're confident that they can just sidestep any heritage issues at all by consolidating all planning and heritage issues at the OLT hearing in February
But re: 50 Park Rd:
- the developer publicly said that they were leaving it intact, but then in their application they wanted to build a a new connection from the ground floor to the new building, new stairs, renovate the interiors etc. So there are significant changes
- TPB is arguing that 50 Park is "one of the few and a particularly well- executed example of the International Style in the City of Toronto" and that turning it into a vestibule of the new building would essentially destroy that.
- The new tower is also not particularly high-quality - it's the same people as put together https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/hampton.21710 -- which is a pretty standard-issue new build
- Related to the point above -- and this is just a guess at this point, but it seems like the association with David Chipperfield is basically BS. In the developers' proposal, they said "It is the intention that DCA will be the Design Architect for the project upon successful receipt of approvals". But on the current proposal site they say that the building is designed by BDP Quadrangle, they don't include DCA as part of their team, and in the community meeting they wouldn't answer questions about what Chipperfield's actual role is
But, either way, it sounds like the developer feels like they're confident that they can just sidestep any heritage issues at all by consolidating all planning and heritage issues at the OLT hearing in February
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
One can oppose this project for what it’s doing to the adjacent apartment building. Fair. This will be an extremely good building if it happens as proposed, and its relationship to 50 Park Rd. is about as good as can be imagined. If the city’s heritage planning, doesn’t like this, there is something wrong with the city’s heritage planning.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
The point of the heritage refusal is to prevent it from becoming a facadectomy or simply the podium of a new tower.
The proposal was refused by development review. This puts Heritage’s asks in writing now that the OLT will be deciding what happens. It will either be approved as-is, or with some changes. Those potential changes should align with what heritage is asking for, would you not agree?
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
No, I don't agree.
Staff want the tower farther away from the existing 50 Park Road, visually separated from it, and not cantilevering over it.
The proposed design puts the new and old in dialogue. This is a fine composition that integrates old and new. Heritage practices reject this approach out of hand.
The connection is what's interesting. The continuation of the roofline in the new building, the juxtaposition of red and yellow brick, the way the tower slabs slide over the existing building mass.. that is architecture.
The idea that new construction should always be separate from and deferent to older buildings is simplistic. It inevitably produces results that are boring, or worse.
catdad
New Member
If you were to zoom out and look at the scale of the tower in relation to 50 Park Rd, it completely dwarfs it. 50 Park Road is like a speck of dust in comparison...
AptCommunity
New Member
As I said earlier, I think the heritage stuff isn't worth arguing about because in the current climate, I don't think it will matter much at the OLT hearing.
But, having an architecture critic proclaim something just is architecture (whatever that means) confuses opinion with fact. So even though this is very awkward, I wanted to give a counterpoint as someone who is close to the site and has looked at the proposal documents in depth.
I live in 40 Park now. The current architecture is absolutely extraordinary to live in. The building and the apartments, which are rent-controlled, are not well maintained and the lack of maintenance makes our lives loopy and kind of hellish at times. But even with all the downsides of the management, the people who live here never want to move, because it's such a unique and architecturally wonderful place. People have lived here as long as fifty years.
The architecture itself fosters community, mostly because of the side-loaded corridor. Everyone who lives here has a view toward the park and the apartments feel very connected to each other and to the outdoors. At the same time, it's more solidly built than new builds, so we also have a sense of privacy. Some of the people living here have fled new builds where they could hear everything & had all kinds of issues related to poor construction. We all feel very lucky to live here and wish that more people in this city could live in places like this, but the new development doesn't provide more good-quality housing. It just destroys the little bit of good that this building embodies and replaces it with ... the same overpriced blah that is the bane of this city right now.
fwiw, if you look at the plans, BDPQ and Helberg/Arcanos have also designed the new building so that the rental replacement apartments will face a wall at the back, so the new architecture is the opposite of the community-creating & environmentally-engaged architecture of the current building.
I would argue that this project is a small but potent loss for Toronto architecturally. It eliminates two unique mid-century buildings (demolishing one and totally engulfing the other) and replaces them with a generic high rise that you could find anywhere in the city. Indeed, the new project is basically the same as what BDPQ & Arcanos/Helberg did on Roehampton.
TPB is essentially making the point (as has someone else in this thread) that the era and architectural movement 50 Park belongs to wasn't only about the building itself but about the pavilion-like structure and its relationship to its surroundings. If you cantilever a giant generic tower over it, you are ignoring the ideas that underlay the original building and its sensitivity to its environment. On top of that, the scale is weird. BDPQ's renderings are meant to make it look as good as possible, so they only show you the lowest six or seven stories because that's all that makes sense in relation to 50 Park.
You could make the argument that the loss of unique and interesting architecture is outweighed by the benefits for affordable housing in the city.
But this project is actually a substantial loss a to the limited affordable housing in the Rosedale area. The current building owner & management are also the developer in this case, and they are already doing devious things that I don't even want to write about publicly (yes, I am scared of them) to prevent people from having right of return to the rental replacement apartments. Also given that this building is a bit of a NORC, many people will move out and not be in shape to move back in. It's effectively going to eliminate forty rent-controlled apartments.
It's also a loss environmentally for all kinds of reasons. It's a commuter/traffic disaster because of the location.
This project is very skewed in how little it benefits anyone other than the developer/owner. It somehow manages to be bad for affordable housing, Toronto's architectural landscape, park landscape, and it's horrendous for traffic. Beyond the developer, the only other people it might benefit are the small group of wealthy people who will be able to afford to live in the park-facing side of the new building.
But, having an architecture critic proclaim something just is architecture (whatever that means) confuses opinion with fact. So even though this is very awkward, I wanted to give a counterpoint as someone who is close to the site and has looked at the proposal documents in depth.
I live in 40 Park now. The current architecture is absolutely extraordinary to live in. The building and the apartments, which are rent-controlled, are not well maintained and the lack of maintenance makes our lives loopy and kind of hellish at times. But even with all the downsides of the management, the people who live here never want to move, because it's such a unique and architecturally wonderful place. People have lived here as long as fifty years.
The architecture itself fosters community, mostly because of the side-loaded corridor. Everyone who lives here has a view toward the park and the apartments feel very connected to each other and to the outdoors. At the same time, it's more solidly built than new builds, so we also have a sense of privacy. Some of the people living here have fled new builds where they could hear everything & had all kinds of issues related to poor construction. We all feel very lucky to live here and wish that more people in this city could live in places like this, but the new development doesn't provide more good-quality housing. It just destroys the little bit of good that this building embodies and replaces it with ... the same overpriced blah that is the bane of this city right now.
fwiw, if you look at the plans, BDPQ and Helberg/Arcanos have also designed the new building so that the rental replacement apartments will face a wall at the back, so the new architecture is the opposite of the community-creating & environmentally-engaged architecture of the current building.
I would argue that this project is a small but potent loss for Toronto architecturally. It eliminates two unique mid-century buildings (demolishing one and totally engulfing the other) and replaces them with a generic high rise that you could find anywhere in the city. Indeed, the new project is basically the same as what BDPQ & Arcanos/Helberg did on Roehampton.
TPB is essentially making the point (as has someone else in this thread) that the era and architectural movement 50 Park belongs to wasn't only about the building itself but about the pavilion-like structure and its relationship to its surroundings. If you cantilever a giant generic tower over it, you are ignoring the ideas that underlay the original building and its sensitivity to its environment. On top of that, the scale is weird. BDPQ's renderings are meant to make it look as good as possible, so they only show you the lowest six or seven stories because that's all that makes sense in relation to 50 Park.
You could make the argument that the loss of unique and interesting architecture is outweighed by the benefits for affordable housing in the city.
But this project is actually a substantial loss a to the limited affordable housing in the Rosedale area. The current building owner & management are also the developer in this case, and they are already doing devious things that I don't even want to write about publicly (yes, I am scared of them) to prevent people from having right of return to the rental replacement apartments. Also given that this building is a bit of a NORC, many people will move out and not be in shape to move back in. It's effectively going to eliminate forty rent-controlled apartments.
It's also a loss environmentally for all kinds of reasons. It's a commuter/traffic disaster because of the location.
This project is very skewed in how little it benefits anyone other than the developer/owner. It somehow manages to be bad for affordable housing, Toronto's architectural landscape, park landscape, and it's horrendous for traffic. Beyond the developer, the only other people it might benefit are the small group of wealthy people who will be able to afford to live in the park-facing side of the new building.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm stuck here on hitting like on many of the contributions above, most of which have some, or a great deal of merit, but there are multiple and overlapping points from more than one poster, so while I appreciate the intent, varying points of view and thoughtful discussion, I'll stay away from what seems to be a clear endorsement of just one.
****
I think there are things we need to separate out.
The first is this:
This could the most meritorious proposal of all time, and if it resulted in someone losing a home they love and can afford with the real possibility they wont' be able to return and/or will find the building completely different than what they loved, that can be personally saddening for them, maybe even scary, and this in what we might call the 'Utopian' scenario of idealized architecture, inside and out, and great heritage preservation
The second is that in all things there are trade offs, there are real considerations for some, around the loss of a modernist building. Its not my personal taste, and I wouldn't miss it on purely architectural grounds, but I can appreciate that others will differ.
But equally there are some environmental concerns, traffic may be an issue at this location, hey I'm all for removing Rosedale Valley Road and putting Castlefrank Creek back, but I know that would not be popular with many.
Finally, architectural taste is subjective. Alex, myself and others could forward 'rules' that tend to be true, about what people tend to see as good or great architecture, of course we still wouldn't agree on every project or style; those 'rules; have evolved over time, and they will continue to do so.
****
From there, I think we need to defer to @Tuscani01 's analysis that suggests a high likelihood, of this project being approved, in some form, at the OLT and/or via Settlement Offer.
While the OLT might issue an outright refusal, that's rare, and something the City is unlikely to chance in my estimation.
So it seems likely, that subject to technical feasibility, some variation of this is likely to go ahead, in which case, the best time spent is debating the 'asks' and 'hard lines' rather than the whether, which is likely decided.
****
I will say, the proponent's own analysis of soil stability issues creates a curious risk profile for this one. If the full extent of the issue can't be known until after demolition, with some material risk that the project, as envisioned may not be possible and/or may not be economically viable with the cost of mitigation, that would be quite the costly problem for Helburg who would have given up the existing rental income and then be on the hook for rent subsidies for the displaced indefinitely.
Non-viability seems unlikely, but there is a higher than usual level of uncertainty here, which makes it a relatively rare bird.
****
I think there are things we need to separate out.
The first is this:
This could the most meritorious proposal of all time, and if it resulted in someone losing a home they love and can afford with the real possibility they wont' be able to return and/or will find the building completely different than what they loved, that can be personally saddening for them, maybe even scary, and this in what we might call the 'Utopian' scenario of idealized architecture, inside and out, and great heritage preservation
The second is that in all things there are trade offs, there are real considerations for some, around the loss of a modernist building. Its not my personal taste, and I wouldn't miss it on purely architectural grounds, but I can appreciate that others will differ.
But equally there are some environmental concerns, traffic may be an issue at this location, hey I'm all for removing Rosedale Valley Road and putting Castlefrank Creek back, but I know that would not be popular with many.
Finally, architectural taste is subjective. Alex, myself and others could forward 'rules' that tend to be true, about what people tend to see as good or great architecture, of course we still wouldn't agree on every project or style; those 'rules; have evolved over time, and they will continue to do so.
****
From there, I think we need to defer to @Tuscani01 's analysis that suggests a high likelihood, of this project being approved, in some form, at the OLT and/or via Settlement Offer.
While the OLT might issue an outright refusal, that's rare, and something the City is unlikely to chance in my estimation.
So it seems likely, that subject to technical feasibility, some variation of this is likely to go ahead, in which case, the best time spent is debating the 'asks' and 'hard lines' rather than the whether, which is likely decided.
****
I will say, the proponent's own analysis of soil stability issues creates a curious risk profile for this one. If the full extent of the issue can't be known until after demolition, with some material risk that the project, as envisioned may not be possible and/or may not be economically viable with the cost of mitigation, that would be quite the costly problem for Helburg who would have given up the existing rental income and then be on the hook for rent subsidies for the displaced indefinitely.
Non-viability seems unlikely, but there is a higher than usual level of uncertainty here, which makes it a relatively rare bird.