7 Queen St N + 354 King St W | 77.2 & 41.7 m | 12 & 25 fl | Under Construction - Page 6

bigguy1231 · #**101** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 6:52 AM**

These buildings will look alot taller than their 22 floors from a distance since they are being built on a high point in the downtown.

The way things are going in 10 years we are not going to recognize this cities skyline.

durandy · #**102** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 2:47 PM**

If this is designed on the premise of preserving the orphanage then I wish they'd knock it down. That front lawn is horrible, effectively kills the King street commercial area at Queen.

ScreamingViking · #**103** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 10:46 PM**

Perhaps the east side of the development could be built right to King to create more of a commercial streetwall, while keeping the west side with the heritage building set back within a courtyard. The towers could then be offset on a diagonal.

There's been a big break in the commercial strip starting at Queen for a long time. Maybe it's not a big deal - especially not if the stretch of King to the west intensifies. But Scottish Rite and the Masonic lodge across the street are not going to change, so this is the opportunity for that block (it will also be interesting to see what happens with All Saints on the kitty corner, whether it does get redeveloped, and include street level retail/commercial)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

These buildings will look alot taller than their 22 floors from a distance since they are being built on a high point in the downtown.

The way things are going in 10 years we are not going to recognize this cities skyline.

Quite true on both accounts.

davidcappi · #**104** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 2:26 AM**

I like the idea of a setback with good landscaping/trees surrounding the property.

SteelTown · #**105** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 5:09 PM**

I don't mind the setback. I'll take the setback if it means keeping the Mount St Joseph building. At least the setback isn't as bad as the former School Board building.

The setback could work especially if the building is used for residential purpose, apartment, condo, hotel or retirement home. Be creative and use it as a forecourt, maybe an art deco style forecourt.

NortheastWind · #**106** Posted **Mar 10, 2015, 4:19 PM**

I drove up Queen St today and noticed an excavator sitting behind the Mt St Joseph building. Is a demolition imminent?

mattgrande · #**107** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 4:16 PM**

Mt St Joseph Building is being demolished right now.

Photos: https://www.facebook.com/jeff.tessier.92/posts/10153752339673023

Brief article about the (shady) demo permit: https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2014/11/m...ssues-demo-permit-during-council-recess/

Edit: Thanks to whomever (SteelTown?) for moving this to the appropriate thread.

SteelTown · #**108** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 6:31 PM**

I may be wrong but I believe it's a partial demolition, taking a wing off.

bigguy1231 · #**109** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I may be wrong but I believe it's a partial demolition, taking a wing off.

After seeing the pictures in the Spec it looks like they are taking the whole building down.

ScreamingViking · #**110** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 10:03 PM**

Seems to be the case:
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6034424-former-mount-st-joseph-orphanage-being-demolished/

Quote:

Nearly a year after first being slated for demolition, the former Mount St. Joseph orphanage is coming down.

Construction crews arrived at the King Street West building, at Queen Street North, Saturday morning and began to demolish the nearly 80-year-old structure.

The demolition permit was issued to development company King West Crossings Inc. in November 2014. However, the property was given a two-month reprieve in December to give three siblings who once lived at the orphanage and who were interested in refurbishing it time to study possible renovations.

But no deal was reached.

Developer Darko Vranich, who bought the property for $2.2 million in 2005, said he wasn't interested in renovating the building himself and intended to level it for a new development expected to include a 22-storey apartment building.

interr0bangr · #**111** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 10:24 PM**

Yep, noticed it coming down today when driving by.

HillStreetBlues · #**112** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 10:32 PM**

I'm not personally especially sad to see this building go. I suppose you could make a case for its heritage value, since it was a property of interest, but I barely ever noticed it given the set-back.

Is there a construction permit for the site? If not, no demolition permit should have been issued, whether this is a heritage building or not. On Monday, we wake up to one more vacant in our core, and the municipality loses out on tax revenue by allowing the owner to reduce the assessed value by demolishing.

Look at 220 Dundurn- how long has it been owned by this developer before renovation began? And remember that the idea of that development being mixed-use evaporated rather quickly. And note how slowly construction has progressed there.

This property was purchased ten years ago, in 2005. I think there's a good chance that, in 2015, we'll still be talking about it, but we'll be talking about a proposal for a parcel that has since been paved into $2 dollar a day parking adjacent to an LRT station. Napier and Queen a block away is a parking lot, and has been for a while.

The City should not issue demolition permits for structurally sound buildings without ensuring new construction is going to take place. Note the 'period' there. We've done that too often. It hasn't worked.

Beedok · #**113** Posted **Oct 24, 2015, 10:46 PM**

I didn't remember the building at all because the trees in front hid it. Something closer to the street is an improvement.

HillStreetBlues · #**114** Posted **Oct 25, 2015, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

I didn't remember the building at all because the trees in front hid it. Something closer to the street is an improvement.

Like maybe a parking lot closer to the street.

Beedok · #**115** Posted **Oct 25, 2015, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Like maybe a parking lot closer to the street.

Seems unlikely. Vranich seems to be going on an ego trip building anything he can these days.

Maybe he's worrying about mortality? I don't know.

davidcappi · #**116** Posted **Oct 25, 2015, 10:33 AM**

I'm not too upset about it. Would have liked a more firm plan in place, instead of one vague render and a fleet of demo vehicles. I just hope whatever (if anything) is built there isn't hideous.

durandy · #**117** Posted **Oct 25, 2015, 7:09 PM**

It won't be hideous, but from the way the existing Darko/ Denis projects are turning out, it also won't be exciting. 220 Dundurn in particular is looking like a big letdown.

realcity · #**118** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 2:12 AM**

22 floors is too small. Should be at least 30 at that location.

ScreamingViking · #**119** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 12:31 AM**

"expected to include a 22-storey apartment building"... wonder if he's scaled back from two towers to one? Or phasing it? Or maybe the reporter mis-wrote.

Beedok · #**120** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 12:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by realcity

22 floors is too small. Should be at least 30 at that location.

It's a decent distances from the city's heart. 20+ floors is enough.