Canadian City Proposals II

[isaidso]

One has to wonder how far east tall buildings will be allowed to encroach. Those pre-WW2 residential streets east of Allan Gardens to the Don Valley are some of the most beautiful parts of the city. I imagine Cabbagetown residents have too much political clout to allow their neighbourhood to be destroyed but one has to wonder if we'll see a gradual step down in heights between Sherbourne and Parliament? It will be very sad to lose what's in between but this is the direction the entire central city seems to be going. Very little is safe from massive intensification.

[WhipperSnapper]

There's a lot to say about this proposal from the afterthought tower on top of a podium which tries to intergrate but ultimately clashes with the split faced stone church. Then there is the omission of the vertical transportation core in the rendering which would blow the potential of re-using the open, semi-communal, ecclesiastical gathering space. But, it's just another stacked shoeboxes application out of thousands in a collapsing investor home buying market. This is unlikely to be built and a rental market with insufficient returns on investment. As far as a supply of housing which, in my life, has never achieved that theorised balance in Toronto, the temporary population is much, much larger than the deficiency of housing and that must also weigh on investors.

[TorontoDrew]

It's a shame that these old churches can't be saved and repurposed. I imagine they are energy hogs and cost a small fortune to upkeep. That must be why we see so many church-to-condo developments. The sad reality is that most of these old churches have shrinking perishes. And they end up getting boarded up for years and wait for developers, just sell out to developers, or get torn down.

Unless somebody with a ton of cash wants to save these churches, development seems to be their best option.

[TorontoDrew]

I'd like them to give the church a new copper roof on all of it's roofs when they do restoration on it's exterior.

355 Sherbourne Street by Andrew Moore, on Flickr

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It's a shame that these old churches can't be saved and repurposed. I imagine they are energy hogs and cost a small fortune to upkeep. That must be why we see so many church-to-condo developments. The sad reality is that most of these old churches have shrinking perishes. And they end up getting boarded up for years and wait for developers, just sell out to developers, or get torn down.

Unless somebody with a ton of cash wants to save these churches, development seems to be their best option.

Yeah, counting on private developers backed by high yield growth funds to provide the civic spaces for the tenants of the next half million proposed high density homes is not going to achieve much but, the most generic of heavily commercialized spaces. The future skyline is great; skyscraper numbers approaching NYC. The architectural quality is, to be honest, well above what you would expect for mass produced housing. However, the city will be fundamentally poorer if most of these proposed were to be built.

There are many, many church to condo conversions in Toronto. This, in my humblest opinion, is not a fucking conversion. It's a facade slapped on a tower.
Example of an actual conversion https://www.jeffreyteam.com/info/the-abbey-lofts/

[TorontoDrew]

Yes this is like 90% facade.

[GeneralLea]

I preferred the prior proposal, even if it did hem in the church a bit too much with what was a boxy and rather unsympathetic design language to the church itself.

This current proposal just reads as a standard investor unit shoebox tower, which *incorporates* the church's facade and nothing more. Sure, the tower's form starts a few stories above the church's roof, but it's a poor way of negotiating between this historic building and adding housing to the site. I'd much prefer to see the developer buy a building or two to the south, that way you can restore more of the church for amenities/event/lobby space, and build something to the south.

The height is a very agressive ask, and while I get it, the Ontario Line will make this closer to a subway one day, I still don't understand the constant ask for ~50 floors across much of the lower city. Other than to make a quick buck on the housing demand of the last few years, which has dried up lately.

[WhipperSnapper]

Why not ask for something you are very likely to get? The Ontario government has shown to encourage more and more densities around their transit developments with virtually no limits. Their initiated Richmond Hill T.O.C with a dozen 80 storey towers and probably 25 skyscrapers in total in two massive blocks comes to mind.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It's a shame that these old churches can't be saved and repurposed. I imagine they are energy hogs and cost a small fortune to upkeep. That must be why we see so many church-to-condo developments. The sad reality is that most of these old churches have shrinking perishes. And they end up getting boarded up for years and wait for developers, just sell out to developers, or get torn down.

Unless somebody with a ton of cash wants to save these churches, development seems to be their best option.

Comments like this are indicative of an all-too pervasive attitude in Toronto that seems to view density-maxxing development of all things as an inevitability, or as the only reasonable outcome.

The previous design was somewhat better, massing-wise at least, as it shifted the bulk of the new build somewhat away from the primary church structure - it was at least somewhat contextual and deferred to the existing structure; as opposed to just sprouting incongruously out of the roof and reducing the church to a condo podium.

Better yet though: retain the church in its entirety, and adapt & repurpose the structure. There are a total of 11,271 heritage-registered properties in the City of Toronto. This is maybe around about 2% of the >500,000 total number of properties in the city - it wouldn't be difficult to preserve those buildings in their entirety while still allowing development on the other 98% of the land. Here's one easy idea: allow the proposed tower on another nearby site, but instead of having developers contribute to public art that everyone hates, have them contribute towards a heritage restoration & retention fund that helps pay for the maintenance & renewal of heritage properties.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Better yet though: retain the church in its entirety, and adapt & repurpose the structure. There are a total of 11,271 heritage-registered properties in the City of Toronto. This is maybe around about 2% of the >500,000 total number of properties in the city - it wouldn't be difficult to preserve those buildings in their entirety while still allowing development on the other 98% of the land. Here's one easy idea: allow the proposed tower on another nearby site, but instead of having developers contribute to public art that everyone hates, have them contribute towards a heritage restoration & retention fund that helps pay for the maintenance & renewal of heritage properties.

My comment was not an attitude, not trying to be negative, just realistic — the only real way to keep these old churches around is if religion makes a big comeback or someone with deep pockets decides to save them. Lately, a lot of them end up turning into soup kitchens or food banks just to keep the lights on, but that’s more of a band-aid than a real solution. Eventually, most of these buildings still face the same fate.

And it's the church that's looking to sell up Why would a developer go looking for an empty lot nearby when there is a massive one on a corner for sale? That's unrealistic.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

My comment was not an attitude, not trying to be negative, just realistic — the only real way to keep these old churches around is if religion makes a big comeback or someone with deep pockets decides to save them. Lately, a lot of them end up turning into soup kitchens or food banks just to keep the lights on, but that’s more of a band-aid than a real solution. Eventually, most of these buildings still face the same fate.

Why's it gotta be a choice between staying a church or becoming a condo podium? Plenty of examples just in your own backyard of churches being converted into apartments, businesses, community centres, night clubs, and so on - while still retaining the structure in whole. There are plenty of great uses for these structures, it just takes a little more imagination than everything must become tower.

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

And it's the church that's looking to sell up Why would a developer go looking for an empty lot nearby when there is a massive one on a corner for sale? That's unrealistic.

Well, if a heritage-designated property were considered a no-go for development, developers would not purchase it for redevelopment in the first place. And if the property's development potential were reduced, so too would its market value; making some of the suggested uses above more viable - especially if any of the aforementioned tax credits/heritage funding ideas were realized.

[TorontoDrew]

Why's it gotta be a choice between staying a church or becoming a condo podium?

Mostly it comes down to money. These buildings are costly to maintain, and if they’re not filling the pews, they become a financial drain. The city could step in and repurpose them as schools, libraries, or museums, but budgets rarely leave room for big heritage projects like that.

Well, if a heritage-designated property were considered a no-go for development, developers would not purchase it for redevelopment in the first place. And if the property's development potential were reduced, so too would its market value; making some of the suggested uses above more viable - especially if any of the aforementioned tax credits/heritage funding ideas were realized.

In theory, that could work, but the churches themselves don’t seem interested in pursuing the designation. Instead, they appear more focused on offloading underused places of worship and generating revenue for their governing bodies.

[TorontoDrew]

Now here is an absolutely terrible proposal. This one has nothing to do with not being able to maintain the original structure financially. This is all about greed.


Images from urbantoronto.ca

505 University | 217.56m | 63s | Cartareal Corp | BDP Quadrangle

Built in 1958 for the Shell Oil Company on University Ave.



505 University: a proposed 63-storey mixed-use condominium building designed by BDP Quadrangle for Cartareal Corp on the northeast corner of University Avenue and Edward Street, in Toronto's Discovery District.

No beauty renders have been released yet of this redesign. But to me the tower looks like the Sheraton Hotel or the Manulife Centre being slapped onto this international style tower.









The last design.

[jc_yyc_ca]

WTF?

Agreed. That's an awful proposal.

[GeneralLea]

I genuinely hope this doesn't see the light of day - I'd be surprised if it does happen in the next 5 years anyway. It's a ridiculous proposal that entirely desecrates a respectable modernist tower along University, all for another shehorned shoebox condo tower, not unlike 488 University (which reclad the existing building, and made it very sterile), or the project going up by Davpart next door.

This may just be a zoning exercise, but given the precedent nearby, this could also happen - but I don't see the point, given the cost to rehabilitate and conserve the existing tower.

[WhipperSnapper]

The original building should be ample enough for conversion. Either they sell the upzoned development to the federal government to build "communist" shoeboxes or this is just a value add with no intention of building. This costs hundreds of millions.

6 storeys were added about a decade after it was built. Originally the top of the building was the mechanical floor 2/3rds up with the decorative venting. This is how vertical additions used to be done.

[ScreamingViking]

I'll get to look at this every single day.

Yet one more reason for me to find a different job.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Some proposals from Calgary. The first one has actually been around for a while, but has resurfaced with new activity, and looks like it could be going ahead. Not sure if these were posted on SSP before.


Source



This one has been around for a while, but has had a design change recently.


Source



Last but not least another older proposal that has seen some recent permit activity this past month with a few minor changes.

Source

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

6 storeys were added about a decade after it was built. Originally the top of the building was the mechanical floor 2/3rds up with the decorative venting. This is how vertical additions used to be done.

I never knew that. That's how good of a job they did with it.

[TorontoDrew]

This proposal jumped from 14 stories to 26. The original condo design looked much better (imo). However, the heritage portion of the development remains the same and it's great that they will be undoing the damage of the last century to this Old school house built in 1891.

source: urbantorontoronto.ca
954 Broadview | 90.05m | 26s | Diamond Kilmer | Graziani + Corazza

Current state of the site.



The original proposal


Now it's just a boring-looking condo, but at least it will be far enough back from Broadview to look like a separate building from the heritage structure.



I'm still impressed that this is hidden somehow within the current ugly office ad on.