Stephen Avenue Quarter | 241m | 66s | Triovest | Gibbs Gage

Mountain Man said:
The interiors of the buildings aren't original and they are preserving the facades of the vast majority, so I'm not sure the heritage argument would stand. I expect approval from the city on this. SDAB and UDRP is where this will start to hit roadblocks.
Click to expand...
UDRP is an advisory board, with no "real" teeth unfortunately. Granted their comments are being taken into consideration more and more by planning commission, but UDRP does not have the authority to rule yay or nay on this.
 
Mountain Man said:
It will be affected by this, a major demolition and excavation next door to a heritage building is always risky. May not be directly affected but will certainly be indirectly affected.
Click to expand...

That would mean the church too. Also, I thought the designated Heritage buildings on Stephen Ave retained original interiors. I get that 7th Ave is in rough shape but this proposal would be so much worse at street level than those old character buildings. I would push them to at least preserve facades on that side and go further to protect interiors on Stephen Ave.
 
MichaelS said:
UDRP is an advisory board, with no "real" teeth unfortunately. Granted their comments are being taken into consideration more and more by planning commission, but UDRP does not have the authority to rule yay or nay on this.
Click to expand...
If the UDRP panel has strong enough objections the file manager can choose not to approve the DP, but yeah they have no direct ability to kill a proposal.
 
O-tac said:
That would mean the church too. Also, I thought the designated Heritage buildings on Stephen Ave retained original interiors. I get that 7th Ave is in rough shape but this proposal would be so much worse at street level than those old character buildings. I would push them to at least preserve facades on that side and go further to protect interiors on Stephen Ave.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if people have clued into the fact this proposal also involves demolition of a significant portion of the church building to accommodate a wider drive aisle and parking lane. 😮
 
artvandelay said:
I'm not sure if people have clued into the fact this proposal also involves demolition of a significant portion of the church building to accommodate a wider drive aisle and parking lane. 😮
Click to expand...
Is that part protected, or just the original building?
 
darwink said:
Is that part protected, or just the original building?
Click to expand...
No part of the church is protected. It looks like they want to demo a portion on the south edge that is sandstone so likely dating to the 1920s or thereabouts. The other part slated for demo is the art-deco-ish annex on the east side which is likely from the 40s or 50s.
 
artvandelay said:
No part of the church is protected. It looks like they want to demo a portion on the south edge that is sandstone so likely dating to the 1920s or thereabouts. The other part slated for demo is the art-deco-ish annex on the east side which is likely from the 40s or 50s.
Click to expand...

FFS it just keeps getting worse and worse. That rear laneway is bullshit. Here's proof from Montreal that you can have new development and still preserve historic buildings:


52085132144_35c1167fea_h.jpg
 
artvandelay said:
No part of the church is protected. It looks like they want to demo a portion on the south edge that is sandstone so likely dating to the 1920s or thereabouts. The other part slated for demo is the art-deco-ish annex on the east side which is likely from the 40s or 50s.
Click to expand...
I checked out some old photos to get a handle on the additions.

First, from what I can see these portions will be replaced with new structures

1653062309737.png


1653062321433.png


Starting with what I'll call the south addition, there was one there originally but of a different style
Here's a photo from 1905

1653062712941.png




But then there was a fire in the 1916

1653062547864.png


And then by the time of this 1930 postcard that annex is the current design

1653062575495.png


I couldn't find a photo of the east addition but it does not appear to be there in the 1924 airphotos but is there in the 1948 photo
 

Attachments

  • 1653063049408.png
    1653063049408.png
    55.8 KB · Views: 74
  • 1653063086265.png
    1653063086265.png
    70.2 KB · Views: 77
JoeUrban said:
From the public download:

View attachment 401488
View attachment 401489
Click to expand...

How can the church continue to function losing that entire wing? Will it still operate?

That podium is so horrendous I can't get over it. The absolute worst combo of 70's bunker and 00's sterile glass Vancouver special. Doesn't even look like there are any CRU's. Who could look at those elevations and think it's an improvement?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top