New condo development in Toronto is so good (no cars!) and yet so bad (demolishing a heritage building)

I am really torn on what to make of a new condo being planned in Toronto. According to the Toronto Star, the 42-storey structure would house 315 units, mostly one-bedroom condos. And, they’ll be about $20,000 cheaper than comparable condos in the city.

Where are they saving all that money? By not building an expensive underground parking garage. The Star notes that the planned building will provide only nine (9!) parking spaces for a car-sharing service, but will boast 315 spaces for bicycles. Similar buildings would provide about 140 parking spots.

Now that’s innovative. And, in a downtown area, there’s probably enough density to make it work. The location is right beside a subway station, for example, although it’s 10 blocks from the nearest grocery store.

Unfortunately, the news isn’t all good. That wonderful building is planned for 426 University Ave., currently home to the Royal Canadian Military Institute.

The Institute is a century-old heritage building. From its website:

Today, the heritage building is well known to the public as a city landmark – an Edwardian edifice flanked distinctively by two 19th-century cannons, with substantial space devoted to Museum galleries displaying exhibits drawn from the Institute’s extensive collections.  It also houses a 15,000 volume research Library whose holdings include significant books detailing Canada’s military history.

The Star says that the condo development will preserve “elements” of the facade and will provide space for the Institute and its holdings — they even house the seat of Baron von Richthofen’s Fokker Triplane, which is pretty amazing — but in my experience, facades are not the same as the buildings themselves.

From the article:

Though the institute’s board has approved the project, several members at large oppose it.

Member Brian Lawrie told the community council that in 2007 Vaughan had “enthusiastically endorsed” keeping the building intact, calling it a “rare remnant of University Avenue’s early days as a quiet boulevard dominated by trees, not highrises.” He noted that the councillor had done a “180-degree turn” the next year by endorsing the demolition and condo project.

That’s ironic, because just a couple of paragraphs later, a city councillor is quoted as saying that the development brings the building into “better conformity” with its surroundings.

So let me get this straight: a 102-year-old building, which used to be surrounded by other, similar buildings, which have gradually all been replaced by steel-and-glass towers, now should be torn down because it doesn’t fit the aesthetic of the street? Where was that sentiment when the first tower was built, destroying what was then a “quiet boulevard”?

I’m all in favour of the car-free aspect of it. That excites me. But why does it have to come at the expense of heritage?