arch_on_ said:
If that were true, why would any theatre or cinema put any effort into decor, all the pre-show activities, have arcades, bars or restaurants, give VIP seating options, etc. They are selling an experience. Everything wrapped around the show itself contributes to the overall event of going out. The front facade may be minor, but it's still part of the package, so I don't think edginess is an excuse for cheaping out like that.
Click to expand...
Edginess typically decreases the size of the audience, and the take, so the venues are smaller and more simply decorated. Tried-and-true theatregoers know that: they're used to the stripped-down surroundings, and despite that, The Factory, Passe Muraille, Berkeley Street, Harbourfront, Young Centre, Tarragon, Crows, etc. type theatres, like the Panasonic/now CAA, thrive as well.

If you're only going to plays in opulent auditoriums like the Elgin, Winter Garden, Mirvish, Royal Alex, Princess of Wales, etc., you're missing most of the theatre that happens in this city.

42
 
Eye Popper here.

And yup.....your architects are Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill

@3Dementia will take special note here.

1666339670261.png


app.toronto.ca

Application Details

app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca


Assembly on Streetview:

1666339607990.png


From the Docs:

1666339793745.png


Enhanced Zoom of above:

1666339855533.png


1666339939495.png


1666339986058.png


1666340046908.png


1666340104898.png



1666340160046.png


1666340233355.png

1666340305569.png


1666340393065.png

1666340464784.png


1666340570131.png


Out of space for this post; that will be my excuse to go back to bed, LOL; more to say after coffee, in a few hours.
 
Last edited:
canarob said:
Would this mean the end of the CAA Theatre?
Click to expand...

Yes. Only the facade is proposed to be retained. Note that the original auditorium, which was surprisingly unremarkable, was demolished a long-time ago. What's there now is, in fact, only the facade, and that is quite covered up.

I found this pic of its exterior in the early 20thC when it was known as 'The Astor':

1666355345752.png

source: http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/883/photos/160868 -uploaded by poster Granola
 
Last edited:
Isn't the CAA Theatre owned by David Mirvish? What does he have to say about this redevelopment?
 
It would be nice if the Forma tower's development on King St. To not destroy the facades where the two towers are being built. By creating the same idea as this development. Preserving it with an artruim on top with a grand entrance inside. Then commencing the fancy design they have for the podium. Underneath the artruim and maybe above lol! We need to preserve theses old buildings and this is a good way to do it as seen up above in the photos!
 
Ok, I've had my coffee and managed to get some work done............so.

There's a lot to like here..........BUT.......

I don't get the atrium idea at all here. What that does, typically is suck life off the street (Yonge) and in to the atrium, which, of course, will be privately owned space, presumably with operating hours (not open 24/7).

Not really in to that from a vitality point of view, or an 'eyes on the street' point of view.

Now, I get that.............the current sidewalks on Yonge here are grossly inadequate in width and not particularly pleasant or attractive.
However, this section of Yonge is, tentatively, set for reconstruction in the latter 2020s, and while no design has been done yet, the idea will be similar to the proposed changes to the south.

Which is to say, this section of Yonge will almost certainly see two lanes of traffic removed, and that space re-allocated to sidewalk width and the addition of street trees.
Given, that if this were approved, maybe in late '23, that it wouldn't top out before 2027 at the earliest, it's likely one can plan for that sidewalk width and streetscape here, and keep the energy on Yonge, not behind retained facades.

I haven't yet read the Heritage Report, but, in theory, removing the atria might allow for some retention of any surviving heritage features of the existing buildings to be retained to a material depth; in the alternative, it might be possible to recreate those features, at least on the ground level.

****

I also wonder about the 44 parking spaces..........a very small number, but removing them might allow for reconsidering the extent of the expansion of Biscuit lane, which in turn, might allow for further expansion of George Hislop Park.

Clearly, a loading function/waste management area must be retained, and that requires a certain amount of room, but how much room is an interesting question, based in part on whether there is full northward existing capability and/or turnaround space, within, or outside the building.
 
Northern Light said:
Ok, I've had my coffee and managed to get some work done............so.

There's a lot to like here..........BUT.......

I don't get the atrium idea at all here. What that does, typically is suck life off the street (Yonge) and in to the atrium, which, of course, will be privately owned space, presumably with operating hours (not open 24/7).

Not really in to that from a vitality point of view, or an 'eyes on the street' point of view.

Now, I get that.............the current sidewalks on Yonge here are grossly inadequate in width and not particularly pleasant or attractive.
However, this section of Yonge is, tentatively, set for reconstruction in the latter 2020s, and while no design has been done yet, the idea will be similar to the proposed changes to the south.

Which is to say, this section of Yonge will almost certainly see two lanes of traffic removed, and that space re-allocated to sidewalk width and the addition of street trees.
Given, that if this were approved, maybe in late '23, that it wouldn't top out before 2027 at the earliest, it's likely one can plan for that sidewalk width and streetscape here, and keep the energy on Yonge, not behind retained facades.

I haven't yet read the Heritage Report, but, in theory, removing the atria might allow for some retention of any surviving heritage features of the existing buildings to be retained to a material depth; in the alternative, it might be possible to recreate those features, at least on the ground level.

****

I also wonder about the 44 parking spaces..........a very small number, but removing them might allow for reconsidering the extent of the expansion of Biscuit lane, which in turn, might allow for further expansion of George Hislop Park.

Clearly, a loading function/waste management area must be retained, and that requires a certain amount of room, but how much room is an interesting question, based in part on whether there is full northward existing capability and/or turnaround space, within, or outside the building.
Click to expand...

Even with Yonge narrowed, I am not exactly sure the pedestrian experience will be improved necessarily - the complete lack of a setback coupled with the narrowness of the street won't make for a particularly great urban environment.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Even with Yonge narrowed, I am not exactly sure the pedestrian experience will be improved necessarily - the complete lack of a setback coupled with the narrowness of the street won't make for a particularly great urban environment.

AoD
Click to expand...

Fair enough, though does what amounts to a mini-mall really help that any?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top