News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

  • Thread starter billy corgan19982
  • Start date
jozl said:
Those concrete walkways should have been removed when NPS was “improved” a few years ago. Maybe they could string some overhead TTC and hydro wires to blend in with the general Toronto Motif.
Click to expand...

Seems like people never learn. This post exemplifies why we must always be vigilante and not assume that our architectural gems are safe in perpetuity. It's views like yours that led to the destruction of countless pre-WW2 buildings. Barbarians at the gate.
 
MetroMan said:
and at least a part of the infrastructure for a drop zone like ride is also there (the cylindrical pillar on the east side of the building).
Click to expand...

That's not what that is.

There is almost no conceivable way you can have a "Drop Zone" ride on this site in its current form, legally, logistically or structurally, not to mention from a safety standpoint.
 
.dwg said:
That's not what that is.

There is almost no conceivable way you can have a "Drop Zone" ride on this site in its current form, legally, logistically or structurally, not to mention from a safety standpoint.
Click to expand...

Disney abandoned their plans for a theme park at Metropolis while they were still building the foundations so the actual structures for the rides were never built. However; the building shape retained features where they were supposed to go.

Digging into my memory, I recall that it was more of a crane like ride at the top of the cylinderical pole. One thing I do remember well was that anchors for a rollercoaster-like ride on the roof were still retained in the iron structure of the building. Theoretically, they could build that coaster if Cineplex wanted to bring Rec Room to Yonge-Dundas.
 
My memory didn’t fail me. I pulled out my archives and there it is :

5FAF992A-4B77-45B5-A9EC-910A7BED2B80.jpeg


This was the earliest rendering when Disney was still involved. It shows the crane-like ride atop the cylindrical structure.

After this rendering, there was one from a head on perspective where you could see Disney’s mouse ears and a roller coaster on the roof. That rendering was short lived, so much that I don’t think I saved it. Because within days, first Disney, then Virgin pulled out of the project one after the other and the mouse ears and coaster were removed from the rendering. This one was released instead.
31A90902-70DF-4777-A035-9F794FB65238.jpeg


The billboards grew bigger to cover the roof. The crane ride is still there however. I suspect they were trying to lure a new theme park anchor tenant.

Then finally, after years of glacial progress and rotting blue hoarding, the thing started moving again and a final rendering was released where rides were dropped, and Future Shop signed up as the anchor tenant in the space where the Disney theme park was supposed to go.
EC5557FA-EFDF-4F8B-AA52-EBC5C536507D.jpeg
 
Interesting, I also see that the AMC dropped down from 30 screens to 24 between the renderings above.


In that last rendering... interesting mix... both actual tenants and theoretical tenants? Or was the complex going to be called the "Panasonic centre"?

EDIT: Ugh those God awful fans.
 
.dwg said:
As is often the case on UT, you are reading wayyy too far into what are simply renderings. As anyone in the industry will tell you, renderings mean nothing beyond some sort of conceptual or marketing idea, usually a very initial one.
Click to expand...

I didn't base my knowledge of the project on just renderings. There were at the time details, both from published sources and info garnered from discussions with my contacts at a firm that was producing the technical drawings for PenEquity. Disney wanted to build a theme park, and while the types of rides weren't decided on, the renderings, including the more detailed rendering with the rollercoaster, provided an idea into what they were aiming for.

Disney was one of 3 anchor tenants. They pulled out when they realized how incompetent PenEquity was. Virgin also pulled out, probably for a combination of that same reason and the fact that Virgin Megastores had their days numbered. AMC was the only one who stuck around, and still only because they were able to downsize the number of theatres.
 
Student99 said:
Interesting, I also see that the AMC dropped down from 30 screens to 24 between the renderings above.


In that last rendering... interesting mix... both actual tenants and theoretical tenants? Or was the complex going to be called the "Panasonic centre"?

EDIT: Ugh those God awful fans.
Click to expand...

Panasonic had the rights to the screen. Perhaps that came with naming rights.

Eventually, they did sell the naming rights to Toronto Life but once it became obvious what a heap of trash this building was becoming, St. Joseph Media wanted nothing to do with it, and certainly didn't want its most valuable brand name on the building.

Toronto Life Square.png
 
This was doomed as a wannabe Times Square when a mall/big box developer got the job. Nevermind the long wait. I won't post earlier silly renders.

So in the spirit of "lipstick on a pig" situation... what would wise UT minds do with this thing? Bigger screens will help but might need one great idea.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top