[Ramako]

I guess that means we're in for a facadectomy of the entire block.

 

[Edward Skira]

It is a VERY narrow lot as the laneway behind is City property. Hard to see how they could actually service 47 floors or provide parking or ...

Would there be any reason for the laneway to remain if the developer owned basically the entire west end of the block?

 

[whatever]

I'm reading that as a slabtastic building on the parking lot directly behind the King St buildings. They might actually be preserving the buildings entirely and just incorporating them into the application to make the density numbers more palatable.

 

[gristle]

No, nothing makes that slab palatable.

 

[Edward]

Please keep King alone beyond a general reno and put the tower on the parking lot.

 

[DSC]

Would there be any reason for the laneway to remain if the developer owned basically the entire west end of the block?

Maybe not but the City cannot be compelled to sell it so have more power than normal to control what is built there. Of course if the only access to the building is from King it will create major traffic problems and do we really want their loading dock there? I think not!

 

[thecharioteer]

Maybe not but the City cannot be compelled to sell it so have more power than normal to control what is built there. Of course if the only access to the building is from King it will create major traffic problems and do we really want their loading dock there? I think not!

It would appear from the City maps that only a small portion of the lane is City-owned, the portion easterly from Leader Lane. The balance is private.

 

[DSC]

It would appear from the City maps that only a small portion of the lane is City-owned, the portion easterly from Leader Lane. The balance is private.

This came up when the St Lawrence Neighbourhood Association was investigating laneway names in 2010 and apparently the City has done further research and the whole of the Lane is actually City property.

 

[AlbertC]

I have more detailed pics that I'll post later tonight when I get home. This is possibly one of the most overwhelming and thoughtless buildings ever proposed in the city.

 

[jje1000]

I have more detailed pics that I'll post later tonight when I get home. This is possibly one of the most overwhelming and thoughtless buildings ever proposed in the city.

Sounds like it's ripe for a game of "Let's guess the architects!"

 

[alklay]

Or "let's hurt the architects".

 

[SP!RE]

Oh God... here we go again, Toronto!

 

[AlbertC]

Tell me this is not the most pathetic building proposal you've ever seen. This monstrosity is unacceptable. Realistically though, this proposal doesn't stand a chance in hell in its current form/massing.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxxstarr/7140936649/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxxstarr/7140936883/

 

[Gphorce]

I'm half laughing and terrified at this proposal. On one hand, it's hilarious that a developer would propose this, and secondly, if this ever went through I would cry. I'm glad they're at least keeping the facades, but that hulking monstrosity is a serious block killer. Call me a NIMBY, but that is not being built in my Toronto!

 

[ahmad.m.atiya]

I'm half laughing and terrified at this proposal. On one hand, it's hilarious that a developer would propose this, and secondly, if this ever went through I would cry. I'm glad they're at least keeping the facades, but that hulking monstrosity is a serious block killer. Call me a NIMBY, but that is not being built in my Toronto!

Luckily, you are not the sole person responsible for making these decisions. This building kind of reminds me of thr Manulife Centre. I'd love to see this building go up per specs, as lng as the cladding is reasonable.