News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
35,138
Reaction score
102,087
The thought of this being touched .....................absolutely not........

But I am just the messenger here: (from the Lobbyist Registry)

1700689840362.png


Hands off, GWL !!!

1700689907900.png


****

For now, I will just note here that there are separate entries for 180 Simcoe (did we not have a thread for that @interchange42 ?) and for 190 Simcoe.

So it appears they are examining their entire downtown campus.

180 Simcoe on the left and 190 Simcoe on the right:

1700690403383.png
 
Last edited:
If this one gets touched for any significant development proposal, we might as well just give carte blanche to dismantle and build over every historically significant building in this city.

This would pretty much be the last straw in terms of how we dont give a damn about our historical buildings.
 
I doubt the historic Canada Life building will be touched (though it could be converted into condos given its antiquated floor plates), but I could very much see redevelopment of 190 Simcoe, and possibly 206 Simcoe (the adjacent parking structure)?

In fact, I recall that 190 Simcoe was long planned for redevelopment long ago in a scheme that never was fully completed (or perhaps it's simply remained dormant until now?):

1700704041610.png

1700704141922.png

 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
I doubt the historic Canada Life building will be touched (though it could be converted into condos given its antiquated floor plates), but I could very much see redevelopment of 180 Simcoe, and possibly 206 Simcoe (the adjacent parking structure)?
Click to expand...
I know that a lot of these older office building in the UK get converted to hotel, retail and residential uses. Some of them are truly stunning! And as far as the redevelopment of the other two buildings, with the new interchange at University and Queen you could make an arguement for going very, very high.
 
officedweller said:
You can tell that the 2017 plans deferred to the height of the Canada Life Tower as remaining the prominent height element.
I think you'd have a hard time building something that would overshadow it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps but 2017 was a lifetime ago! In today’s climate I can see a radical reworking of any previous plans.
 
Sightlines are not going to be as contentious as once before and at the intersection of the Ontario and University Lines. Plus redevelopment in the campus will involve demolition. I would count on anything proposed being oversized than sensitive to the landmark tower. Nothing like the planning behimd the tower added 15 years ago.
 
maestro said:
Sightlines are not going to be as contentious as once before and at the intersection of the Ontario and University Lines. Plus redevelopment in the campus will involve demolition. I would count on anything proposed being oversized than sensitive to the landmark tower. Nothing like the planning behimd the tower added 15 years ago.
Click to expand...
Yeah OLT is just gonna approve basically any garbage pile of grey glass and spandrel that is proposed, given it's that close to a subway station. I have little hope we get anything good out of this, but I really would love to be wrong.
 
Any addition to 344 University proper would be an utter travesty. No argument there.
An eventual reworking of the interior towards, say, a residential component, while rather unfortunate, wouldn’t blind me with rage, if the exterior is respected.
Inspired redevelopment of Simcoe parking structures would be welcome, but I’m not holding my breath.

But ultimately, no matter what happens, which ideally is little, all I want for Christmas every year for the foreseeable future is for the ghost of Corporate Branding past to visit Canada Life‘s CEO in a dream and convince them to replace the GAWDAWFUL signage they installed last year with something effortlessly tasteful and classy.

edit: or maybe it was a few years ago. It still feels raw.
 
Last edited:
My dad worked in this building in his early career, so it's a sentimental feel every time I walk by. They shouldn't touch it, and if if development needs to occur "behind" it, make it mid-rise at most. Bulk that disappears from the 'front'.

Agree about the signage, can't we put it back to the old signage? That was tasteful font.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top