You can view the page at http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/02...condo-replace-brand-new-lcbo-king-and-spadina
Last edited by a moderator:
|
|
|
- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
sodapop
Active Member
i like it better than that lcbo, but its so plain and boxy 
rro
New Member
as always a lot will depend on the quality of the finishes, etc but I think this project is stellar.
it's at a great location for tower intensification, and the base of the building is highly articulated. i care more about the first few stories than the height of the tower - and in this case the base definitely has some human-scaled interest.
it's at a great location for tower intensification, and the base of the building is highly articulated. i care more about the first few stories than the height of the tower - and in this case the base definitely has some human-scaled interest.
Bruvyman
Active Member
"usually we like to spring full-colour sexed-up render-porn on you"
This is why this site is such a guilty pleasure for me
This is why this site is such a guilty pleasure for me
Uncle Teddy
Senior Member
Didn't take long to re-do the LCBO. What a waste.
torplanner
Active Member
The LCBO was a crime against density. Glad to see it go. Don't know if 39 storeys is appropriate here, though... Seems a tad too tall (I could be wrong). How tall are the others adjacent?
erikyow
New Member
While I never understood the point of the LCBO, like the comment above, I think 39 storeys might be too high.
Here's a StreetView of how the intersection looks. http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=King a...009645&t=h&z=17&panoid=wTFsvoGMs57LaTttQlQhkg
As you can see, the building on the north side of King is roughly about 20 storeys. The buildings on the west side of Spadina are 3/5 (hostel) and 6 (loft height) storeys. But, then again, you have M5V and Charlie less than 200 metres away to the east. So, clearly height precedence has been set.
Here's a StreetView of how the intersection looks. http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=King a...009645&t=h&z=17&panoid=wTFsvoGMs57LaTttQlQhkg
As you can see, the building on the north side of King is roughly about 20 storeys. The buildings on the west side of Spadina are 3/5 (hostel) and 6 (loft height) storeys. But, then again, you have M5V and Charlie less than 200 metres away to the east. So, clearly height precedence has been set.
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
the whole plot of this short lived LCBO makes little sense and seems a waste... unless the LCBO will remain a tenant of the new tower. Perhaps LCBO was in talks all along to become a tenant of this development but did not want to wait the 3-5 years for the project to come to fruition before establishing this location. I guess we'll find out when it comes time for demolition if the LCBO structure is taken apart carefully in a way that may allow reuse or if it is carelessly turned to waste.
the only redeeming quality of the proposed elevations is the incorporation of the existing heritage building and yes it will be nice to no longer have to stare at that pink monstrosity to the east. The tower is yet another absolute bore...
the only redeeming quality of the proposed elevations is the incorporation of the existing heritage building and yes it will be nice to no longer have to stare at that pink monstrosity to the east. The tower is yet another absolute bore...
Last edited:
cat
New Member
What's going to happen to the office floors - are they part of the project? Might be nice to see them as lofts atop the heritage facade.
ShonTron
Moderator
It's not as lovely as the Morgan or Hudson, but not a detriment either. But the LCBO there is so convenient - I hope they move locations nearby in the meanwhile. I figured the one-story LCBox was a temporary structure - most big box structures in the suburbs are built with minimal expense, and I expect they more than made up the construction costs in net revenue anyway.
Jipsi
New Member
From what I understand, the LCBO was always a stop gap for the time being and that yes, they do have first right of refusal for the new property as an anchor tenant. The one story they built is essentially a pre fab for retail, a waste of money absolutely but they did it to 'mark' their territory. I thought there was a problem with Winners not wanting to break their lease, so instead the property group went east as opposed to south. Of course this could all be wrong but it's what I've heard.
Jipsi: Terracap owned the buildings to the east before they bought the site where the LCBO is. They aren't also the owners of the Spadina building with Winners in it, are they?
urbandreamer
recession proof
I hope this project gets built--looks quite beautiful, and an updated version of the now 6 yo m5v design. Looks like vertical coloured windows complimenting the m5v horizontal bands nearby. The bay window design is a great interpretation of toronto's victorian housing stock.
39s is appropriate here--the gateway to bay st.
I think the sw and nw corners of Spadina and King will see redevelopment this decade--keeping the old buildings of course as podiums.
39s is appropriate here--the gateway to bay st.
I think the sw and nw corners of Spadina and King will see redevelopment this decade--keeping the old buildings of course as podiums.
grey
Senior Member
I could live with this.
So much for that new m:brgr restaurant.
It'll be a shame to see 401/409 King get facadomized, but it's probably worth it to cover up the awful blank wall of 393 King.
So much for that new m:brgr restaurant.
It'll be a shame to see 401/409 King get facadomized, but it's probably worth it to cover up the awful blank wall of 393 King.