Should the Queens Park view corridor be preserved?

  • Yes

    Votes: 168 43.3%

  • No

    Votes: 145 37.4%

  • Don't Know

    Votes: 15 3.9%

  • Don't Care

    Votes: 60 15.5%
  • Total voters
    388
It's not just a 28 storeys condo. It's a 40 storey and a 28 storey condo. The lack of parking is probably a bigger deal than the low ceiling heights. The building is also 40 years old. It likely needs huge upgrades. Sometimes it's easier and cheaper to build new than to extensively renovate.
 
Peepers said:
I don't understand how it makes economic sense to tear down a 31 storey building to erect a 28 storey condo:confused:. Think of how much the demolition of the Four Seasons will cost. Of course the new building will have higher ceiling heights but at a huge premium when you factor in the cost of demolition. I think it would be better to convert the existing Tower into Condos.
Click to expand...

Again the heights reported by DCN reflects a previous proposal. The current heights approved by the OMB would roughly translate to a 39 and 37 storey building depending on floor to ceiling heights - at least those were the heights in storeys given at the hearing. You can find the height in meters in the OMB decision here:
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl090551-May-18-2010.pdf
 
One reason they need scale is to spread the cost of the demolition, which i imagine is huge, over more units. If they get chopped down too much then economic viability will ne threatened.
 
adma said:
Now, that's a naive overstatement. OTOH it has its early 70s retro flavour...
Click to expand...

Now, that's an arrogant nonsensical statement. The 4 Seasons (Hyatt Regency) was completed in 1971 so it comes by its "70's retro flavour" naturally.
 
Last edited:
Peepers said:
Now, that's an arrogant nonsensical statement. The 4 Seasons (Hyatt Regency) was completed in 1971 so it comes by its "70's retro flavour" naturally.
Click to expand...

Er, you don't have to *not* be of the early 70s to have "early 70s retro flavour", to 2010 eyes--in fact, it helps. However, to call it "one of the finest buildings of its time" is asinine and amateurish...
 
I stayed at the FS years ago, there is some great views of the skyline and Queens park from the rooms. It's a ugly building inside and out and doesn't have the grandeur like other Four Seasons are famous for, but i will be sad to see it go there is so much history with the building, Too bad another hotel chain couldn't take its place.
 
I find it to be a cross between Montreal's Chateau Champlain
1368046.jpg


and the "corporate Brutalist" vocabulary of something like Philadelphia's ill-fated One Meridian Plaza
3_hazmat1.jpg
 
If it is, looks like the folks I know at aA are listening to me! I told them I want a condo proposal that looks like those beautiful 60s concrete office buildings, like that stunning gov't building near Bay and Wellesley, or on the NW corner of U and Dundas.
 
Now that this project is approved at its lower heights, i wonder when Menkes plans to put this on the market...considering the location this project should have no problem selling.
 
The new location isn't even past the halfway mark. I don't see them releasing this before 2012 or before the bubble finally bursts and the decision is made to re-adapt or re-brand the existing building
 
It's going to be only 1 tower now. Not enough super-luxury demand out there. Thats what I hear. Still the premiere location in town IMO. Looking forward to seeing the designs. :D
 
Luxury unit purchasers want high ceilings now and the current Four Seasons definitely does not deliver in that department.

I'd rather see this get refreshed on the interior and reopen as another hotel brand, but the Four Seasons chain does not stratify like so many others. I think a teardown is inevitable.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top