News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     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
 5K     0 

  • Thread starter billy corgan19982
  • Start date
In the same way that it's impossible to go up to someone's home and say "your house is a stucco-covered ugly pile of mismatched, glued-on architectural elements that offends my sensibilities" and force them to start over - this building is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Yes, it is loathesome, inside and out. Perhaps it can improved. But it isn't going to be demolished anytime soon, and certainly not because it is aesthetically unpleasant.
 
The building is aesthetically unpleasant because it was never a priority. PenEquity was in this to make money and built it to the absolute minimum requirements to run a business and fulfill its contractual obligations with the tenants.

That said, any old warehouse can be turned into a masterpiece if efforts are put into the interior design and layout of the place.

While I don't have a great amount of faith that EPR will put a ton of money into this, at least they're a public company that has to answer to its investors. PenEquity has proven that for the building to do well, attractive design is part of the equation. All it will take is a big shareholder to visit this atrocity and immediately walk out writing an email to EPR.

I would have been really happy if the Brookfiled/Hines deal had gone through because they're a proven developer and retail property management company. Nonetheless, EPR went as far as buying this property to avoid losing money on the sale to lower offers so that shows that they'll be willing to invest in this building to insure it becomes solvent. They wouldn't have invested if they didn't think they could improve on the status quo.
 
Alvin, I like some of your suggestions but they're not entirely practical given the business and planning arrangements with Ryerson and the city. You can't remove that parking capacity when it was a condition for obtaining the building permit. Secondly, the parking belongs to Ryerson, not to EPR so the new owners have little leverage in making that decision.

That said, Ryerson may itself choose (with EPR's and the city's consent) to demolish the parking garage and replace the capacity with one at another site nearby and then build an academic building in it's place.
Retail could be added along the front to finance this. A large Chapters overlooking Victoria would do particularly well here.
Some underground parking might be able to go here, if it's possible from an engineering standpoint. However, excavating next to foundations for a building "on stilts" is a risky and very complex proposition.

I agree with breaking up the bulkiness of the exterior via the use of different cladding materials.

A glass cladding along the base using opaque/false windows (where the grey is now) would define it as a podium for the billboards above.

A protruding frame around the entire billboard surface and a dark (maybe black) background would delineate this section separatly from the podium, breaking the building into two areas rather than one grey confusing mass.
 
Last edited:
Metro:

Oh I have no doubt it is a complete mess - and I didn't think all of my ideas are plausible if at all possible in the short-term. Given Ryerson's long-term interests in both the VIC and TPH sites across the street, it might be possible to shift the parking there when the time comes. I don't assume to understand the risks of excavating the parking garage site - that said, I believe it might be possible considering the nature of the supports, the non-weightbearing nature of the existing parking garage, etc.

AoD
 
I think we really have to blame Ryerson for the mess here. It's their parking garage that ruined the interior layout of the building. If only there'd been some way to demolish the parking garage and replace it all underground. Unfortunately the opportunity to do that passed a long time ago. At this point, any decision made is compromised from the get go.

Still, I'm optimistic that they'll be able to make some improvements.
 
CC:

Why should we blame Ryerson? The interior layout has nothing to do with the reality that the exterior of the project is junk. Besides, it isn't like Ryerson have much say as to how the building actually looks - if anything, I think Ryerson got the short end of the stick - given the delays meant that the lecture halls aren't available for the initial double cohort, plus the effects the building has on two key visual corridor for the university.

AoD
 
I'll get information on this while I still can: Disney is not interested. Discussions with Cedar Fair and Six Flags are ramping up.
 
What exactly does it mean to say that the building has provisions for an amusement park on the roof? With all of the mechanical and HVAC up there would they have to build a new roof over the existing roof to serve as the fairground, or would they have to move all of that mechanical out of the way? And the building has three different roof elevations, so would this be going along Yonge, Victoria, or Dundas? I'd think the Dundas frontage would be best for tourist's view, but Victoria looks like it would potentially have the most room (but then it might be disruptive to Ryerson)

A Lucky Strikes would probably do really well here, too. There isnn't much else to do in the area after you get out of your movie at 10pm, and even the amusement park would only be useful in the summer months
 
whatever, you need to think out of the box. The HVAC could do double-duty as an amusement ("will YOU lose a finger? Sign your waiver here.").
 
whatever said:
What exactly does it mean to say that the building has provisions for an amusement park on the roof? With all of the mechanical and HVAC up there would they have to build a new roof over the existing roof to serve as the fairground, or would they have to move all of that mechanical out of the way? And the building has three different roof elevations, so would this be going along Yonge, Victoria, or Dundas? I'd think the Dundas frontage would be best for tourist's view, but Victoria looks like it would potentially have the most room (but then it might be disruptive to Ryerson)
Click to expand...

The provisions are structural. This means that the building was designed with the anticipation of the weight of rollercoasters and other rides being put on the roof. When Disney and other partners dropped out, they diverted from that so HVAC units and other elements were put on the roof ignoring those initial provisions. Some backtracking will be necessary if EPR manages to get Cedar Fair or Six Flags on board. They'll probably have to relocate the HVACs to a corralled area off to the side or mask them in some way.

I'm not sure the general idea on this forum about this "theme park" is correct. From what I understand, it's going to be more of a handful of rides that you can go on rather than a mini-Canada's wonderland where you stroll around. I wouldn't be surprised if the entrance to the rides were inside with larger rides leaving the building to go on the roof.

If rides do come to Metropolis, I hope to also see a bowling alley and some arcade type games.
 
A drop-zone type ride that raised you way up in the air would be very cool. Not sure if it could get high enough to see all the way down Yonge street to the lake, but I'd check it out for sure.

But it'll probably just be an escalator to nowhere.
 
^ Wow.. I never considered that. I remember the view from the top of the old parking garage. It was incredible. You could see the CN Tower and the CBD and looking down Yonge, you could just barely make out the lake. A drop zone tower which is the equivalent of a 24 building would definitely give an unparalleled view of the city and the lake and a jaw dropping scary view of the square below!

This reminds me of an unintentional "ride" at the Marriot Times Square. Their super fast elevators that ride up in the lobby which has no ceiling all the way to the top floor were actually fun to ride. When you drop down, the elevator goes through the floor to the lowest level so when you ride that fast without slowing down and you see the floor approaching, it feels like you're going to smash through. I know it's silly, but I and some friends couldn't get enough.
 
Lucky Strikes bowling? No thanks, way too expensive. Something simple would be much better.
 
MetroMan said:
The provisions are structural. This means that the building was designed with the anticipation of the weight of rollercoasters and other rides being put on the roof. When Disney and other partners dropped out, they diverted from that so HVAC units and other elements were put on the roof ignoring those initial provisions. Some backtracking will be necessary if EPR manages to get Cedar Fair or Six Flags on board. They'll probably have to relocate the HVACs to a corralled area off to the side or mask them in some way.

I'm not sure the general idea on this forum about this "theme park" is correct. From what I understand, it's going to be more of a handful of rides that you can go on rather than a mini-Canada's wonderland where you stroll around. I wouldn't be surprised if the entrance to the rides were inside with larger rides leaving the building to go on the roof.

If rides do come to Metropolis, I hope to also see a bowling alley and some arcade type games.
Click to expand...

The cinema-goers on the top level of AMC should be thrilled with the sound of roller-coasters clattering around above them during their movie.

I'm not crazy about this idea. I'd rather see some minor improvements to the outside of the structure, improved interactive advertising on the north side of the building, an extreme mall makeover inside and completion of the roof lines which were cut from the project.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top