Maybe that's the thing: the current building (warts and all) and its current tenancy demonstrate something of Jane Jacobs' why-old-buildings-are-necessary logic....
Click to expand...

steveintoronto said:
Indeed, canarob might as well have protested "and the colour is just wrong too".
Click to expand...

I think it has functioned as a useful "old building" for the last several decades (providing worn office space at reasonable rents), but it's reaching a point where major renovation will be required just to stay functional and, presumably, the tax bills are starting to shoot up because of gentrification along Yonge Street. I appreciate the sentiment behind statements such as "the present building could me re-made much better," but we are talking about a building whose interior never had as much character as the exterior. I also suspect many original elements were removed during the 90s renovation. How would you make it better exactly, without modernizing it to the point where it would be unrecognizable (new window system, etc.)?
 
canarob said:
How would you make it better exactly, without modernizing it to the point where it would be unrecognizable (new window system, etc.)?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but that's exactly what I'd propose, the facade/veneer removed, new applied, windows, in at least some areas. The superstructure might also need to be modified in places, and one must be careful with touting what I suggest, as costs can be greater than just starting again, but many buildings have been redone anew, and at a considerable savings and newer utility. And it would be far less of an imposition on that corner and neighbouring properties. I see nothing wrong with the present size and footprint. It fits well on that corner...and dare I state this....superstructure permitting, a few floors could be added in a total refit. And direct access to the subway added.

I just get a little tired of 'new, super, whiz-bang shiny, ultra clean, turbo automatic' when a tastefully fitted out Chevrolet does the trick nicely.

I'm a bit of a nerd I guess. Some of the most effective rail locomotives are re-built of frames and bogies older than that building. Modern and efficient where needed, but not to replace something that has lots of life left in it with a rebuild and re-purposed focus. Seems to me that Toronto is highly lacking in living space. So why tear things down? Build as infill where needed, and refurbish the extant.

Is there anything of a *major dysfunction* with that building that you can itemize?
 
steveintoronto said:
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but that's exactly what I'd propose, the facade/veneer removed, new applied, windows, in at least some areas.
Click to expand...

Though unless it's in "visual kind" (and maybe with clock reinstatement as a bonus), the removal/replacement of the facade/veneer would negate the, uh, aesthetic integrity of the original, no?

Also, to those of you who might utter "I wouldn't give it a second thought if it were in NYC"--actually, I, myself, *would*. (Hey, if garish and long-loathed "out of place" Morris Lapidus hotels are now cherishable landmarks, why not this)
 
adma said:
the removal/replacement of the facade/veneer would negate the, uh, aesthetic integrity of the original, no?
Click to expand...
"Negate" is a subjective interpretation of change. "Replace" would be far more objective.

adma said:
Also, to those of you who might utter "I wouldn't give it a second thought if it were in NYC"--actually, I, myself, *would*. (Hey, if garish and long-loathed "out of place" Morris Lapidus hotels are now cherishable landmarks, why not this)
Click to expand...
NYC, last time I checked, has some demanding planning regs, not least the height and setback and how that must be made to fit with existing and proposed zoning.
Share
print.png
Print
Commercial Districts: Overview
Commercial activities in the city are permitted in eight commercial districts based on their functional similarities and locational requirements. Small retail and service shops in C1 and C2 districts serve the immediate needs of surrounding residential communities. Larger stores with more goods and services are found in C4 districts, borough-wide regional retail centers like Main Street in Flushing and Fordham Road in the Bronx. C5 and C6 districts, central business districts that serve the city, the region and the nation, are mapped in Midtown, Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City. Three districts serve specific purposes: C3 for waterfront recreation, C7 for amusement parks and C8 for heavy repair shops and automotive uses.

All of the commercial uses permitted in the eight basic commercial districts are included in Use Groups 5 through 16. Use groups are assigned to specific commercial districts according to the purpose of the district, the impacts of the use and its compatibility with other uses. Residential uses (Use Groups 1 and 2) and community facilities (Use Groups 3 and 4) are allowed in all C1 through C6 districts but are prohibited in C7 districts. Residential uses and Use Group 3 community facilities are prohibited in C8 districts.

The eight commercial districts are subdivided (as indicated by a numerical suffix) to reflect variations in bulk and parking and loading requirements. The floor area ratio (FAR) for a C4-1 district, for example, is 1.0 while the FAR for a C4-7 district is 10.0. (In medium- and high- density commercial districts, plazas, pedestrian amenities and, by special permit, subway improvements can generate an increase in the maximum commercial FAR.) Front and side yards are not required in commercial districts.

In addition to the floor area rules, height and setback requirements ensure that adequate light, air and open space are provided. In non-contextual districts, the height of a building is controlled by a sky exposure plane or, in the highest density districts, by tower regulations. In contextual districts, specific limits are set for both the height of a building and its base height before setback.

In the high-density C5 and C6 commercial districts, the floor area ratio is the principal bulk control. In other commercial districts that are not as centrally located, high off-street parking requirements are frequently as important as the FAR in controlling the intensity of development.

Contextual commercial districts are designated in areas that are substantially residential in character. In these districts, indicated by an A, D or X suffix, such as C4-4D, supplementary bulk regulations mandate that all developments maintain street wall continuity and a harmonious relationship with other buildings in the area.

Some C1 and C2 districts are mapped as overlays, usually within low- and medium-density residential neighborhoods. In these districts, residential bulk is governed by the residence district within which the overlay is mapped, whereas all other commercial districts that permit residential use are assigned a specific residential district equivalent. In all mixed buildings, commercial uses must be located below any residential use.

Parking requirements vary depending upon the use and access to mass transit. Generally, the lower the numerical suffix, the more off-street parking is required. Parking is not required in the Manhattan Core (except within the Hudson Yards Special District) or in Long Island City.

For detailed information, and a comparison of district requirements, open the
pdf_icon.gif
Commercial Districts Zoning Data Tables.
Click to expand...
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/districts-tools/commercial-districts-c1-c8.page
 
Last edited:
canarob said:
I think it has functioned as a useful "old building" for the last several decades (providing worn office space at reasonable rents), but it's reaching a point where major renovation will be required just to stay functional and, presumably, the tax bills are starting to shoot up because of gentrification along Yonge Street. I appreciate the sentiment behind statements such as "the present building could me re-made much better," but we are talking about a building whose interior never had as much character as the exterior. I also suspect many original elements were removed during the 90s renovation. How would you make it better exactly, without modernizing it to the point where it would be unrecognizable (new window system, etc.)?
Click to expand...

My chiropractor is in that building and I can attest to the reality that the interior is wanting. The problem with the current proposal is that it is so underwhelming and overreaching at the same time.

Having said that, if one wanted to argue how this existing building is meritorious on a density basis - the problem isn't with buildings like this one - but Toronto's inability to have this type of building as a more common built form across the city like everyone else does. For example, the stretch of Yonge on the east side from say Courtyard Marriott down to Gerrard (as well as College/Carlton - esp. the north side from Elizabeth to Church) is quite dense by Toronto standards and have a "presence" that is suggestive of a big city even without towers of significant height. That's what we should attempt to replicate elsewhere.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
...For example, the stretch of Yonge on the east side from say Courtyard Marriott down to Gerrard (as well as College/Carlton - esp. the north side from Elizabeth to Church) is quite dense by Toronto standards and have a "presence" that is suggestive of a big city even without towers of significant height. That's what we should attempt to replicate elsewhere.
AoD
Click to expand...
Not to mention that roads and transit are already choked in that area, indicating against even more increased density. If the present building is so in need of refurbishment, then by all means do so. Does that fly in the face of it being listed? Partially. A case can be made to 'retain it', then a rebuild is necessary, rather than a replacement that stands out like a massive erection at a church service.

It wouldn't be allowed in NYC outside a designated zone of like phallic excess. Why should it be allowed in that part of Toronto? Increased height is unavoidable to an extent, *provisioned* on services, not least transit and roads being up to the task of servicing it.

And frankly, it just looks ridiculous.
 
steveintoronto said:
Not to mention that roads and transit are already choked in that area, indicating against even more increased density. If the present building is so in need of refurbishment, then by all means do so. Does that fly in the face of it being listed? Partially. A case can be made to 'retain it', then a rebuild is necessary, rather than a replacement that stands out like a massive erection at a church service.

It wouldn't be allowed in NYC outside a designated zone of like phallic excess. Why should it be allowed in that part of Toronto? Increased height is unavoidable to an extent, *provisioned* on services, not least transit and roads being up to the task of servicing it.

And frankly, it just looks ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If it is a single tower with significant height and mixed uses (beyond a few retail spaces) then sure, by all means - but this proposal has BS written all over it - dumping two towers onto the lot is just icing on the cake.

AoD
 
steveintoronto said:
It wouldn't be allowed in NYC outside a designated zone of like phallic excess. Why should it be allowed in that part of Toronto?
Click to expand...

Since when is Toronto policy dictated by what another city has decided is appropriate for them? Surely, we can decide such things independently. I have no issue with the density, I have issue with losing a layering of architecture. 50s/60s architecture like this one isn't appreciated by the current generation and we'll have none left in 20-30 years at the rate we're going.

I agree with that 2 Carlton is functionally obsolete but I can't help but think we'll lose something if we bulldoze everything we have from that era. Many today view it as ugly. They'll be saying the same thing about ICE and Spire 40 years from now. It's almost guaranteed.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
Since when is Toronto policy dictated by what another city has decided is appropriate for them? Surely, we can decide such things independently.
Click to expand...

adma said: ↑
Also, to those of you who might utter "I wouldn't give it a second thought if it were in NYC"--actually, I, myself, *would*. (Hey, if garish and long-loathed "out of place" Morris Lapidus hotels are now cherishable landmarks, why not this)
Click to expand...
To which I answered:
NYC, last time I checked, has some demanding planning regs, not least the height and setback and how that must be made to fit with existing and proposed zoning.
Click to expand...
That being said, there's a piece in today's NYTimes about the development adjacent to Grand Central Terminal:

Future Neighbor Will Tower Over Grand Central, but Allow It to Shine
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/nyregion/tower-grand-central.html

All fully arguable, from many vectors, but here's the clincher missing from the 2 Carlton and many other Toronto throbbing erections:

Plan to Build Tower at Grand Central in Exchange for Transit Upgrades Is Approved MAY 27, 2015
28TRANSIT01-thumbStandard.jpg

The New York City Council voted on Wednesday to approve plans for a developer to build a 63-story office tower just west of Grand Central Terminal in exchange for $220 million in transit upgrades.

Plans for the skyscraper, called One Vanderbilt, have been at the center of long-running negotiations to improve the bustling subway station at Grand Central, particularly on the overcrowded 4, 5 and 6 trains on the Lexington Avenue subway line.

As part of the deal, the developer, SL Green Realty, will build new subway entrances as well as a pedestrian plaza at street level, a public hall in the building’s lobby and other upgrades.

The approach has been viewed by some proponents as a model for how the Metropolitan Transportation Authority can pay for some projects as it grapples with a $14 billion shortfall in the agency’s $32 billion proposed capital plan. The authority’s chairman, Thomas F. Prendergast, has called on state and city officials for more money.

About two-thirds of the $220 million will go toward easing congestion on the 4, 5 and 6 trains, said Councilman Daniel R. Garodnick, who helped develop the plan. Mr. Garodnick said riders who use those subways routes must deal with packed trains and delays, which are often caused by bottlenecks at Grand Central.

“Trains stall within the station as crowds enter and exit, creating delays throughout the whole system,” Mr. Garodnick said.

On Wednesday, as part of the deal, the Council approved zoning changes that were needed for the office tower to move forward. The changes allow for new, taller office buildings on the five-block stretch of Vanderbilt Avenue. Mayor Bill de Blasio has supported the rezoning plan, and Carl Weisbrod, the chairman of the Planning Commission, has said the city would work with local officials on a plan for the broader East Midtown area.

A failed plan by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to rezone the area around Grand Central faced criticism from community groups who were concerned about worsening congestion. [...continues...]
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/n...xchange-for-transit-upgrades-is-approved.html

Toronto likes to get all puffed up about being in the big leagues, but erections alone don't make for romance.
 
Last edited:
Spire is pretty boring.Only a tall glass box.Ice is cool.
Why preserve this building for something prettier like these twin towers.
Believe me,with their design and style, they will not be boring in 40-50 years.
Even in 100 years,they will be OK
This building from the 50 or 60 s is a boring and standard building without charm.
If you talk about heritage building to preserve, i talk about royal york hotel,commerce court north ,old city hall or Casa Loma.
These 4 building have style and are charming.
Do you see my point.
Thank for your comprehension.
 
enrigue8 said:
If you talk about heritage building to preserve, i talk about royal york hotel,commerce court north ,old city hall or Casa Loma.
These 4 building have style and are charming.
Click to expand...
Those are all pre-war buildings. Which mid-century buildings do you think are worth preserving?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top