GabrielHurl

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
313
Reaction score
2,110
It's an old picture but it's very nice inside in the main room.

X6sG7hX.jpg


source - https://www.destinationtoronto.com/listing/irish-embassy-pub-&-grill/29600/
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,109
Reaction score
1,144
So-called "heritage preservation" must address not just exteriors but also interiors. Sure, Toronto has lots of beautiful old bank buildings (Americans joke that Toronto had a bank on every corner, whereas their cities had a tavern on every corner), but much of the beauty was on the inside. Even if the buildings still stand, many of these marble, granite and wood interiors were replaced with formica counters and cubicle offices over the past decades -- a serious loss and an insult to interior design. The building at 49 Yonge has not only a beautiful exterior but also a grand, airy, spacious interior from its former life as a banking hall, beautifully maintained and respected by the current occupant, The Irish Embassy (an excellent establishment, if you haven't been there). It deserves to be preserved in a way we can all continue to experience and enjoy it. If the interior can't be preserved in a way that is respectful, functional and accessible, then the heritage objective is moot.
If this is the case these buildings should be preserved! And team up with 55 Yonge next door for a taller tower on their parcel of land. Creating something like 1 King West did restoring the old buildings below and building basically on the side of it.
 

UrbanOzz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
153
there's a lot of junk in Toronto that should come down. there's some heritage buildings where incorporating the facade would work. These buildings though? they don't deserve that. These are beautiful and shouldn't be touched. I always think of that horrible building on University Ave where they preserved the facade and did a terrible job at it.
 

C-mac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
548
Reaction score
711
there's a lot of junk in Toronto that should come down. there's some heritage buildings where incorporating the facade would work. These buildings though? they don't deserve that. These are beautiful and shouldn't be touched. I always think of that horrible building on University Ave where they preserved the facade and did a terrible job at it.


I agree. Like that want to put two tower on top of the Dominion building, it will be a shame IMO.
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,109
Reaction score
1,144
If these buildings are historical and shouldn't be altered in anyway. Than this could be a plot to get air rights in my opinion . Then sell it again or partener up with 55 Yonge to build a supertall overall. Lol!
 

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
2,935
If these buildings are historical and shouldn't be altered in anyway. Than this could be a plot to get air rights in my opinion . Then sell it again or partener up with 55 Yonge to build a supertall overall. Lol!
Would be totally cool if Toronto adopted air rights in a case like this but that seems to totally fly in the face of current planning regulations.
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,109
Reaction score
1,144
Would be totally cool if Toronto adopted air rights in a case like this but that seems to totally fly in the face of current planning regulations.
Manhattan has been doing something like this to create 400m plus supertalls on millionaire row . Accumulating hieght advantage on the parcels of land that can't be touched because of historical reasons. Around the one parcel that can to build a super tall on. I can see this happening in the financial district lol!
 

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
2,935
Manhattan has been doing something like this to create 400m plus supertalls on millionaire row . Accumulating hieght advantage on the parcels of land that can't be touched because of historical reasons. Around the one parcel that can to build a super tall on. I can see this happening in the financial district lol!
I'm well aware of what's going on in New York, the point that I was trying to make is that Toronto's building and height restrictions are not based on a system where you can buy adjacent buildings air space to get taller totals. The height and building restrictions in Toronto are often based on things like shadowing, required setbacks and building separation. It just doesnt make a whole lot of sense to introduce an air rights system like in New York under our current planning requirements.
 

TossYourJacket

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
890
Reaction score
2,124
If these buildings are historical and shouldn't be altered in anyway. Than this could be a plot to get air rights in my opinion . Then sell it again or partener up with 55 Yonge to build a supertall overall. Lol!
Trying to suspend a supertall condo over these buildings (as implied by the idea of selling air rights above them) without touching them in any way would likely be prohibitively expensive for a building in Toronto. There's way more money in Manhattan, so projects like that are more financially viable there. But here, even if you combined it with the 55 Yonge site, it's unlikely that a project that has the massive engineering costs of trying to cantilever a 300m+ tower over these buildings (plus the costs of acquiring the properties and/or air rights) would generate enough revenue from selling condos to make a profit.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
18,900
Reaction score
43,466

Top