ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
12,032
Reaction score
24,309
So in other words it is in fact land that can be intensified, which is the point. However at this point there is no one who owns it that is interested in such.
As @Northern Light alluded, we're getting way off topic here, but Brookfield may or may not have plans for that land. It was zoned in the 80s for additional density that never materialized (I believe it was a victim of the 90s recession). Since then, ownership has splintered with Oxford / OMERS taking the TD Tower and Brookfield retaining Bay Wellington.

Could it be developed? Sure. Would it be by a third entity to build a residential project? Almost certainly not.
 

steveve

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
6,124
Reaction score
7,405
Definitely a fan of the overall proportions, eerily reminiscent of something you would see in the densest parts of Manhattan.

Here's some additional context from the east (very modest in scale next to CC3):

51705769837_47d6f96525_h.jpg
 

The Preservationist

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
396
Reaction score
939
Philosophical question: Why not make its Northern neighbour a little larger, taller and preserve here? Looks like the floor area on the building's upper block could barely accommodate a full sized snooker table...
 

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
2,931
Philosophical question: Why not make its Northern neighbour a little larger, taller and preserve here? Looks like the floor area on the building's upper block could barely accommodate a full sized snooker table...
Its northern neighbor already needs to be modified for shadowing reasons. Good luck getting anything bigger there.
 

Doppleganger

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
52
Reaction score
83
Maybe we should consider relocation of the entire structure (including the interior) elsewhere.

AoD
That's a definite option that was done for the Campbell House back in '72, but as architecturally interesting as these two gems are, I doubt whether the developer(or the city) would be willing to cover what would be a very costly project.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
31,673
Reaction score
24,865
City:
Toronto
That's a definite option that was done for the Campbell House back in '72, but as architecturally interesting as these two gems are, I doubt whether the developer(or the city) would be willing to cover what would be a very costly project.

Not to mention run against the notion of preservation in-situ. Having said that, it is probably more desirable than just keeping the facade. As to cost, they will have to work out the math.

AoD
 

Doppleganger

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2016
Messages
52
Reaction score
83
Not to mention run against the notion of preservation in-situ. Having said that, it is probably more desirable than just keeping the facade. As to cost, they will have to work out the math.

AoD
Mind you, if the city could purchase a corner lot in some less pricey part of the city(gulp) and make a deal with the developer to cover the 'moving' expenses(or even vice versa), then I could see it happening. Some lot in the new Portlands development that would benefit from a bit of 'heritage" suddenly comes to mind!
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,270
Reaction score
3,530
Nope.

I mean if it must happen, yay for saving the facade.......

But nope.........just chuck it in the bin, let the buildings stay, with some tasteful restoration.

Also the pattern of a deep setback, then going fat again, then going thin again looks ridiculous!
Late to the party here - only saw this project today when it was featured on the main page.

I completely agree with the general consensus.

This particular heritage building should be off limits to any kind of development - especially one like this, where the tower is absolutely hideous.
 

Top