Bjays92 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
The Preservationist said:
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...
Click to expand...
Its northern neighbor already needs to be modified for shadowing reasons. Good luck getting anything bigger there.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Maybe we should consider relocation of the entire structure (including the interior) elsewhere.

AoD
Click to expand...
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.
 
Doppleganger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
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
Click to expand...
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!
 
Northern Light said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top