cabeman

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
149
Reaction score
1
... further to Jdot's post I thought I'd start a new thread for this one

56BlueJaysWay.jpg


56BlueJaysWay1.jpg


56BlueJaysWay2.jpg


56BlueJaysWay3.jpg




And details here ...

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-1218.pdf
 

urbandreamer

recession proof
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,522
Reaction score
408
Walking around the area extensively tonight I came to the conclusion these condos are silly. I mean the area has many parking lots and relatively few historic buildings left. Develop the damn parking lots first! Yes I understand the developers maybe don't own the parking lots: then don't buy old buildings in hopes of knocking them down in the first place; this Toronto practise must stop! Seriously, walking around like I love to do (4 hour nonstop walk tonight:) I see many thousands of parking lots, one story shacks and crappy plazas that should be developed BEFORE any decent (not spectacular, but still better than a pos blah concrete and glass highrise) old warehouse/victorian house/etc comes down.

A few years ago--2002--while living in montreal the mayor decreed: develop parking lots--all must be developed--before any old buildings can be knocked down. A very smart city builder! Bring that man here!

Rant over--sorry just saw so many empty and under utilized sites today (I keep track of them counting them--tonite I counted over 400 sites south of Dundas St between Dufferin and Peter St!)
 

Canuck

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
654
Reaction score
0
I hope the Diesel stays, it was nice seeing a play there and I'd like to see more in the future.

"Cabin in the Woods Ooooh!"
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,217
Reaction score
2,162
As much as I'd like to see the parking lots gone from the city, they eventually will be and probably a lot sooner then one would think. I'm not sure why then it matters whether this re-development goes through now or later
 

Jdot

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
440
Reaction score
0
This area is going to see so much development in the next few years. So many applications in for buildings south of Queen, north of Front, between Spadina and University.
 

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
8
This one definitely bothers me a lot more than the Gretzky condo. The Diesel Playhouse and the Healeys bar are unique performance spaces and they give a lot of opportunities to young performers. When Second City moved out, they instantly found great new uses for such an excellent space. It is such a great adaptive reuse of an historic structure. It would be such a shame to see it ploughed under for a condo. I agree, urbandreamer, there is absolutely no way that people should be speculating on buildings like these, trying to demolish attractive older buildings when there are much less intrusive sites right in the neighbourhood awaiting development.
 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
6,201
Oh god, not the Diesel Playhouse :eek:

Indeed. This is what the Entertainment District is supposed to be about, a mix of different entertainment types and venues. The condo proposal doesn't do any justice to the rather attractive facade in the applicant's plan.

The scale is fine for the area, there's plenty of parking lots (like SE Adelaide/John) instead.
 

smuncky

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
1,864
Reaction score
1,020
well at least they are keeping the old facade. that's the first thing i thought of when i saw this building, is that the facade should be kept.
 

BobBob

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,288
Reaction score
0
This isn't about architecture or urban form - it's about uses. The entertainment district is defined by the many venues for theatre, comedy, music, etc. That's why so many hotels are there with many more being developed, and that's why there is such a concentration of restaurants and bars there as well. If the venues start to be redeveloped into residential, that's going to hit the hotels and restaurants.
 

alklay

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,215
Reaction score
687
I agree. The loss of the 'entertainment' elements of the area to residential and Rabbas will turn this area from an 'entertainment district' to a 'condo district' and I believe that we already have one of those: its called Cityplace and it ain't that lively.
 

St. Even

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
152
Reaction score
0
This isn't about architecture or urban form - it's about uses. The entertainment district is defined by the many venues for theatre, comedy, music, etc. That's why so many hotels are there with many more being developed, and that's why there is such a concentration of restaurants and bars there as well. If the venues start to be redeveloped into residential, that's going to hit the hotels and restaurants.

IMO it should always be about architecture and urban form -- not exclusively, but it should always be factored in otherwise we're just building, not city-building.
 

BobBob

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,288
Reaction score
0
^ What I meant to say was that, in this case, the biggest problem has to do with the use, making that the primary issue here, in my humble view.
 

Top