... unfortunately we'll be stuck with this mindset for decades. It is shocking to me that a government enterprise would be so insensitive to urban development issues and density in a city project like this. Even Home Depot and Ikea can come up with urban versions of their big box stores... then again, nothing surprises me when it comes to the LCBO. Can we grow up and ban these obnoxious government monopolies once and for all?
 
Yes, but why build a temporary structure more complex than this if it's just going to be torn down again in the next cycle? The urban Home Depots and Ikeas you mentioned are on longer leases, so they have no problem building several stories. This LCBO is not permanent. If they had the land for a longer period, they'd have probably built something bigger. Or, if the lease was shorter, they might have put up a tent.

We would all like an 8-storey mixed-use building here, but who's going to invest the money to build something like that on a short lease?
 
Last edited:
Grey, I didn't realize this was somewhat temporary. Makes sense then, definitely. Hopefully something more appropriate will be there long term.

And just imagine all the wonderful little specialty shops, wine and cheese etc. that we could have with privatization. I could see lots of heritage buildings fitting in just fine for this sort of thing.
 
It's nice that they're at least using a brick exterior and not stucco.
 
MetroMan said:
^ We won't be stuck with it for decades.

The owner of the property also owns the land on which stands Winners. Once their lease expires, the whole area will be cleared and ready for the next wave of the condo boom.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if this building was knocked down within the next 10 years to make way for something else. That Scotiabank at Bloor and Balmuto is another example of a 2 floor building on a lot where something far more substantial should have been built. I thought the Scotiabank was temporary too, but it's still there, years later. We shall see.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Yuk...mustard coloured brick in a well established heritage red brick area.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You mean yellow/tan brick, in an area with lots of yellow/tan brick as well as red brick from both new buildings (Hudson, The Morgan) and old (warehouses).
 
It's not that temporary. The LCBO would have signed a multi year lease that I doubt would be that short. It looks horrible.
At the very least they can use it as a condo showroom when the time comes...
 
Yeah, I mean, at least this rather high-profile corner is preserved for future development, when we'll presumably be even more enlightened, and occupied with something useful in the meantime... Imagine what might have been built here had the land owner developed it in the '90s. We might have gotten another University Plaza or something. Yikes.
 
i was involved in a 2-hour lcbo focus group. they were trying to figure out how the lcbo could appeal to young people (lower all the prices, anyone?). they asked silly questions. they also asked us if we had any complaints, criticisms, suggestions etc...

this building was at the top of my list. a waste of space that in no way acknowledges the youth, culture, history or architecture of the area. i mean really, couldn't they have just built a condo on top of this thing? or better yet, some government housing. the province could have certainly brokered a deal with TCHC. anyway, what a shame.
 
... unfortunately we'll be stuck with this mindset for decades. It is shocking to me that a government enterprise would be so insensitive to urban development issues and density in a city project like this. Even Home Depot and Ikea can come up with urban versions of their big box stores... then again, nothing surprises me when it comes to the LCBO. Can we grow up and ban these obnoxious government monopolies once and for all?
Click to expand...

How is this building not urban? It is no different than the Winners building directly to the south of it outside of it being new. It meets the street well, has no parking and takes out a parking lot. And it contains booze. A win-win-win-win all around. Even if it lasts 30 years it is still better than what is there now. And someday something more substantial will easily replace it.
 
I agree with you that booze is always a good thing but a low-rise building at this site is irresponsible in terms of the mandate for higher density within the city along transit routes. This is basically a suburban design. If the LCBO cared to be more responsible they would have considered other options like rescuing a heritage building or building higher (several floors of retail with residential above perhaps?). There are all kinds of things that could have been done.

barrytron3030 said:
i was involved in a 2-hour lcbo focus group. they were trying to figure out how the lcbo could appeal to young people (lower all the prices, anyone?). they asked silly questions. they also asked us if we had any complaints, criticisms, suggestions etc...
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight... not only is the LCBO spending tax-payer's money on focus groups and consultants (do I smell another scandal?) but they are doing this to try to figure out how to sell more booze when they already hold the monopoly on it?... AND they're trying to figure out how to get young people to drink more???!!! This disgusts me no end.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top