[Tuscani01]

If I had a financial stake in some of the most exciting office projects that have been announced but not yet gone to market -- The Hub, Union Centre, and 77 Wade being my personal favourites, followed in no particular order by QRC West II, Portland Commons, 58 Atlantic, Commerce Court III, 391 Adelaide W., T3 Sterling, this one, and a smattering of both smaller projects (like 540 King) and massive projects (like East Harbour) -- I'd still be feeling pretty good about things once the acute uncertainty of the next, say, 18-24 months clears, which also probably aligns with the development timelines many of those projects were on, anyway.

I wouldn't be worried if things did eventually get back to normal, but I can't see things ever going back to where we were. Employers now see that their employees can effectively work from home. This is going to reduce the need for office space. My employer has already said that we won't be going back to normal, which makes me wonder if our new office plans have also been scrapped. That's a potential office tower at Yonge and Eglinton which may have just lost its primary tenant. Even if companies reduce office days by 1 a week, that's going to result in lots of excess space and reduce the need for new space.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Of course, I appreciate the complexities of the process and mediating between interests. I'm new here, but work in development, have a masters in planning and lurked the forums for years, so I'm pretty familiar with the process.

It's more just my frustration with the City's attitude towards heritage conservation, which is a joke. We have no regard for protecting the interiors of buildings, content with maintaining a facade or two. We have no framework for maintaining heritage buildings or restoring them in the City as a whole, other than piecemeal designations.

City Staff pick and choose between which planning guidelines apply in certain contexts. Planning is inherently subjective - which is a good thing - the decisions that have driven this to be where it's at are the result of the guiding principles from staff, who fixate on certain things but fail to see the bigger picture.

Bit difficult to 'protect' things that more often than not don't meet current code or AODA standards, no?

 

[TheSix]

I wouldn't be worried if things did eventually get back to normal, but I can't see things ever going back to where we were. Employers now see that their employees can effectively work from home. This is going to reduce the need for office space. My employer has already said that we won't be going back to normal, which makes me wonder if our new office plans have also been scrapped. That's a potential office tower at Yonge and Eglinton which may have just lost its primary tenant. Even if companies reduce office days by 1 a week, that's going to result in lots of excess space and reduce the need for new space.

You raise a good point. However, you could argue that the office space will balance out as future layouts will require "social distancing" designs over the cramped current "call centre" open layout trend. We'll have a better idea on how this pans out most likely closer to the end of 2021.

 

[hbf92]

Bit difficult to 'protect' things that more often than not don't meet current code or AODA standards, no?

Err... You are suggesting that anything that doesn't meet code or accessibility requirements isn't worth protecting? So essentially any building built before 2001? Updating historic buildings to meet modern standards is certainly a challenge but most certainly can be done - do I really need to give examples of this?

 

[ProjectEnd]

I'm not saying that we can't or that we don't - just that often owners don't want to, simply because of the headache involved. You might be surprised at how much HPS just does not care about accessibility when 'heritage fabric' is proposed to be altered.

 

[Marcanadian]

Site Plan docs now available:

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. The Application Information Centre allows you to: Search by...

app.toronto.ca

 

[jje1000]

I wish this plan was more ambitious in terms of what it could do with rooftop amenity/POP space, especially considering that half the building isn't going to be redeveloped.

Even if the roof can't hold up large plantings, surely some public access could be integrated?

 

[urbanyimby]

I wish this plan was more ambitious in terms of what it could do with rooftop amenity/POP space, especially considering that half the building isn't going to be redeveloped.

Even if the roof can't hold up large plantings, surely some public access could be integrated?

There's plenty of public access next door at CIBC square.

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

I think he meant they could use the space for something other then a roof.

 

[urbanyimby]

I think he meant they could use the space for something other then a roof.

It's their private space so they should use it however they like.

 

[Northern Light]

It's their private space so they should use it however they like.

Why such a confrontational tone?

Someone suggested they have a preference for something different. That's all.

This forum is entirely about that; debating architectural choices, as well as public policy and planning choices.

While hopefully, opinions are where possible based in facts, and supported by evidence; they are, at the end of the day opinions.

If your logic that we can't discuss our preferences were upheld, there would be much less discussion here.

I would ask that you consider comporting yourself more amiably to your fellow posters.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Said it before, will say it again - some buildings should be treated as sacrosanct - no untoward alterations, additions and densification en masse - this is one case.

AoD

 

[Amare]

Said it before, will say it again - some buildings should be treated as sacrosanct - no untoward alterations, additions and densification en masse - this is one case.

AoD

Unfortunately Toronto has some kind of fetish with touching every historical building in sight, no matter what it is. The only buildings that are safe are Queen's Park and City Hall. Asides from that, this city/province will just allow for practically anything to be hacked up.

 

[DSC]

Said it before, will say it again - some buildings should be treated as sacrosanct - no untoward alterations, additions and densification en masse - this is one case.

AoD

While this is a great theory, the reason that 1 Front will probably be allowed to do pretty much what they want is due to an OMB settlement from the 1990s (I think 1995) where the then owner (The Feds) objected to (I think) Brookfield Place and settled once they got a greater density/height limit. Today, the City has often objected to plans for changing listed or designated buildings and has been over-ruled by OMB/LPAT (or has settled in fear of a worse outcome. One problem in Ontario is that if a building owner ever gets some sort of exception it lasts for ever, in many places these things are on a 'use it or lose it' basis.

 

[Johnny Au]

Unfortunately Toronto has some kind of fetish with touching every historical building in sight, no matter what it is. The only buildings that are safe are Queen's Park and City Hall. Asides from that, this city/province will just allow for practically anything to be hacked up.

The Gooderham Building is spared.