I understand that developers are in the business of making money, my suggestion is not that they should keep the Concourse as is so as to "benefit" the city. But I think you are seriously wrong in your dismissal of sub-A office space, especially in the core.
Click to expand...


Oxford's profit margin or not, I see a larger benefit to having new Class A office space built in the financial core

I also know of many start-up companies that do quite well leasing/sub-leasing the leftover remnants in our more presitiges office buildings

Have to make a personal decision on Concourse's likely doom but we have definitely reached a point in the CBD where buildings must come down for new ones to go up
 
I dunno, I still feel there's this aura about AP that suggests the bile of one whose livelihood's been, at some point or another, compromised by loudmouth "marginal groups"...or at the receiving end of bad newspaper coverage, a bad Lisa Rochon review, whatever...
 
Not at all. I'm just a practical thinker, and no one here, especially you, has articulated a reason for preserving the interior of the Concourse Building.
 
Perhaps a reason for preserving the interior is to preserve the exterior without that massive blunder perched over it. Is AP suggesting that it is wrong or somehow misguided to preserve and restore One Benvenuto Place as it is, without extra floors? Must we TipTopTailorize every building?

I actually don't really disagree that much with AP about the use of the building, though I strongly disagree on its aesthetics. I also think that, if something gets built there, it's more than likely been redesigned anyways.

I found MS's comments about the benefit of Class A office space quite convincing. There probably is more of a shortage of Class A looming than other classes.
 
I'm not really in the loop on what's going on at Benvenuto Place.

My thinking is that it's better to Tip Top Tailorize buildings (Maritime Life-ize? BCE Place -ize?) than to have them torn down and replaced all together. I also don't think that everything that's old needs to be preserved - the facade of the Concourse is attractive and unique to Toronto and and interesting example of the architecture of it's day, and so is worth conserving. The interior is nothing. Neither historic in its form nor for anything that occured inside, and is no loss to anyone.

The addition is a glass tower office building. It is neither offensive nor exceptional. As is pretty much every other building.
 
Can any one state for certain that the design has not changed significantly over the past few years. It is entirely possible, that tenants looking for larger floor plates, different configurations (a.k.a RBC Centre) may have led to a different design of the building.
 
My thinking is that it's better to Tip Top Tailorize buildings (Maritime Life-ize? BCE Place -ize?) than to have them torn down and replaced all together
Click to expand...

Depends on the circumstance (i.e. location, useage, built form, and whatever else)
 
Might as well return to this...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy, this is like a Clash fan trying to reason with a Toto fan c1979...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not really. Those of us who like the Clash did so then because we enjoyed progress in music, and didn't want to hang on to old, outdated, useless forms. Also, we could, and can, explain why we like the Clash.
Click to expand...
However, one might argue that c1979, the Toto side of the equation might have seen itself as standing for so-called "progress in music". State-of-the-art musicianship, state-of-the-art production, state-of-the-art pop/rock. The "Class A office space" of its craft. Whereas the Clash; just more of that barren, grotty-sounding ramalama punk-rock gibberish which nobody but grubby squat-dwelling misfits like.

In which case, one might more easily frame WZMH Class A corporate stuff in the "Toto" camp and a Zeidler-sister-managed old hulk in the "Clash" camp. "Progress" is in the eye of the beholder, you know. (A little reminder: the ruling Tories would view themselves as avatars of "progress in politics" versus the "old, outdated, useless" ways of the Liberals and NDP.)

Personally, I'm either/neither Toto/Clash. Besides, I'd rather subvert both sides equally w/Daddy Dewdrop's "Chick-A-Boom";-)
 
I've never seen anyone with such a talent for using so many words to say absolutely nothing.
 
Why are you so dead set in favour of saving pokey, small offices, not wired for internet, or fax, with bad hvac and which are not configureable for current office use and are therefore unrentable?
Click to expand...

Wired for internet? Thats so 20th century. The whole city will be wireless soon so who need wires? This building should be preserved, it's good to have a diversity of office spaces for a cross-section of business types. Small is good (and affordable).
 
Wired for internet? Thats so 20th century. The whole city will be wireless soon so who need wires?
Click to expand...

Then who needs buildings, or cities, for that matter?
 
You try running a corporation on wireless, then. It isn't practical.
 
My thinking is that it's better to Tip Top Tailorize buildings (Maritime Life-ize? BCE Place -ize?) than to have them torn down and replaced all together. I also don't think that everything that's old needs to be preserved - the facade of the Concourse is attractive and unique to Toronto and and interesting example of the architecture of it's day, and so is worth conserving. The interior is nothing. Neither historic in its form nor for anything that occured inside, and is no loss to anyone.
Click to expand...

So the interior is not "historic in its form," and yet its form is out-of-date? This is a very confusing argument from someone who's blustering about clarity of thought.

The very size and shape of the interior is historic. So (for instance) are the beat-up brick, 3-story scale, and high ceilings of the Victorian buildings along Queen West. Through your argument, those could all be facadized too, and replaced with an endless series of identical, large-floored, expensive offices.

This ignores
1) the basic value of preserving the city's historic urban form for the architectural sake of it (how many Deco towers do we have left?)
And
2) the economic value of having a diverse range of office space, including "obsolete" and cheap office space, available, so that the CBD is not occupied 100% by the big banks.
Oxford Properties may not maximize their investment renting such a bldg, but if we had meaningful preservation laws a few years ago they would have to keep it anyway. The choice between facadism and demolition is a bad one, and should NOT be the only choice.

I might add that the deco towers near King and Spadina, which were not exactly prime space 15 years ago, are full and attracting new and higher-rent creative tenants. If the Victory building was in a hipper location, it would have a similar transition. Who's to say if Bay and Adelaide will be hip in 20 years? Or 40?
 
I've never seen anyone with such a talent for using so many words to say absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
Spoken by somebody who doesn't know who either Tim or Jeff Buckley is...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top