Exciting news !


Got to love the bit about "revitalizing a vacant stretch of Yonge" ... right, you made it empty !
 
The lot on Nov 2, 2011 - and it's neighbour.

IMG_4286.jpg



IMG_4289.jpg



IMG_4293.jpg
 
Last edited:
One can only hope that Ryerson manages to get that piece of property immediately south of the student centre site- this would make for a great opportunity if they did; maybe an international competition for emerging architects? Two nice little gems side by side?
 
Not much you can built in that lot, unless they purchase the next door (HMV) building.
Looking at those pics, hopefully in 5 years both eye-sores in the back are behind two brand spanking new buildings.
 
Not much to build on that lot? I am not suggesting anything bigger than 6-7 stories, maybe max 9 to sort of match its norwegian neighbor. It's a tight site no question, but not impossible or difficult tobuild on.

P5
 
My version of the headline:
Ugly building that ignores its context, approved by Community Council that will accept anything it is given.
 
I'm going to keep saying it.. they should force the owners to rebuild the building they burnt down brick for brick.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Any proof:confused:
Click to expand...

Owners try to get it demolished to replace it. Get denied. Leave it to collapse from neglect. Try to get the rest of it demolished. Denied. On the way to heritage designation. Mysteriously burns down in a confirmed arson.

Do the math. They burnt it down.
 
The_Architect said:
Owners try to get it demolished to replace it. Get denied. Leave it to collapse from neglect. Try to get the rest of it demolished. Denied. On the way to heritage designation. Mysteriously burns down in a confirmed arson.

Do the math. They burnt it down.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think that there's only a 99% chance you are right. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. ;)
 
Has anyone heard if they have awarded the retail leasing contract to anyone?
 
Approval. Excellent. I can already envision students saying "hey, I'll meet you at the snot". Or maybe it will evolve into "I was studying at the nose the other day".
 
The_Architect said:
Owners try to get it demolished to replace it. Get denied. Leave it to collapse from neglect. Try to get the rest of it demolished. Denied. On the way to heritage designation. Mysteriously burns down in a confirmed arson.

Do the math. They burnt it down.
Click to expand...


Pure conjecture. A court would want better proof: for example, starting with the fellow captured on CCTV, they'd want a demonstrable link between him and the owners. Otherwise you'd probably have more than enough reasonable doubt.

Nonetheless, if this were Vegas, everyone knows who they'd put their money on.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top