^^ I wouldn't mind that. Just as long as the heritage building itself isn't touched, I don't see a problem with a condominium here.
 
I love this building! A friend of mine used to live in it and the units are pretty cool with high ceilings and gorgeous windows. It definitely adds some much needed charm to Yonge St and to see it go to a condo that probably won't have any retail at the base would be horrible. I'm glad there is development downtown, but putting a residential development smack-dab on Yonge St without any retail is just another example of the suburbanisation of downtown.

"But I fear that because FORD just wants to see development downtown and only downtown, we are going to have a lower standard about what passes at CITY HALL." Huh? If anything Ford doesn't care about development downtown which is why he wants to stop the waterfront development, add more cars, reduce bike lanes, and sell land to the highest bidder with out any vision or plan for development.
 
DTowner said:
"But I fear that because FORD just wants to see development downtown and only downtown, we are going to have a lower standard about what passes at CITY HALL." Huh? If anything Ford doesn't care about development downtown which is why he wants to stop the waterfront development, add more cars, reduce bike lanes, and sell land to the highest bidder with out any vision or plan for development.
Click to expand...

The highest bidder will be developers so I think you have to admit hes pro developer... Just because hes ANTI Waterfront street car or bike lanes doesnt mean he wont take the most cash for the biggest development.. Hes against development in the suburbs. And hes against the downtown condo owners (pinkys with bikes) taking over the city. He still wants to be able to drive and park without a hastle.. Essentially he wants his cake and eat it too. It will take him a while to realize he cant have both. In the meantime how many developments will he let happen that have no regard to the neighbourhoods that surround them, is anyones guess.
 
IIRC the Masonic Hall used to be attached (legally) to the building to the east and then about 10 years ago they were severed. Looking at the property today there appears to be enough room to put a building without touching the Masonic Hall.
 
I am OK with a 5ive-like development of a point tower behind the old hall (Even though I will lose the one place I like to drop a tab and dance till dawn...LOL) But if the wrecking ball gets anywhere near this building, I will pull a page out of the eco-terrorist's handbook and chain myself to the building in protest and promise to bomb the developer's offices.
:p
This is one building where facade-ism wouldn't be acceptable either.
 
Northern Light said:
No one hold me to this....as its hearsay............

But I believe that what is proposed to to demolish the building to the east, not the principle heritage property.
Click to expand...

Well I certainly hope they don't tear down the heritage building... but I shall also be saddened if we lose Fire on the East Side and Olympic 76. Where else am I supposed to go for brunch poutine or a deep-fried panzerotto the size of a football?
 
I honestly can't see the old Masonic Buildings knocked down or much messed with. Unlike the Reynolds Building, it's still all in fine shape--maybe Toronto's best extant example of 70s-style Gastown/Pioneer Square-esque adaptive reuse. And as long as Bootmaster's still there, the early 70s hippie-cowboy aura endures. (Great that the vertical Gloucester Mews sign still exists--for now.)

I know a lot of us are jaundiced by heritage disasters in tandem w/the Ford era's looming cloud; but keep in mind that Ford wouldn't necessarily be calling the shots here. Wong-Tam would be. And all politics is local.

My feeling is, they'd most likely be eyeing the low-rise 70s addition (which, together with the glass cage elevator, was intended as a Lothian Mews-esque mini-mall element) as the site for any potential condo sliver.
 
Good comments, my head will rest well tonight thanks to your point that Kristyn Wong-Tam oversees this ward. Now about that glass cage elevator, isn't that addition for access to the lofts instead of stairs?
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Well the City let the Edison crumble and eventually burn down, why not wipe out other beautiful building on downtown Yonge. This city is really starting to SUCK.

Here's a picture that I took of the building in the summer of 2009

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

Click to expand...

I have the same concerns, dt. What, I wonder, can we hope for? A crash in the condo market, so things can cool down, and caring Torontonians can stand back and take stock for a while? Or perhaps an administration in City Hall that understands that local politics are to be respected? I fear the losses that may occur with the present administration of this city.

We are, in many respects, an extremely lucky city, to have all the activity that is going on right now, but complacency about heritage is becoming very worrisome.
 
I can't think of another time when heritage concerns were considered so seriously. Could they be better? Sure however, I think we are doing quite well when you take into account the level of development that is occuring. Many other cities in our neck of the woods have and continue to see more destruction with a lot less development pressures.
 
NO!

Hmmmm...not good if they touch that building!

Hopefully many of the other posters' comments are correct and it's not 'specifically' that building...and besides those condo units inside the masonic building are 'relatively' new...I was contacted just a few years ago about one, so it'd seem strange that they'd 'already' be redeveloped AGAIN (cause the ones on sale a few years ago were totally redone)...

...so I'm guessing (and hoping) too that it's not really this building, but the adjecent property.
 
So correct me if I am wrong, but the land was JUST zoned for development and a developer is yet to purchase the land? If this is the case, I don't see anything happening to the property for min. 4 years by the time the land is sold, planning and strategy, opened sales centre, sold 70% and started construction. But hey, anythings possible right?

Depending on the height and exact location this will hurt the 1 Bloor/Casa South views of downtown I think.
 
Register123 said:
No need to worry, stock market crashing today, I would wager that most likely less than half of what is proposed for Toronto will get built in the next 10 years. This next dip by some estimates will make Lehman going under look like child's play.
Click to expand...

Wow. Talk about overblown hysterics. The stock market did trend downward on Thursday, but it was hardly a "crash" of any sort. The DJIA ended up down a bit less than 0.5% on the day, which is a larger drop than usual but hardly special (it had gone down by three times that amount a week earlier, without anybody proclaiming that a crash was happening, and had gone UP by more than 1% the day before). The DJIA has been fluctuating between 11900 and 12200 since almost the beginning of June, and remains in that range right now.
 
I don't know if the same people bought it but I seem to remember movie director Norman Jewison's building sold within the last year or so. It's on Gloucester Lane and is immediately north of the Olympic Pizza building.
 
hi guys - i have some intel on this one. the developer will not be touching the masonic hall - it will remain wholly intact and benefit from the restoration of some of the original details (trim, mouldings, etc).

the tower will be tucked in behind the masonic hall (where the mix of newer additions are currently located) which means it will be set back from yonge by a fair bit (unlike the towers proposed at maitland which are only set off 9 metres from yonge).

not sure how tall it will be but i hope less than the 58s and 62s being proposed in the area. i heard maybe the same height as five st. joseph which is 45 but not sure - investigating further.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top