Yep, points well taken. I agree. In fact, I'll go further and just outright say that I don't at all like how he proceeded with this. He hastily tore down Stollery's to, I presume, obviate any chance of a heritage designation, and then left us with a hole in the wall for an indefinite period of time.

Though I think I also heard around here that he wanted the first eight or so floors of retail up and cooking by 2017 or 18....I stand to be corrected.

If that's true though, I don't mind this thing not being done. I just want to see something happening. Even eight floors would change the street level experience and portend the building's completion.
 
Miscreant said:
Though I think I also heard around here that he wanted the first eight or so floors of retail up and cooking by 2017 or 18....I stand to be corrected.
If that's true though, I don't mind this thing not being done. I just want to see something happening. Even eight floors would change the street level experience and portend the building's completion.
Click to expand...

Gee 2017 or 18 is basically a year or two away, i doubt they will even have the final approvals from the city to dig, let alone another 2yrs or so to excavate and get up 8 floors...sorry lets be realistic, more like 2019-2020, and 2022 to complete
 
I'm still wary of the fact that you have a custom home builder turned boutique condo developer proposing an absolutely massive tower targeting a higher level of finishes than what usually sells in Toronto. He and his partners have consolidated a very expense piece of property that shouldn't be ignored however, it's not diificult in comparison to actually building an 80 storey tower. Afterall, The property doesn't lose value should he fail. Announcing his desire to have retail ready for occupancy by 2018 doesn't give me an confidence either. It's a nearly impossible deadline.
 
A general observation, imo the "heritage facade" being retained at a negative to the overall design of the site. Since the redesign was unveiled, the jut out from the newly created sidewalk space this development allows is a hard pinch point.
Why is this facade not dismantled and ported down the street to a area where it might help contribute to an appropriate street wall? Fill in a hole on Yonge or Queen? I am sure Mizrahi could sell/or half fund its relocation to fully realize Foster's design?
If they can rebuild the facade of 88 and e+y surely this can be moved and rebuilt.
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
I'm still wary of the fact that you have a custom home builder turned boutique condo developer proposing an absolutely massive tower targeting a higher level of finishes than what usually sells in Toronto. He and his partners have consolidated a very expense piece of property that shouldn't be ignored however, it's not diificult in comparison to actually building an 80 storey tower. Afterall, The property doesn't lose value should he fail. Announcing his desire to have retail ready for occupancy by 2018 doesn't give me an confidence either. It's a nearly impossible deadline.
Click to expand...

A lot of Toronto's boom is comprised of people who are new to large scale condo projects. *shrugs*
 
Like who? Only one I can think of is Stinson for towers built over 40 storeys. Perhaps you are confusing company names with the people behind it? Lot of new company names. Same old people.
 
Last edited:
Gido said:
A general observation, imo the "heritage facade" being retained at a negative to the overall design of the site. Since the redesign was unveiled, the jut out from the newly created sidewalk space this development allows is a hard pinch point.
Why is this facade not dismantled and ported down the street to a area where it might help contribute to an appropriate street wall? Fill in a hole on Yonge or Queen? I am sure Mizrahi could sell/or half fund its relocation to fully realize Foster's design?
If they can rebuild the facade of 88 and e+y surely this can be moved and rebuilt.
Click to expand...

Because facadism isn't the goal of heritage preservation.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Because facadism isn't the goal of heritage preservation.
Click to expand...

Facadism is exactly what's already proposed.

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about F+P's heritage choices here. But I don't see how relocating the Hue's facade is necessarily poor heritage preservation. This exact site is not of particular historical value (certainly no more than Stollery's). On the other hand, the architecture is gorgeous and helps define this stretch of Yonge.

The existing Victorian streetwalls along Yonge are much more than the sum of their individual facades, and many of them have holes and gaps where this building would feel right at home . Even the one abutting the southern edge of this site might work.

Facade relocation isn't a perfect solution. But Yonge's heritage will be much better preserved if we keep its Victorian buildings in context with one another, instead of singling them out and slapping their skins on the bottom of modern monoliths, like fanciful clogs beneath three-piece suits.
 
I actually rather like what they have planned with regards to Hue's facade as it jut out, and I was someone who had reluctantly (still wasn't a fan of how Stollery's was handled) put themselves in the "build it as is" camp.

Interestingly, as @88drums mentioned the Victorian street walls along Yonge I actually came to another thought that actually perhaps supports the retention of the Hue's facade even more. If, and it may be a big if, we could preserve and renew those facades in a similar way to Five we would have ourselves quite the stretch from Bloor to College. The retention of this facade could be a sort of introduction to that Victorian stretch from the very modern and new Bloor stretch and vice versa. One minute you're walking along glass-and-steel Bloor, turn a corner, and Hue's is the start of this brick Victorian row.

In any case, I think whether Hue's is retained or not it's a bit of a minor issue when it comes to the whole.

And yes I do realize I am sort of advocating for facadism but in this context downtown Yonge is too valuable and meddled enough with already to truly be preserved (i.e avoid the erection of modern monoliths).
 
Demolition continues.

IMG_6839.JPG
IMG_6835.JPG
IMG_6836.JPG
IMG_6838.JPG
IMG_6846.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6839.JPG
    IMG_6839.JPG
    634.8 KB · Views: 1,567
  • IMG_6835.JPG
    IMG_6835.JPG
    491.7 KB · Views: 1,557
  • IMG_6836.JPG
    IMG_6836.JPG
    394.6 KB · Views: 1,588
  • IMG_6838.JPG
    IMG_6838.JPG
    633.6 KB · Views: 1,511
  • IMG_6846.JPG
    IMG_6846.JPG
    488.7 KB · Views: 1,542
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top