kweku said:
All along I thought this nightmare was a condo. If this is a rental property then what is really stopping the owner from tearing this monstrosity down and replacing them with something similar to their neighbours?
Heck they could even sell in a minute at that location with an ultraomodern design.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's a huge parcel of land, it could be redeveloped into something much better, like an office building with large multiple floor retail podium. Freshening it up might improve them slightly but it sucks because it means they're not planning on replacing them anytime soon
 
I hope this eventually goes redevelopment and not conversion. If they convert it to condos we're basically stuck with it as is in perpetuity.
 
Long term renters as an impediment? C'mon.

The complex just sold for 150 million or 300,000 per suite. Reality check unless you're into multiple 200 metre replacement towers here. With that said, I would discount intensification of the site in the future
 
another thing to note too ... I strongly suspect maintenance has been about non-existent for many years. Bare minimum. Those grills you see in the Windows - those are the ac / heat. They date from the mid-80s, and all replacement parts now have to come from other units now, so there always has to be vacancies. A couple weeks ago I overheard what I believe is someone either connected to the new owners or one of them himself stating on how the new lobby is going to look. And interestingly ... they are not doing the semi-annual window cleaning .. they are doing zero window cleaning. The units contain no Laundry - so any conversion would likely have to have a (massive) upgrade to plumbing... which had emergency repairs a couple years ago.
 
devjohnson said:
Looks like they'll paint it white and add black windows. Could be decent.
Click to expand...

I think there is some splashes of red paint planned here as well
 
maestro said:
Long term renters as an impediment? C'mon.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the politics of city building...yes. In this day and age, multiple housing of this scale is typically not deemed "expendable" except in cases of (real or perceived) extreme functional and/or social failure or obsolescence, a la high-rise public housing in the US and UK, or Dickinson's towers in Regent Park South.

While it may please certain skyscraper/development geeks to knock down these 80s eyesores and start over, the more prudent, if less obviously "glamourous" solution is to adapt. (Indeed, I'm wondering whether Maple Leaf Quay is something of a tangential, late-blooming beneficiary of the Mayor's Tower Renewal programme.)
 
The City has something to say about tearing down rental buildings: in 99% of cases, you have to replace the units.

In addition to the City's Official Plan Housing policies (Section 3.2.1), the passing of Bylaw 885-2007 (now Municipal Code Chapter 667) under Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, adopted by City Council at its meeting of July 16 - 19, 2007, gives the City of Toronto enhanced authority to protect rental housing from demolition and conversion to non-rental purposes (e.g. condominium, offices, or other non-rental uses).

The Residential Rental Property Demolition and Conversion Control bylaw protects rental housing from demolition or conversion. The bylaw takes its policy direction from the City's Official Plan and is a tool to implement these policies.

Generally, the policies and the bylaw apply to properties containing 6 or more rental units. In some cases, approval of demolition of private rental or social housing may occur if certain conditions are met.
Click to expand...

42
 
oddly there is a considerable amount of advertising for these buildings on posters in TTC stations... at least from what I have seen.
 
If they must keep the rental towers, perhaps they can build something in between. The water in between the buildings does not appear to offer much to the complex as designed. What I envision is a single tower in the middle, surrounded by a U-shaped arcade with glass roof that would span the gap between the new tower and the existing towers. This arcade, plus patios along Queens Quay could add much needed livelihood to an area with lots residents. Also, perhaps they could include a pedestrian connection that would go under the current bridge directly to the south side of QQ where the park is. The question is -- would the City permit in-fill tower where the "pond" currently is?
 
Last edited:
ponyboy said:
The question is -- would the City permit in-fill tower where the "pond" currently is?
Click to expand...
I think the answer would be a very firm "NO". Though the pond (actually called Peter Street Basin) is currently not very pleasant it could be much improved, and not by filling it in.
 
DSC said:
I think the answer would be a very firm "NO". Though the pond (actually called Peter Street Basin) is currently not very pleasant it could be much improved, and not by filling it in.
Click to expand...

Definitely so. This project fails on the street level, and needs a lot of work there.
 
DSC said:
I think the answer would be a very firm "NO". Though the pond (actually called Peter Street Basin) is currently not very pleasant it could be much improved, and not by filling it in.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the potential of the Peter Street Basin has never been realized. There is so much that could be done to make that a nice, public space.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top