[stjames2queenwest]

August 31 am Still no signs of cladding but really starting to climb

 

[Miscreant]

Yeah, thanks for that. I always thought that Victoria St. in particular had the vibe of an E/W street in midtown Manhattan.

 

[khris]

Lots of notches on this one. They are usually for steel.

 

[ardwold1]

Lots of notches on this one. They are usually for steel.

Maybe to hold the anchors for (what I assume are precast) masonry panels? So few details on this project, who really knows.

 

[wopchop]

Lots of notches on this one. They are usually for steel.

Those are block-outs. Usually those are where the anchors are located that attach the cladding to the structure. Common for precast or curtainwall panels that are in front of shear concrete walls.

 

[steveve]

A really hazy photo, but 21 Dundas is on the left. I still wish this were 50s +, especially since it's on prime real-estate overlooking the square:

 

[Marcanadian]

I still wish this were 50s +, especially since it's on prime real-estate overlooking the square:

Normally I'd agree, but with this design, I'm not so sure. Though we haven't seen many renderings of this, so maybe it'll surprise me.

 

[Edward Skira]

From yesterday. Still no cladding.

 

[ptbotmpfn]

i cant get over the lack of renders for this thing. ridiculous. only showing the side that isnt even the face of it. what does the fronting side look like/will look like? anyone no why this is being built with little public info. should i say how is this being built with no renders.

 

[someMidTowner]

i cant get over the lack of renders for this thing. ridiculous. only showing the side that isn't even the face of it. what does the fronting side look like/will look like? anyone no why this is being built with little public info. should i say how is this being built with no renders.

It's a rental, and rental units are in high demand, so there is no need to market it. Renderings are costly to produce, and exist primarily to get word out, which is why they only made one. Renderings are used in certain planning documents, but they aren't mandatory.

 

[maestro]

Exactly. Renderings are marketing material and there's no reason to bring this to market now.

 

[steveve]

Normally I'd agree, but with this design, I'm not so sure. Though we haven't seen many renderings of this, so maybe it'll surprise me.

I also agree. This design has always seemed dated to me, like something that emerged out of the 2005 RoCP era. And with it's height, it's always felt like a filler to me; except from how it'll effect Yonge-Dundas Square. But as a rental, it's hard to expect a standout design.
With that being said, I wonder when or if the Hard Rock building will ever be redeveloped.

 

[khris]

Rentals still need to be marketed, so I'm sure we'll see something eventually.

 

[ptbotmpfn]

It's a rental, and rental units are in high demand, so there is no need to market it. Renderings are costly to produce, and exist primarily to get word out, which is why they only made one. Renderings are used in certain planning documents, but they aren't mandatory.

thank you, I didn't realise this!

 

[Skeezix]

With that being said, I wonder when or if the Hard Rock building will ever be redeveloped.

That would be a challenging site, as both the Hard Rock (Childs Building) and the 3 Brewers next door (John Bugg Building) are both designated heritage buildings. There was an OMB settlement at one point, which I'm guessing resulted in a site-specific zoning by-law, which allowed the owner of the John Bugg Building to construct a three storey addition (same height as the Childs Building) at the rear of that site, behind the roof ridge of the heritage structure, but that plan didn't even get fully built out. There is not a lot of room for any meaningful redevelopment, given the sort of setbacks from the heritage structures that the current Official Plan policies would require.