To respond about 2 Carlton, of course I am not against it. What I was trying to point out is it is stupid to put all the density around Yonge st, yet there are dozens of sparsely populated areas within walking distance to subways stations very near the core and I don't even dare touch them, as if the "neighbourhoods" and "communities" or "urban fabrics" are sacred. Honestly, what makes them more sacred than Church and Carlton? Nothing. My examples were areas near Dupont, St Clair West and those on Danforth. What a waste of public infrastructure. Yeah, buses feed to them, but who loves taking buses if they don't HAVE to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quick photos of the existing building:

29975724403_f3b2bc00f3_b.jpg


29977727064_7a27ebfc8a_b.jpg


30492575662_2dc60472af_b.jpg
 
Note that the not-meant-for-show backside isn't as "pretty"--the concrete frame isn't painted white, and the brick spandrels on the left are common white brick rather than black glazed. And of course, the garage is "exposed". (Then again, Wood St had already been decreed a non-grandeur "service corridor" for MLG Hydro et al--which is also why City Park is elevated a half-storey above street level.)
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
That's going to be one nice thing about this redevelopment: elimination of car parking. Is P1 of the proposal below grade? Surprised they could fit it on the subway tunnel.
Click to expand...

The subway tunnel is directly underneath Yonge south of TeaHouse. I think the College Station mezzanine is under the Yonge/College intersection. In any case, the station is cramped and woefully inadequate - and the proposal doesn't even pretend to be part of the solution given the lack of P1 access.

AoD
 
The proposal isn't a fully formed, real proposal. It's just been submitted to get a rezoning in place to maximize their redevelopment envelop for the future. If they did not already understand that the City would want far more give-back (like better subway access, like office space, etc. etc.) than they have offered, then they will know that by now.

42
 
I was told today by Mark the senior planner for this site, that the application is currently on hold as the applicant is the process of revising the proposal. :(
 
Like I said in the previous post to yours @flavakid32, this was never a "real" proposal, it was pie-in-the-sky silly overdevelopment.

42
 
From a community building perspective, It is a silly overdevelopment of the site. For example, It would have added nicely to the skyline as viewed from North York, etc. Depends on which you prioritize more.
 
I was not because I think this provides good class B office space in the greater core, and its 95% full ....

WIthout such space you see more of the smaller firms find it mucher harder to stay in the core
 
I like this existing building. It represents a time and still has some sophistication to it. When was this built? 1958 or so?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top