[AlvinofDiaspar]

And that's the curious taketh-vs-giveth-away undercurrent here: the street-level ghost boutique mall serving as a smoke screen for the mothballing and endless rumours and uncertain future of the Carlu space. Then when they euthanized/subdivided the original street level space configuration, the Carlu came to be...

Since the College Park courts will probably be consolidated with the new Armoury Street complex, I wonder what'd happen to the space...

AoD

 

[adma]

Since the College Park courts will probably be consolidated with the new Armoury Street complex, I wonder what'd happen to the space...

AoD

Funnily enough, going back to the future, it'd be an ideal place for a multistory Saks/Nordstrom/Simons-type operation. (Except that location's got the same problems that hindered Eaton's College: too far north from the retail centre of the action that Saks/Nordstrom has inevitably opted for, and too far south of Bloor's carriage-trade/luxury magnetism.)

Of course, it could also be added to the shortlist of Museum Of Toronto locational options.

 

[interchange42]

We have a higher quality rendering from ERA Architects now, and will hope to have a full story on the addition and renovation in the near future.

42

 

[Gotzvon]

ERA have done some great work of late, I'm sure this project is in good hands. We could have just as easily ended up with a 45 storey spandrelfest condo here.

 

[kweku]

I honestly think this building should be renovated and left alone as is without any hideous addition.
The Glass slab addition will destroy the unique heritage features of this building. Do we really need to add to any building in the city?

Let's stop destroying the few distinct heritage buildings in this city in the name of re-development !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Amare]

ERA have done some great work of late, I'm sure this project is in good hands. We could have just as easily ended up with a 45 storey spandrelfest condo here.

That's exactly what I was going to point out. This theoretically could've been the facade for an uninspiring condo built right on top of this gem of a building (for example: the garbage that's currently being built behind the oddfellows building).

 

[stjames2queenwest]

I think it will be nice.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I think it will be nice.

It will, and wont harm the heritage value of the building, nice development

 

[A Torontonian Now]

I honestly think this building should be renovated and left alone as is without any hideous addition.
The Glass slab addition will destroy the unique heritage features of this building. Do we really need to add to any building in the city?

Let's stop destroying the few distinct heritage buildings in this city in the name of re-development !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

44 exclamation marks. That must be some sort of record.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

44 exclamation marks. That must be some sort of record.

Sorry but nope.

MoD

 

[PWM]

Any update on this?

 

[carrythezero]

Any update on this?

No update, other than to say that with YC there it's going to be an awfully tight space for construction. I'm not sure how they'd make it work. Maybe close a lane on Yonge and use that for a crane?

 

[jje1000]

Apparently the building still has an old-fashioned elevator in it- are they keeping that?

 

[ponyboy]

maybe they can use the crane from the YC condo under construction if they hurry.

 

[Paclo]

The proposed office addition atop Oddfellow's Hall is still dead.

However, earlier this year they applied for permission to install a LED display atop the existing structure facing the intersection; which has now been refused by Council. More details on what was proposed below via the Report for Action of March 2025:

The Bader Group Inc., authorized by the property owner, Gemstone Property Ltd., has applied for a Sign By-law Area-Specific Amendment for the property located at 2 College Street. The Proposed Amendment, if approved, would not only permit an expressly prohibited sign type, but it would also institute regulations that significantly diverge from the current standards governing permissible third party signs in the area.

Specifically, the Proposed Amendment would allow for and regulate:
• A third party electronic roof sign (the “Proposed Sign”), which is a sign type expressly prohibited, except if within the Dundas Square Special Sign District.
• A sign that would be 18 times larger and nearly 10 times taller than the existing regulations generally permit.
• Positioning a third party sign less than 100 metres of an existing third party sign and less than 30 metres of a controlled intersection, contrary to the minimum
separation requirements.
• A third party electronic roof sign with two sign faces facing the same direction, rather than the generally permitted “back-to-back” configuration.
• A third party sign to be erected on a listed heritage building, which would not be permitted under the existing regulations.