Toronto Fly Condos | ?m | 24s | Empire | Graziani + Corazza

:eek: Well I'll back off my suggestion that it be torn down. I didn't know, and am frankly surprised to learn, that it is considered a heritage property. Any time I've seen it, I've had disparaging thoughts going through my mind.

I support the preservation of heritage buildings. I wonder what could be done to get the owner to spiff it up a bit and make it an asset to the area, which IMO it is not at present.
 
urbandreamer said:
Who's gonna post photos of this "offensive" building for us UT-ers to vote on (for or against demolition) in a poll?
Click to expand...
There's a great photo of it on the wall at Union Station when you're entering the Skywalk (1920s? It was right at the harbour back then).
 
gei said:
lol... you guys are hillarious.

I actually live and work right around this area so I'm quite certain that I see that ugly building much more than any of you. I think it's hideous and needs to go.

In regards to the "pro-suburban views", I live and work downtown... I'm rarely in the suburbs these days. I chose to move from the suburbs to downtown Toronto, so I obviously personally saw some benefit to that lifestyle.

However having grown up in a suburb I am in the enlightened position to be able to comment on and compare both. Sadly, most people here aren't... and just make baseless arguments. Juvenile almost.
Click to expand...

Er, a lot of us who can appreciate the building grew up in suburbs, and are even charitable rather than wholesale-condemnatory about the suburbs, too. And we're in an even more enlightened position to cut your truly ignorant, amateurish sense of urban heritage and urban form down.

So, if you find the building so hideous that it needs to go, then, tough. Suffer.
 
Observer Walt said:
I support the preservation of heritage buildings. I wonder what could be done to get the owner to spiff it up a bit and make it an asset to the area, which IMO it is not at present.
Click to expand...

Even if "un-spiffed up", it's been well used for years--lots of 401 Richmond-esque "cultural crucible" industries within. For what it is, it's in great condition: lotsa integrity.

Besides, if it's well-enough used, what's the problem with its *not* being so-called spiffed-up? This is the way the King/Front/Spadina zone was back in the 70s/80s arts-party days; this is the real deal. Don't be so Cityplace-yuppie in the way that you behold this stuff...
 
I'd hate to see it go. It's integral to that stretch of Spadina.
 
I'll join the choir that it should be saved. It's a great looking building. It could easily be incorporated into a condo project in the parking lot to the south.

Nice to see this huge mess of parking slowly get developed. Is the retail in Element occupied yet?
 
Prometheus The Supremo said:
what's wrong with 49 spadina?
Click to expand...

The only thing wrong is the entrance where it causes the sidewalk to get really narrow. Any refurbishment could include moving it another side of the building.

MisterF said:
I'll join the choir that it should be saved. It's a great looking building. It could easily be incorporated into a condo project in the parking lot to the south
Click to expand...

I agree. That could be a good idea.

Nice to see this huge mess of parking slowly get developed. Is the retail in Element occupied yet?
Click to expand...

Yes. Timmy's, Pizza Pizza and M&M Meats have all moved in and are open. There might be a fourth unit available, but I'm not sure.
 
I agree that 49 Spadina is definitely a building that needs to be saved. I minor front entrance renovation that keeps the existing door arch but brings the bottom of the door down to street level is all that is required.
 
vancouverguy_76 said:
I just got this one off google. Not the best photo.

A lot of elbow grease is all it needs ;)

http://illegalsigns.ca/wp-content/uploads/231.jpg
Click to expand...

One thing about that photo is that it's an unflattering "rear view". Actually, it's best encountered from the NW, not from the SE.

And face it: it was built when this stretch of Spadina was basically industrial. On the south and east flanks were rail spurs and the like. And as far as "the entrance where the sidewalk gets really narrow" goes: well, that's a reflection on the building's industrial past, too, no less than the Richmond frontage of Margie Zeidler's 401 Richmond. (Besides, the primary office entrance is via Clarence Square, not the "loading dock" frontage on Spadina.)

In Tribeca, a building like this wouldn't bat an eye as anything particularly "eyesoreish"--quite the contrary...
 
I like the building. Interestingly though, although it is very 'Spadina'/'King West in feel, it does seem like quite a contrast to the more bourgeois, somewhat mewsy Clarence Square.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top