Toronto Manulife Centre Podium and Streetscape Renewal | 9.75m | 2s | Manulife Real Estate | MdeAS Architects

I heard that cinemas #7 & #8 (the original cinemas #1 & #2) are going to be re-raked for stadium seating. That leads me to wonder if the roof isn't going to be raised, there's not a whole lot of height in those two cinemas. I'd like to see them go one step further, take the wall down between the two cinemas, raise the roof and convert to an IMAX cinema with stadium seats.


Interesting.

I know screens 1-6 and VIP and contained within the higher roof section over Indigo. I assume the more easterly 'black-top' box contains 7-8?

Amusing to me that they just recarpeted and renovated that set of washrooms in the last year.

Cinema 7 is near useless and not conventionally speaking, accessible. You have to be wheeled around back by an employee, though the garbage area, in the back/fire doors.

Cinema 8 may still be the same, can't recall if they built a ramp or not.

But I doubt that form of access would pass muster if the event of a building permit application.

**

The odd shape/size of 7 is because the employee locker room/break room is located in behind that cinema.

So 7 is only about 1/2 the depth of 8.

The combine them you would have to remove the break room/change room from the current location.

Stadium seating might allow for slipping those in behind the rear wall of 7/8.

Alternately, removing the current 'B' Snack Bar which is rarely open would provide fair bit of space.

8 still has an old school 70MM projector, that takes up a lot of space too. But again, could be moved with a higher ceiling and (almost surely would have to be)
 
The staff rooms could perhaps be re-located under the raked seating of #7 & 8, providing there are no structural issues with where they are located now, and full access to these cinemas is a no brainer. The two original cinemas opened in 1974, it's kind of surprising that they aren't accessible. Several Famous Players downtown/midtown cinemas closed in the early 00's because of a ruling to make them fully accessible, which wasn't possible or was cost prohibitive.
 
Regardless of how this is arranged, it's an absolute travesty and an insult to the design of the Manulife Centre. In a few decades, the owners will be trying to figure out how to remove this tacked-on glazed podium and restore it to a semblance of an earlier scheme.
 
Regardless of how this is arranged, it's an absolute travesty and an insult to the design of the Manulife Centre. In a few decades, the owners will be trying to figure out how to remove this tacked-on glazed podium and restore it to a semblance of an earlier scheme.

Damn straight - my thoughts exactly.
 
Announcement - from CNW:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-release...development-of-manulife-centre-594158111.html

Eataly is confirmed - first Canadian location.

upload_2016-9-20_15-45-8.png

Southeast view (CNW Group/Manulife Financial Corporation)

upload_2016-9-20_15-46-6.png

Southwest view (CNW Group/Manulife Financial Corporation)

AoD
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-9-20_15-45-8.png
    upload_2016-9-20_15-45-8.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 1,300
  • upload_2016-9-20_15-46-6.png
    upload_2016-9-20_15-46-6.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,324
Thanks for posting the pics.
A couple of points:
  • I don't like the new BMO signs. It looks like it's going to ruin...not sure how to put this...the architectural integrity? of that part of the tower.
  • Compared to previous renderings, Birks is still there but William Ashley is gone.
 
Agreed that Ashley's is gone - but they are listed in the PR (which seems odd if they are shutting down or leaving the complex entirely - I can see them retreating to cheaper,i.e. off bloor digs). It also looks like something big is opening on Bay south of the Indigo. It kind of looks like the RH Yorkdale renderings - but I can't see them having 4 stores in Toronto. (I may be reading too much into the rendering).
 
From AdvocateDaily.com......

Ruling on diner’s lease provides food for thought

An Ontario Superior Court of Justice injunction issued on behalf of a family restaurant to block multi-million dollar renovations at Toronto’s Manulife Centre has given landlords, tenants and their legal counsel something to chew over, says Toronto real estate lawyer Peter Neilson.

In the matter of Bloor Street Diner v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, the Bloor Street Diner, a long-time Manulife Centre tenant, argued the extensive renovations planned to make way for Italian food emporium Eataly were prohibited by the terms of its lease.

Justice Elizabeth M. Stewart agreed, noting the renovations won’t only be disruptive during eight months of construction but will have a net effect of isolating the restaurant and obscuring its view.

“When I first read reports about this dispute, I thought it was over exclusivity because another food emporium, Eataly, would be coming into the complex,” says Neilson, a partner with Shibley Righton LLP. “After reading the decision, it’s much deeper and more complex.”

The core issues revolve around the unique terms of the lease that guarantee certain access and visibility rights to the Bloor Street Diner, which was established in Yorkville in 1981 and moved to the Manulife Centre in 1994.

“Clearly some of these details were important to the restaurant and to Manulife, who wanted them as a tenant,” Neilson tells AdvocateDaily.com.

The diner claims that renovation plans to encase the centre with a glass façade along Bloor, Bay and Balmuto Streets and add 50,000 square feet of new interior retail space would seriously impact its operations (a dining room, a café/patio, and an express counter).

As Neilson notes, the original lease defined what would be permissible as "minor changes". Key among them was preserving the visibility of the restaurant. It offered protection from interruption and required prior written approval from the Bloor Street Diner for any other changes.

“In effect, the Bloor Street Diner is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their premises,” says Neilson, who did not act in the matter and makes his comments generally.

A 2007 amendment to the lease allowed installation of upgraded mechanical systems.

As part of the deal to allow that renovation, Manulife gave the Bloor Street Diner $200,000 in a lease allowance and later paid $50,000 compensation for the minor disruption of jack hammering.

“What’s unusual is that generally tenants don’t get these kinds of clauses in commercial leases,” Neilson says. “I have had clients complain that renovations disrupted their businesses but it was never enough to go to court.”

With the Manulife matter, the lease protections are unique but certainly underline that tenants may have a much stronger case for unreasonable disruption if the impact on their business is substantial.

“I think many landlords and tenants and their counsel will be reading through this decision to see what they might learn,” Neilson says.

The court held Manulife's renovations would constitute a breach of the lease: “Its present plan represents substantial interference that is of a grave and permanent nature,” the decision states.

In allowing the injunction — which puts all renovations on hold including the arrival of Eataly — the judge suggested the parties go back to the table and find a solution.

“Manulife is free to find a solution that does not breach its contractual obligation to the Bloor Street Diner,” Justice Stewart states. “It is always open to the parties to collaborate as they have done in the past and to negotiate a plan that will achieve their mutual objectives.”
 
From AdvocateDaily.com......

Ruling on diner’s lease provides food for thought

An Ontario Superior Court of Justice injunction issued on behalf of a family restaurant to block multi-million dollar renovations at Toronto’s Manulife Centre has given landlords, tenants and their legal counsel something to chew over, says Toronto real estate lawyer Peter Neilson.

In the matter of Bloor Street Diner v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, the Bloor Street Diner, a long-time Manulife Centre tenant, argued the extensive renovations planned to make way for Italian food emporium Eataly were prohibited by the terms of its lease.

Justice Elizabeth M. Stewart agreed, noting the renovations won’t only be disruptive during eight months of construction but will have a net effect of isolating the restaurant and obscuring its view.

“When I first read reports about this dispute, I thought it was over exclusivity because another food emporium, Eataly, would be coming into the complex,” says Neilson, a partner with Shibley Righton LLP. “After reading the decision, it’s much deeper and more complex.”

The core issues revolve around the unique terms of the lease that guarantee certain access and visibility rights to the Bloor Street Diner, which was established in Yorkville in 1981 and moved to the Manulife Centre in 1994.

“Clearly some of these details were important to the restaurant and to Manulife, who wanted them as a tenant,” Neilson tells AdvocateDaily.com.

The diner claims that renovation plans to encase the centre with a glass façade along Bloor, Bay and Balmuto Streets and add 50,000 square feet of new interior retail space would seriously impact its operations (a dining room, a café/patio, and an express counter).

As Neilson notes, the original lease defined what would be permissible as "minor changes". Key among them was preserving the visibility of the restaurant. It offered protection from interruption and required prior written approval from the Bloor Street Diner for any other changes.

“In effect, the Bloor Street Diner is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their premises,” says Neilson, who did not act in the matter and makes his comments generally.

A 2007 amendment to the lease allowed installation of upgraded mechanical systems.

As part of the deal to allow that renovation, Manulife gave the Bloor Street Diner $200,000 in a lease allowance and later paid $50,000 compensation for the minor disruption of jack hammering.

“What’s unusual is that generally tenants don’t get these kinds of clauses in commercial leases,” Neilson says. “I have had clients complain that renovations disrupted their businesses but it was never enough to go to court.”

With the Manulife matter, the lease protections are unique but certainly underline that tenants may have a much stronger case for unreasonable disruption if the impact on their business is substantial.

“I think many landlords and tenants and their counsel will be reading through this decision to see what they might learn,” Neilson says.

The court held Manulife's renovations would constitute a breach of the lease: “Its present plan represents substantial interference that is of a grave and permanent nature,” the decision states.

In allowing the injunction — which puts all renovations on hold including the arrival of Eataly — the judge suggested the parties go back to the table and find a solution.

“Manulife is free to find a solution that does not breach its contractual obligation to the Bloor Street Diner,” Justice Stewart states. “It is always open to the parties to collaborate as they have done in the past and to negotiate a plan that will achieve their mutual objectives.”
Thanks for posting that @Toronto Rocks! How is it that advocatedaily.com could miss something as obvious as including a date with the publication of their articles? As someone who never reads the site, I have no way of knowing whether that's been up for hours, days, weeks, or more. Do you have any sense of how old that article is?

42
 
Thanks for posting that @Toronto Rocks! How is it that advocatedaily.com could miss something as obvious as including a date with the publication of their articles? As someone who never reads the site, I have no way of knowing whether that's been up for hours, days, weeks, or more. Do you have any sense of how old that article is?

42

It's been tweeted as early as May 19 by the assoc. editor - so that's probably the date.

Jennifer Pritchett ‏@jenn_pritchett
Ruling on diner’s lease provides food for thought, says real estate lawyer Peter Neilson #law #legalnews https://shar.es/1dvu1k
6:13 AM - 19 May 2016

The ruling itself is released in March.

AoD
 
Last edited:

Back
Top