Project Essentials / dataBase – detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread  I  Real Estate Thread
Totem Condos 
17 Dundonald St, Toronto
Developer: Worsley Urban Partners

Totem Condos | 64m | 18s | Worsley Urban | RAW Design

Discussion in 'Buildings' started by AlbertC, Aug 21, 2011.

  1. AlbertC

    AlbertC Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Osprey Heights
    http://thetorontoblog.com/2011/08/2...uilding-on-dundonald-st-near-yonge-wellesley/

    Condo tower in the works for site of heritage office building on Dundonald St. near Yonge & Wellesley

    20 Aug 2011


     
    #1

  2. WanderLust

    WanderLust Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Toronto
    Ouch !! So 22 Wellesley E condo owners facing north are going to be freaking, especially since the freakingly-high condo fees they're paying for their units with crappy balconies and 8' ceilings are already depreciating their property values, and to have to look into somebody's kitchen to see what they're cooking up for supper as their 'view', well, I don't know.
    But this building ... prime south exposure would be looking into those crappy 22 Wellesley living rooms, or west exposure would be looking into the crappy Continental towers bedrooms. Yuck. Who would've thunk that a east exposure would be considered prime for downtown
     
    #2
  3. whatever

    whatever Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,431
    Likes Received:
    69
    That's a pity. I always thought that building was a bit of a hidden gem. It hasn't been kept up as well as it could have been, but it wouldn't take much to really make it shine
     
    #3
  4. dt_toronto_geek

    dt_toronto_geek Superstar

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    10,907
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Downtown Toronto
    I've often thought that this would make a good location for a mid-rise, not a high-rise. This explains the building's somewhat rundown condition. Someone renovated a home across the street from here that I stare at in amazement each time I pass, one must wonder where people get their taste from.
     
    #4
  5. cdr108

    cdr108 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Messages:
    4,641
    Likes Received:
    8
    but a 30s building wouldn't really be out of context since the towers to the west and south are almost as high, and if 40s+ are acceptable for Charles St. E. from bloor to jarvis, then why not?
     
    #5
  6. khristopher

    khristopher Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,394
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    Holy crap! Negative or what!?! That's city living! Nothing new for downtown Toronto.
     
    #6
  7. College Park

    College Park Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ditto on both points. Funny, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the oddity of that reno. I really like the office building too...it's just beautiful.
     
    #7
  8. DC83

    DC83 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Hamilton
    Dundonald is one of my fave streets in the village. I also think a mid-rise would better suit the relaxed, meandering feel of the street. A high-rise may kill that feel.
     
    #8
  9. TheKingEast

    TheKingEast Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,999
    Likes Received:
    1,362
    Pretty much.
     
    #9
  10. Traynor

    Traynor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ugh!

    I'm all for respecting history and this building is alright, but what I don't look forward to is the next seven pages of this thread when our resident, self-proclaimed, bastion of protectionism, berates all of us for not appreciating the treasure we have in our midst. His post after post of vicious, smug condescension, actually designed to elevate his own self-esteem, not the value of the building.

    Can we just skip all that crap and move passed the part where once again, he has intimidated, humiliated and insulted everyone into submission so they are afraid to even add their opinion and the Mods have to shut down the thread for a while and then just go directly to the talk about the merits of the condo they may be putting up?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2011
    #10
  11. whatever

    whatever Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,431
    Likes Received:
    69
    Why would that be necessary? No one's slagged the building as yet
     
    #11
  12. adma

    adma Superstar

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    15,562
    Likes Received:
    468
    Why do you present it in weasel-word terms of "all of us" and "everyone"? After all, there's quite a few central, active UT fixtures--enough to even form a central "braintrust", shall I say--who've been more likely to incline my way (in principle, if not in means) than yours on the bulk of these issues. And those who are scared of adding their opinion; maybe it's a necessary winnowing-out process. You simply can't blithely have untutored frosh engaging in 4th-year seminar-course discussion in the name of "freedom of speech", you know--unless it's something like a Darren O'Donnell performance project.

    And besides, re your insistence upon "the talk about the merits of the condo they may be putting up": if UT worked that way, then there ought to be no discussion of preexisting conditions at all, anywhere. Like, down the street, the 596 Church project thread shouldn't have been hijacked by the heritage whiners, it should have focussed solely upon what was proposed. (And that was a "heritage-hijacked" thread which I wasn't central in.). Look: if UT worked that way, than I'd have no more business being in here than I have business being in, say, Free Dominion. And if you want an "adma-free" forum like that, set one up yourself.

    That said--well, adma or no adma, we are dealing here with a listed building "of interest", and as such it doesn't need an adma to do the primary cheerleading. Though that it is listed and 45 Charles was not is more a matter of happenstance; and I'm not inclined to step forward and holler "save this building, or else"--in fact, I'd be more distressed if it were retained yet unsympathetically renovated, than if it were demolished...
     
    #12
  13. Big Daddy

    Big Daddy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    119
    Location:
    El Toro
    Sorry, I'll be first to say, this is not a great example of any type of architecture - and saving it only encourages more sprawl. I agree we need to protect heritage buildings that have something significant to say about our past, but this is clearly not such a building.

    Having said that, I can't say I'm a fan of the cheap drivel they are popping up in this area and there will likely be no loss if the protectionists get their way here.
     
    #13
  14. jje1000

    jje1000 Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    610
    Nothing too special. Save the canopy, tear down the rest.
     
    #14
  15. Automation Gallery

    Automation Gallery Superstar

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    10,004
    Likes Received:
    482
    Location:
    South Parkdale
    Gee, regarding tearing down this building, there is more politics than heritage.
     
    #15

Share This Page