Search results

How surprising they went with the two ugliest/most banal proposals. And what a coincidence that they also look like the cheapest to build.

Can anyone tell me the commercial tenants? That is, if they are known. I don't mean to be negative, but the number of restaurant/cafes in renderings that actually end up being Shoppers' or dentists is staggering in this city.

The Landscaping looks very good I think. But the tower and the complex attached to it, both of which look very confused without being striking, is yet another wasted opportunity. Really, it's a disaster.

I do want towers taller than the bank buildings, but I think that skyline looks awkward. I'm really coming to appreciate the cone-ideal that height zoning aimed for. Now that it's being ditched I hope we still are trying to shape something definitive.

There is a spectrum of radicalism, and on that spectrum a whole lot of space between the buildings you named and the pseudo-edgy tower that this proposal depicts. I'd say that your reaction to my review is as "over the top" as you say my review is. I'm not asking for every building to be a...

I'm using the term that I have seen used quite frequently on this forum for keeping the facade but virtually nothing else of the original building. You're right - it can be a misleading term. But if you think about it even keeping a facade and nothing else of the building is still a separation...

As is unmissable in the current stage of Toronto's construction boom, we're now confronted with the facadectomy reaching a level that is surpassing trope and entering the sphere of cliche. I don't think the integration of old and new in general is necessarily such a bad thing - nothing inherent...

So dull. This is like a bland guy who thinks he's spicing things up by wearing a fedora.

They are literally defacing this thing to the point of there not being a point in even keeping the tower. This project baffles me. Their "preservation" efforts are all in bad faith - what they really want is a new building entirely, but they want to feign respect for the landmark the old...

This shameless naming crap is getting out of hand.

I mean, are the developers 13 year old girls?

What a stupid name. I can't take this crap anymore. Why not name it simply "Leslieville" and spare the embarrassment of adding in that ridiculous mark of insecurity?

I agree. For a city that bemoans its past historically disrespectful behaviour so much there is an awful lot of adulteration of historical structures still going on. There are enough still-to-be-developed parking lots and worthless architecture that should be demolished laying around downtown...

Is there actually a Gramercy Park here, or is this just yet another shameless pretension in condo naming, like Malibu, New York Towers, Chicago, South Beach, London, Beyond the Sea, etc.?

They're really going to butcher that podium. It's as though we have an attractive, elegant older woman, and we make her wear uggs and tna pants. Judging by the renderings this will be regretted 30 years from now when we look at old pictures of this building. Also, if they at camrost-felcorp...

Yes, I'd say if anything a view will be gained from this vantage point.

What is the point of that raised concrete walkway all around the property? I think it's just horrible.

Could not agree more. The only thing worse than the empress hotel burning down was that it didn't take 10 Dundas E with it.

Am I the only one who thinks this design is boring? It's nice to see brick but this looks like a hospital.

Though we haven't seen an actual render, I think this is a stupid looking proposal, and I actually like the idea of putting it on the top better. But given that that probably won't happen, all I ask is that the ballroom, or whatever it is, on the second floor is saved- it's actually magnificent.