drum118
Superstar
Mods Site needs update, base on this http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-44828.pdf
Toronto One O One | ?m | 26s | Camrost-Felcorp | Onespace
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
ThomasJ
Active Member
I'd rather have a new thread for the second phase here, as it's so different from the retrofit of the first building.
42
42
ThomasJ
Active Member
hmmmm....i like it better both on one thread, since technically it is the same development.
It will depend greatly on how they market it. Same name - same thread. Different name… you guessed it.
42
42
Edward
Senior Member
Separate them.
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
From application:
Wow that does not look promising at all. And it partially blocks the building from the south. Terrible.
EDIT: I think I remember the front page story on this development mentioning the low probability of having the great city view from southern facing units blocked in the near future. Looks like UT will have to eat its words.
Wow that does not look promising at all. And it partially blocks the building from the south. Terrible.
EDIT: I think I remember the front page story on this development mentioning the low probability of having the great city view from southern facing units blocked in the near future. Looks like UT will have to eat its words.
Last edited:
The vast majority of units still get a full southern view - but yeah, I would not want to have bought on the southeast corner.
42
42
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Good grief. A tad too carbuncular, methinks.
drum118
Superstar
Also different address. 95 St Clair is for the Imperial Plaza as per the documents.
adma
Superstar
95 St Clair actually happens to be the building next door.
(And the present illustration looks a little too shoehorned to register as a replacement for the existing 95 St Clair--though I *can* picture it being replaced/condo-fied in its own right...)
(And the present illustration looks a little too shoehorned to register as a replacement for the existing 95 St Clair--though I *can* picture it being replaced/condo-fied in its own right...)
taal
Senior Member
It's a nearly 100% occupied office building ... hard to picture that. I believe it's in fairly good shape as well.
adma
Superstar
But from a drooling-developer standpoint, it's a site begging "intensification"--and, good shape or not, the building is "old". Ergo "dated".
taal
Senior Member
Old in what sense ? The TD center is old as well ...
The age of the building is not a factor, what matters is how well maintained /updated it is. I can't speak to that, so potentially you are correct and it falls short of any new commercial development. But in no way is it comparable to Imperial Plaza in the sense of what shape the building is in.
Now this is where the city should play a role no ? Lets assume for the land owner they can indeed make more money (including demolition costs) as a residential property. The city must designate the land as employment only ... hence blocking any such development from taking place.
Its a completely different story with say Imperial Plaza, were millions (if not more) were required to update it such that tenants would be interested.
adma
Superstar
Of course, if you know me pretty well, I'm not *advocating* the demolition and replacement of 95 St Clair...