News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.6K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 453     0 

91 King Street East (Albany Club, 25s, WZMH Architects)

I suspect, but don't know, that no one has any intention of actually building this thing. I suspect, but don't know, that this is the first offer in a negotiation. I suspect, but don't know, that they've proposed something way over what they reasonably expect to get because once it gets chopped down it will end up somewhere near what they really want.

Don't forget that the RCMI has taken up temporary residence at the Albany Club and so they have been telling them for some time now how building a tower on top of your club that costs a lot to maintain is a way to bring in cash.

I wouldn't be against something tall or dense or new on this block.
 
I certainly want height and density on this block. After all, it's just a couple blocks from King & Yonge. Ideally, I'd want something in the mould of Five or Massey. I could even come around to a facadectomy of that row, if the proposal were something really spectacular. But to give up those old buildings, and this prime downtown lot, for that uninspired slab is just too much. The only positive I see, as it currently stands, is that it would build up King's street wall.
 
I don't even mind the facadectomy so much. Those buildings have been renovated so many times, there can't be anything orginal left inside. The facades are really the only thing left. I am no advocate for keeping something just because it's old.

I agree, something along the lines of Five or Massey is what is needed here - something that works well with 60 Colborne. If someone wanted to be really creative, they'd work out a way to move the Tom Jones to the vacant lot on King, and then build on the enlarged lot along Colborne.
 
If it happens - and I agree that this is probably the first step in a dance that usually goes on between city and developer - this'll be the nastiest thing to happen to to this site since John Howard's original, handsome, Georgian-style Victoria Block of 1842 was wrecked with rubbishy Second Empire additions and a mansard roof, and further degraded for the Albany Club to move in. Howard's original:

http://www.toronto.ca/culture/images/VC-howard/Howard-221_m.jpg
 
Fashions change. At some happy day in the future, someone will get out a giant putty knife and scrape Eb Zeidler's barnacles off Commerce Court too.
 
The only way I can imagine this massing will work is if it's broken into different volumes using varying cladding, materials, and dare I say colour(!) As it stands, its uniform window patterning and (more than likely) cladding will result in a massive, oppressive hulk of a building. I'd like to see the renders to determine if they've shifted the volumes through the use of setbacks, and any of my above suggestions to create a less dominating structure.

And I don't see the Manulife comparison, whose "fat side" looks downright slim compared to this.
 
ahmad.m.atiya said:
Toronto could really use all the "imposing" structures it can get to match the big city feel that other places have.
Click to expand...

This is an argument in favour?

Many of us would prefer to see Toronto be developed properly as opposed to just trying to impersonate other places in the pursuit of some unenunciated "big city feel."
 
In the rear of, I think, that one sorta-original John Howard unit, I notice a little possibly-original-looking semicircular dormer window up there--take a look if you want...
 
AndreaPalladio said:
I don't even mind the facadectomy so much. Those buildings have been renovated so many times, there can't be anything orginal left inside. The facades are really the only thing left. I am no advocate for keeping something just because it's old.

I agree, something along the lines of Five or Massey is what is needed here - something that works well with 60 Colborne. If someone wanted to be really creative, they'd work out a way to move the Tom Jones to the vacant lot on King, and then build on the enlarged lot along Colborne.
Click to expand...

Different owners. Remember also, that the King properties are all under multiple ownerships. This entire application, I believe, is a fishing expedition by the collective to see how far they can go.
 
thecharioteer said:
Different owners. Remember also, that the King properties are all under multiple ownerships. This entire application, I believe, is a fishing expedition by the collective to see how far they can go.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how much proposals cost? Did you take into account all the costs of lawyers, planners, architects just to bring this "fishing expedition" to city hall? If you added all these costs, you would agree that no company would ever bring jokes like this to city hall unless they were truly planning on building them. Obviously, they may be pushing the boundaries a tad, but I'm sure they've taken that into account and with a few minor cosmetic/massing modifications, the core structure is actually the one they are aiming to construct.
 
ahmad.m.atiya said:
Do you realize how much proposals cost? Did you take into account all the costs of lawyers, planners, architects just to bring this "fishing expedition" to city hall? If you added all these costs, you would agree that no company would ever bring jokes like this to city hall unless they were truly planning on building them. Obviously, they may be pushing the boundaries a tad, but I'm sure they've taken that into account and with a few minor cosmetic/massing modifications, the core structure is actually the one they are aiming to construct.
Click to expand...

The question must be why did the developer waste so much money on putting forward a proposal that is so excessive and out of context with the neighbourhood?
 
gristle said:
why did the developer waste so much money on putting forward a proposal that is so excessive and out of context with the neighbourhood?
Click to expand...

Wasnt that the same said 8yrs. ago when developers were planning and putting foward proposals for, Aura, Four Seasons, Festival Tower, X-Condos, atc. not to mention... the Distillery District, Liberty Village and Queen-West
....they were untouchable areas for hi-rise development at one time
I guess its just part of this great city of ours growing up.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top