Toronto 135 St Clair West | 170.3m | 49s | Fitzrovia | Hariri Pontarini

artemperederii said:
Maybe I don’t get something here, but if this going to be built (and looks like the renderings) how this existing grey glass box with no street level experience can be good compared to what’s proposed??
Click to expand...
The wording of your question implies you've already arrived at a predetermined aesthetic conclusion so what's the point in debating it?
 
ProjectEnd said:
The wording of your question implies you've already arrived at a predetermined aesthetic conclusion so what's the point in debating it?
Click to expand...

Does it have to be a debate? Its really about preferences. But I think for some (I'd count myself in here on many a site) there are certain architectural styles (ie. Brutalism and Modernism) that are seen by many/most as broadly unappealing.

People have the right, of course, to hold that view and to hold a contrary view in terms of their own preferences.

But I can understand someone asking..........."what is it that you see in the 'grey glass box' that you find so appealing?" You and I have had that discussion before, but as newer members arrive, or new buildings are the subject of proposals to build, alter, or demolish; I don't think its bad to have redux where people elaborate (not justify) on their perspective.

I can understand someone being curious.
 
As can I, that's why this place exists and thrives, years and years after the 'internet forum' has largely gone the way of the Dodo. The member basically saying "spend your time telling me why this building that sucks is good" just isn't going to work for me. Others are welcome to engage, but I ain't wasting any time on that.
 
This is an extremely well-made office building. In terms of architectural quality it is far better than hundreds of buildings that have been protected as heritage in the city.

However, the point that I was making was about the pattern of development. It makes economic sense to demolish 150,000 ft.² of office space because you can build there, and not on the house sites on the block next-door. That situation is almost entirely driven by planning.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
However, the point that I was making was about the pattern of development. It makes economic sense to demolish 150,000 ft.² of office space because you can build there
Click to expand...

This is a fair discussion point, though if the office building has no tenants and no prospects...........

AlexBozikovic said:
and not on the house sites on the block next-door. That situation is almost entirely driven by planning.
Click to expand...

Right, but you can build on the house next door now; just not a 40 storeys. You can build a multiplex, or 4 storeys (if interior area), 6 if fronting Avenue Road.

But even if you allowed 40 storeys in the interior, it wouldn't happen, the prices of the homes make it unreasonable, this is a posh area. Making the ROI would would be exceedingly challenging.

Also, in an interior location, it would never pass a traffic study, and would likely require sewer/water upgrades, and upgraded power distribution too.

All of that isn't on Planning its that physical infrastructure was built to support SFH development and not a tower or towers. Main roads, have far higher capacity infrastructure. (usually)
 
AlexBozikovic said:
This is an extremely well-made office building. In terms of architectural quality it is far better than hundreds of buildings that have been protected as heritage in the city.

However, the point that I was making was about the pattern of development. It makes economic sense to demolish 150,000 ft.² of office space because you can build there, and not on the house sites on the block next-door. That situation is almost entirely driven by planning.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. As I said earlier, regardless of the architectural quality of the original (on which we're entirely on the same page), the building is end-of-life and being in a secondary market, won't command the rents required for abatement and revitalization. The only way it could happen is with a wealthy benefactor for whom the intrinsic value of the building means more than the cost of upgrade.
 
A Torontonian Now said:
What about conversion of the existing building into residential, could that not be viable?
Click to expand...

You would basically have to rebuild the entire thing... If there is major asbestos issues here. Also, its extremely expensive to do Office to Res conversions. Calgary had even tried to subsidize (or provide incentives) to convert their existing vacant office stock to residential and many developers still could not make the numbers work.
 
Tormick said:
You would basically have to rebuild the entire thing... If there is major asbestos issues here. Also, its extremely expensive to do Office to Res conversions. Calgary had even tried to subsidize (or provide incentives) to convert their existing vacant office stock to residential and many developers still could not make the numbers work.
Click to expand...
Even if it were possible, why would Fitzrovia prefer 13 floors of compromised, converted, office, when they've just entitled 49 storeys of purpose-built residential space?
 
ProjectEnd said:
The wording of your question implies you've already arrived at a predetermined aesthetic conclusion so what's the point in debating it?
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m too young or still learning to see things differently, but I genuinely don’t understand why this particular building is being defended so strongly. I’m not saying it’s bad - but after spending quite a bit of time on this forum, I’ve noticed that building design is kind of a sore subject for many UT members.

People here constantly point out how grey, glassy, and repetitive Toronto feels, and ask for more colour, variety in shape, and life at street level…
Sooo….. losing the old building might be worth it IMO
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top