Toronto 335 Yonge | 55.2m | 16s | Lalani | Zeidler

ProjectEnd said:
There are things that are possible, [rightly] expected even, in institutional buildings, that are just not possible in tight-sited, commercial infill.
Click to expand...

Maybe they need to reconsider what they need to do with the site then, especially given its umm...history. I am curious as to where the legal issues with the city stands right now.

From the Star:

www.thestar.com

Yonge Street condo development proposed for former home of historic Empress Hotel building

The heritage building was demolished after a fire started by a serial arsonist gutted the site in 2011.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

Garner vows to ensure the history of the site continues to be told by way of a plaque at the new development.
Click to expand...

We are *very* good at ensuring stories are continued to be told via plaques at lost buildings, aren't we? It's about the only thing we are good at.

AoD
 
Last edited:
A rebuilt heritage facade serving as the base for a 30 storey tower glass tower is something you don't see too often in Toronto. The lost building deserved better than as a recreated facade. Perhaps its fate is less of a travesty but a bittersweet ending in boomtown Toronto.
 
maestro said:
A rebuilt heritage facade serving as the base for a 30 storey tower glass tower is something you don't see too often in Toronto. The lost building deserved better than as a recreated facade. Perhaps its fate is less of a travesty but a bittersweet ending in boomtown Toronto.
Click to expand...
IMO, in older mid-weath commercial developments, the exterior structure/facade is often the element that recieves a large amount of investment (as both structural support and outward signifier of prestige). Moreso, it’s sometimes one of the elements that can contribute to an architectural ensemble, and can often outlast interiors (which are swapped out as styles and technology advance).

IMO, windows of opportunity such as this should be taken advantage of, and mistakes reversed- despite what modernist orthodoxy says. No use wringing our hands and moaning about things ‘lost’. So I say, bring back the facade, and make the Lalanis pay for it!
 
20191203_135659.jpg
20191203_135739.jpg
 
Refusal Report to the next TEYCC mtg on July 16th.


From above:

This report reviews and recommends refusal of the application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The development site is not appropriate for tower development as the site is too small. The proposed development can not achieve appropriate tower setbacks nor stepbacks because the site is too small for tower development. Additionally, the proposed development does not minimize shadowing; the proposed development lacks sufficient outdoor amenity space; the outdoor amenity space that is provided is in an inappropriate form; there is no pet amenity area; there is no parking and the loading area does not meet City standards; in addition, the application does not have a satisfactory Functional Servicing Report to address servicing issues. Therefore, for the reasons outlined in this report, it is recommended that the application be refused.
 
My opinion is that the current proposal is a poor replacement for the building that previously occupied the site.

Again, another sidestep, or even step down in terms of streetscape quality.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Ridiculous, but Planning is just doing what Planning has to do. Off to LPAT we go!
Click to expand...

While one might quibble with some of the City's objections; I can't really get behind this proposal.

It really is a tight squeeze and it really doesn't make sense not to at least incorporate everything to the south up to 10 Dundas East.

There is in fact a very good argument for getting the latter site in play here.

I appreciate that one can't decide to decline a development on the basis of property a developer does not own.

However, we really don't need this, it really is ugly and a poor fit; and the developer would be well-served to buy/sell/partner with the adjoining land owners.

So I can quite happily abide the negative report.
 
It really does need to be assembled with the former HMV property to the south so that something appropriate (including a tower) goes in here—
  • that has a new north entrance to Dundas Station
  • that covers up that terrible west wall of 10 Dundas East.
42
 
A really poor design for this site - trying to do far too much on this tiny plot. Glad to see it was refused by Council last month. City Council - 335 Yonge Street - Refusal

I'd be surprised if Ryerson weren't talking to them regarding office space/other institutional use - it's the perfect site for a gateway development to the campus, especially if there's a Second Exit for Dundas station here.
 
Trying to do far too much? If anything, the criticisms of this are that it doesn't do enough (eg. it's 'boring').

It's also too far from the north face of Dundas Station for another entrance, unfortunately. It could be possible if the old HMV / current Tokyo Smoke building to the south is acquired, but not now.
 
Dundas station runs pretty far north of Dundas Street. The 150m platform has the current exit in maybe the first 30 metres of the platform directly under Yonge and Dundas, and this site is about 90 metres north of the intersection. The north end of the platform likely ends right around this development.

I would have hoped that a second exit from the northbound platform would have been possible here - it would pull a lot of pedestrian traffic off of the congest yonge-dundas intersection as well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top