Toronto 55 Mercer | 155.5m | 47s | CentreCourt | Arcadis

Right now, he's probably dreaming of a money-making condo.

Ditto to what unimaginative2 said. The ultra-bland retail is a neighbourhood killer.
 
Re: "Why demolish something useful when there's a parking lot across the street?" comments. Everyone knows it works the way you keep saying, Mike in TO, but they're wishing that wasn't the case. God forbid someone even *think* of putting a loose leash on side effects of the almighty condo market!

Some of the most vibrant areas are those with new developments mixed in with older buildings, with a degree of randomness, if possible. However, replace older/smaller buildings with continuous rows of condos - with token Subway/Second Cup/dry cleaners behind precast pillars - and chances are you'll get less vibrancy. If King/spadina and Bay Street converge, don't say you weren't warned...
 
scarberiankhatru said:
Re: "Why demolish something useful when there's a parking lot across the street?" comments. Everyone knows it works the way you keep saying, Mike in TO, but they're wishing that wasn't the case. God forbid someone even *think* of putting a loose leash on side effects of the almighty condo market!

Some of the most vibrant areas are those with new developments mixed in with older buildings, with a degree of randomness, if possible. However, replace older/smaller buildings with continuous rows of condos - with token Subway/Second Cup/dry cleaners behind precast pillars - and chances are you'll get less vibrancy. If King/spadina and Bay Street converge, don't say you weren't warned...
Click to expand...

Precisely. Very few people on this board need to be schooled on the wicked ways of the development world. That isn't the point. David Crombie placed a 45 foot moratorium on downtown Toronto developments in the mid 70s when things were getting out of control. What followed was a golden age of sound planning, and an international reputation as "the city that works". So, activism of this sort IS possible, however naive it sounds to the invisible-handers of the world.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
Some of the most vibrant areas are those with new developments mixed in with older buildings, with a degree of randomness, if possible. However, replace older/smaller buildings with continuous rows of condos - with token Subway/Second Cup/dry cleaners behind precast pillars - and chances are you'll get less vibrancy. If King/spadina and Bay Street converge, don't say you weren't warned...
Click to expand...

Random, eclectic zones of mixed uses and ages of buildings are by far Toronto's best areas... Nobody wants the entertainment district to become like Bay Street... it would be very difficult to screw things up that badly due to the mixed uses and destinations within the entertainment district - upper Bay has evolved as primarily a residential district surrounded by other districts that are more vibrant - I don't think there is anything wrong with a few downtown high-density residential districts and Bay still has some potential to turn around some of the mistakes of the 80s and 90s with some of the newer developments that address the street better then their predicessors.
 
From Adam Vaughan Website:

King-Spadina Planning Meeting
Date: April 14 2009
Time: 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Location: Toronto City Hall, Council Chambers

Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Time: 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.
Location: Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen St. W., City Council Chambers

Councillor Vaughan would like to hear your feedback about proposed planning and development in the King-Spadina neighbourhood.

There will be presentations about the following projects:

- 355 King St W (at Blue Jays Way)
- 99 Blue Jays Way (at Mercer St.)
- OCAD building, 205 Richmond St W (at Duncan)

Let us know if you plan to attend, either by phone at 416-392-4044 or councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca.

More information about neighbourhood planning and development is available at www.adamvaughan.ca in the “Community Maps†section.
 
3387446817_f4d4afe926.jpg


Source
 
holy macro !! nice looking bldg (would you look at that height :D)

I feel bad for ICON 1+2 owners though
 
Solaris said:
holy macro !! nice looking bldg (would you look at that height :D)

I feel bad for ICON 1+2 owners though
Click to expand...

My buddy lives in Icon 2, facing north (this building eventually).

So what is the timetable like from the planning meeting(taking place today) onwards?
 
So is the base being preserved then? Not a fan of sports bars, but that's one of the more interesting blocks on that stretch. It's not another glass condo, there's a bar, and a theatre.

People should be able to do what they want with their property, but within reason. Some things need to be protected so we don't end up with monotonous sterile neighbourhoods.
 
I went to the meeting today and honestly it sounds like the tower will be cheap. The architect talked about all the well-known and iconic towers in the area and that they were going for a look that would cause the tower to fade into the background. 4 or 5 people at the meeting called him out on it and Adam Vaughn said they would probably negotiate the final look.

Also, Gretzky's will remain but Second City will be gone.
 
I appreciate the "blend in" sentiment, but the design of this tower belongs in MCC or North York, not the entertainment district.
 
Jeez it's not that bad. Honestly the difference between something built in MCC, NYC or downtown is so minute it's almost indistinguishable to most people.
 
I'm sorry, but I cannot entirely agree with that.

danielsoneparktower.jpg
danielschicagocondos.jpg


I really feel that this architecture is in its own category of blah.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top