Ok, I've had my coffee and managed to get some work done............so.
There's a lot to like here..........BUT.......
I don't get the atrium idea at all here. What that does, typically is suck life off the street (Yonge) and in to the atrium, which, of course, will be privately owned space, presumably with operating hours (not open 24/7).
Not really in to that from a vitality point of view, or an 'eyes on the street' point of view.
Now, I get that.............the current sidewalks on Yonge here are grossly inadequate in width and not particularly pleasant or attractive.
However, this section of Yonge is, tentatively, set for reconstruction in the latter 2020s, and while no design has been done yet, the idea will be similar to the proposed changes to the south.
Which is to say, this section of Yonge will almost certainly see two lanes of traffic removed, and that space re-allocated to sidewalk width and the addition of street trees.
Given, that if this were approved, maybe in late '23, that it wouldn't top out before 2027 at the earliest, it's likely one can plan for that sidewalk width and streetscape here, and keep the energy on Yonge, not behind retained facades.
I haven't yet read the Heritage Report, but, in theory, removing the atria might allow for some retention of any surviving heritage features of the existing buildings to be retained to a material depth; in the alternative, it might be possible to recreate those features, at least on the ground level.
****
I also wonder about the 44 parking spaces..........a very small number, but removing them might allow for reconsidering the extent of the expansion of Biscuit lane, which in turn, might allow for further expansion of George Hislop Park.
Clearly, a loading function/waste management area must be retained, and that requires a certain amount of room, but how much room is an interesting question, based in part on whether there is full northward existing capability and/or turnaround space, within, or outside the building.
