69 Yonge | 89.45m | 21s | H&R REIT | PARTISANS

CharmAlarm

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
426
Reaction score
281

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
15,889
Reaction score
17,291
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
Interesting legal notice in today's Star. If you are a descendent you may be richer than you thought!

1658579883632.png
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,250
Reaction score
55,474
Location
Toronto/EY
Interesting legal notice in today's Star. If you are a descendent you may be richer than you thought!

View attachment 415429

Anyone whose ancestors were known to be in Toronto or investing here in the early to mid 19thC or related to Mr. Lardner need to get right on that.

That would be a potential windfall!

Sadly, my relations weren't in Ontario back then.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,250
Reaction score
55,474
Location
Toronto/EY
With Partisans is involved, we can relax.

Did you speak too soon?

There's new ZBA/SPA for this one.................it's still Partisans............

But what is this on on top of the building now???

1663836657243.png


That's the render before the app........but I thought it demanded it.........

Now the app:

1663836713187.png



1663836932011.png


1663836984663.png


1663836838694.png



1663837437153.png


1663837592961.png

1663837628162.png

1663837666904.png


I endeavoured to find a good Streetview image to convey where the proposed infill would be sited.

I have to say, just getting in there to build it .....

1663837791866.png


Note that there is no visible access to this area from the north.

Access appears to be from the west and south only:

(via Yonge)

1663837936589.png


Via Colborne:

1663838031615.png
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,343
Reaction score
6,119
...in someways the original building already looks like a facade. So sticking something new behind it is unlikely to distract from the heritage portion.
 

A Torontonian Now

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,693
Reaction score
6,446
Location
Bloor & Jane
I have no problem with the infill of the corner - that's a good idea for additional density even if difficult to construct. I am not at all sold on the "hat" addition on the top, which to me makes this look like a facadectomy, even when it is not.

I might be convinced if renderings from a pedestrian viewpoint show that the setback means that the hat is not really visible from the street.
 

egotrippin

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1,147
For the love of god make it stop. Fine, stick an infill building in there, but under no circumstance should it be taller than the existing pinnacles. That haphazard, asymmetrical window design is a mess that just districts from the original building too. Whatever's built shouldn't compete with or draw attention from the original CP Building.

Also, that looks like a miserable place for a condo; I don't think sunlight would ever touch the lower levels of those units on the north/east sides. Depressing.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,250
Reaction score
55,474
Location
Toronto/EY
For the love of god make it stop. Fine, stick an infill building in there, but under no circumstance should it be taller than the existing pinnacles. That haphazard, asymmetrical window design is a mess that just districts from the original building too. Whatever's built shouldn't compete with or draw attention from the original CP Building.

I concur. I posted in middle of the night, as I often do........and that was my instinct, but I wanted to look at it later, when fully awake before deciding. I'm decided. The add-on, on top is incongruous to the rest of the building, it's not complimentary at all, it's a sore thumb; and beyond unnecessary, it's undesirable.

Also, that looks like a miserable place for a condo; I don't think sunlight would ever touch the lower levels of those units on the north/east sides. Depressing.

I'd have to go back and look at the layouts, but w/o only 4-5 units per floor, I assume they could be laid out to achieve light from 2 sides......

But regardless, the infill construction and extant presence would likely kill the trees now present over the parking at the condo to the east; and certainly make that, as an outdoor amenity space (which I'm assuming it is); rather inhospitable.
 

egotrippin

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1,147
I concur. I posted in middle of the night, as I often do........and that was my instinct, but I wanted to look at it later, when fully awake before deciding. I'm decided. The add-on, on top is incongruous to the rest of the building, it's not complimentary at all, it's a sore thumb; and beyond unnecessary, it's undesirable.



I'd have to go back and look at the layouts, but w/o only 4-5 units per floor, I assume they could be laid out to achieve light from 2 sides......

But regardless, the infill construction and extant presence would likely kill the trees now present over the parking at the condo to the east; and certainly make that, as an outdoor amenity space (which I'm assuming it is); rather inhospitable.
Ah, good point, I didn't pay much attention to the units/floor. Still, if your unit only has north and east exposure on the lower floors, it'll be quite gloomy most of the year.

I imagine those trees are part of amenity space for 7 King St; I bet those residents won't love this proposal. The entire thing looks challenging to build, I'm still wrapping my head around how they'll get all the machinery into that site.
 

centralblue

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
61
Reaction score
167
Interesting legal notice in today's Star. If you are a descendent you may be richer than you thought!

View attachment 415429
Lardner arrived in Upper Canada in 1804 with his parents. About 1808 he married Sarah Bradshaw, daughter of George Bradshaw (1762-1810) and Margaret Hill (1765-1817). In 1810, the family moved to the Town of York. Lardner’s wheelwright and carriage factory was on the south side of King Street at the east corner of Yonge Street. In 1834 he was a councilman for St. Lawrence Ward in York. He and Sarah Bradshaw had nine children. Good chance for a lot descendants!
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
15,889
Reaction score
17,291
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
Lardner arrived in Upper Canada in 1804 with his parents. About 1808 he married Sarah Bradshaw, daughter of George Bradshaw (1762-1810) and Margaret Hill (1765-1817). In 1810, the family moved to the Town of York. Lardner’s wheelwright and carriage factory was on the south side of King Street at the east corner of Yonge Street. In 1834 he was a councilman for St. Lawrence Ward in York. He and Sarah Bradshaw had nine children. Good chance for a lot descendants!
They had better step up soon!
 

officedweller

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
1,426
Those arched windows look awful (mostly because of the light coloured stone).
Their randomness detracts from the sentinel-like placing of the copper domes on the corners.
If a tall tower is to be "in-filled" then it should contrast with the limestone of the heritage tower and the green domes, to make the heritage elements stand out.
Dark, maybe brown, bronze or olive tinted, non-mirrored glass curtain wall on the new tower would do the trick.
This is where "Toronto modern" would work well.
... and cover up that elevator overrun.
 

condovo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,664
Reaction score
6,368
Location
St. Lawrence
Did you speak too soon?

There's new ZBA/SPA for this one.................it's still Partisans............

But what is this on on top of the building now???

View attachment 428236

That's the render before the app........but I thought it demanded it.........

Now the app:

View attachment 428237


View attachment 428239

View attachment 428240

View attachment 428238


View attachment 428241

View attachment 428242
View attachment 428243
View attachment 428244

I endeavoured to find a good Streetview image to convey where the proposed infill would be sited.

I have to say, just getting in there to build it .....

View attachment 428245

Note that there is no visible access to this area from the north.

Access appears to be from the west and south only:

(via Yonge)

View attachment 428247

Via Colborne:

View attachment 428248
I'm into it. It knows the rules and then breaks them but in a cool way, not in clueless, tasteless Kirkor / G+C way. It's poking fun, even thumbing its nose at Toronto's pearl-clutching schtick. The blonde cladding is deferential but the form is irreverent and I'm all for the tension. (We want diversity of form as in Sweden, right?) And I adore the "New New Formalism" design language. (Neo New Formalism?) Anyway, from the sidewalk, people aren't going to see the new bit poking up above the old. And so what if they do? The units aren't going to get much sun but that's life in the big city. You got to squeeze stuff in.
 
Last edited:

Top