Toronto 839 Yonge | 160.2m | 49s | CT REIT | Adamson

Here it is , less blurificated:


Here's more:



Love your new word 42 :D
I just don't understand the heavy-handed tabletop/shelf element of the podium. It overwhelms the façade of the old CT and adds nothing to the attempt at graceful and light towers.

Maybe this proves that even if you copy a decent design, Big or small, there is no guarantee that you will be successful.
They've basically plagiarized BIG's Vancouver House building in Vancouver by Westbank. Didn't even *try* to change the design details. Adamson Associates should be ashamed:
I'm not getting this...aside from the cladding, these two projects resemble very little with each other. One looks fairly conventional, while the other is a gravity defying acid trip... ushahid-san already put it, I wish AAA did "plagiarize" this.
I'm not getting this...aside from the cladding, these two projects resemble very little with each other. One looks fairly conventional, while the other is a gravity defying acid trip... ushahid-san already put it, I wish AAA did "plagiarize" this.

Fair. I think it's much more of a striking resemblance for me since I live in Vancouver and see BIG's building almost every day. Had Adamson not gone for the stepped setbacks, I'd have a different opinion.

That being said, it is a sad state of affairs IMO that the design ethos of some local architectural firms is to borrow heavily from starchitecture projects. Missed opportunity to showcase what the firm is capable of by forging their own (unique) design path.
Docs have dropped here. First the App just to go w/the link.


From the Docs:

* note as we've seen most or all of the renders, I'll mostly be looking at other planning docs below.



In respect of the heritage facade:







I do not wish to see the Gas Station retained or reinstated in its heritage form.........but I must confess to having a sympathy for its heritage version which I'm simply too young to remember.



Ok, from the HIA, this amuses me:

Shortly after opening on Site, it became apparent that the stock
area behind the counters, where clerks would go to retrieve parts,
was so vast that it took the clerks a long time to retrieve orders21.
Muriel Billes, A. J's wife, introduced the idea that the store clerks
would wear roller skates to fill orders22. The roller skating clerks
decreased service times and boosted sales, in addition, people
were coming to the Yonge and Davenport location just to watch the
clerks on skates


Also interesting:

and later in 1946 A.J devel-
oped a profit sharing scheme with Canadian Tire employees as an
alternative to unionization, which A.J. despised. The scheme redi-
rected 10 percent of employee earnings towards company stock,
which could be cashed in after 10 years or at retirement. By 1975,
Canadian Tire employees owned 16 percent of Class A non-voting
shares and 12.2 percent of the common shares; many Canadian
Tire employees retired rich following the sale of their share
I'll separate my comments here to their own post as the one above was getting lengthy.

I've already outlined most of my thoughts (don't like the podium overhang, needs a connection across the subway tracks to the Rosedale Valley lands).

But based on further reading of the docs, I will add this:

1) ERA is recommending reinstating one portion of the lost heritage, extending the Yonge Street heritage facade by one bay to the north. That is applause worthy.

2) The treatment of the existing heritage facade is much better than the status quo and will involve reanimation of it and removing/replacement of unflattering work, also good.

3) Looking at the heritage photos, I think replicating some of the south elevation, perhaps fully faithfully or perhaps with some additional transparency (grade-level windows) would make sense.

4) Examining the Site Plan and area more closely, I see two potential options for crossing the TTC tracks, with a publicly accessible open space. (first considering simply getting across with a pedestrian bridge)


The southerly location has the virtue of taking you to the large and more usable section of the existing greenspace/park and bringing you to Severn street and next to the lovely Studio building.
the downside is that it would likely impose on the Studio building a bit, the architectural sensitivity would need to be high, and it would occupy some of that green space.

My presumptive model here is the Liberty Village crossing as a switchback ramp here would kill a large chunk of the greenspace, so I'm assuming an elevator would be required on the Valley side. Based on the Liberty Bridge site, ~1200-1400ft 2 is probably required on the valley side.

The northerly site is less encroaching in terms of heritage or the best of the park space, but is also a less appealing landing spot and doesn't offer the context of Severn. It would also be less convenient for those living in the apartments at the base of the valley.

The outline below (in white) gives an approximate size for a landing box featuring a staircase and elevator. One can see it would require some vegetation removal.


Now, as opposed to a simple bridge, there is the option here of encasing the subway tracks entirely, and creating POPs/Park space above.


Note that the above would be ~0.23ha or just a bit over 1/2 an acre of new park space at about 15,000ft2.

The challenge w/this option is as follows:

1) You need more visibility and access to keep a space like this animated. The means highly visible access on both the north and south ends of the site.

2) Because you have to maintain vertical clearance for the subway, there would be a sharp, straight, sheer vertical drop down to the valley lands, which would now have either posts/columns or a full wall along their western flank.
this would also remove most mature vegetation in the existing park space in order to erect the support structure.

The bonus of this idea, in whole or part, is that it could offset some of the amenity space on the overhang, which could then be dialed back to better respect the heritage facades.

3) From a parkland standpoint, if no new space is created in-situ, I would suggest the money go to expanding Ramsden Park further on the Avenue Road frontage, as per the TO Core Plan.
Last edited:

Local city councillor Mike Layton said that the site could probably use some density, given its proximity to two subway stations, but he strongly insisted that there is an opportunity to create a connection between Yonge and the Rosedale Valley ravine over existing subway tracks as part of the construction. The Studio Building, once home to members of the Group of Seven and a national historic site, is right behind the Canadian Tire and could possibly be a location a walkway could connect to.

Paul Bedford, a former chief city planner for Toronto and the director of community planning with the Greater Yorkville Residents’ Association, also iterated support for a pedestrian bridge to the ravine and said the community has long desired such a connection. Bedford, who previously took part in a Zoom meeting with the developers to go over the plans, said that their initial reaction was that it would be a big undertaking, but they ultimately didn’t say no to the idea. He pointed out the John Street pedestrian bridge over tracks in the Weston neighbourhood as an example of one that was done right.

“It’s not a big deal,” Bedford said. “It’s done all the time.

Bedford said the developer plans to demolish the Canadian Tire site and rebuild a new one while keeping the store’s historic facade that was built in 1929 as part of the Grand Central Market and was taken over by Canadian Tire in 1937 to be its flagship store. The property was added to the city’s heritage register in 1986.

Bedford said the developers were open to having an interim location for the store during the expected four to five years of construction, which he suggested could be located at the recently vacated Hudson’s Bay store at Bloor Street and Yonge Street.

The gas station at Yonge and Davenport is also included in the plans with a vision for it to be 672 square metres of publicly accessible green space.

Layton did note that the development could create shadows onto Rosedale Valley, which would be unavoidable if anything were to be built on the site. Bedford, for one, is skeptical of the height chosen by the developers, noting that it seemed arbitrary.

“How did they arrive at 49 and 41 storeys?” He asked. “What’s magic about that?”

Which is to reinforce what I've said; the applicant and their reps are off-their rocker for not including the connection to the valley in the proposal, they had to have known it was going to be the top ask for neighbourhood, the councillor and the bureaucracy. To not include it is either one of the worst oversights I've seen, or an act of wilful defiance with a plan to take this to the OLT no matter what.
Last edited:
Community Meeting on this one is slated for March 2nd.


While I'm here, let me offer up the position of the one of the local resident's associations on the proposal. It's worth noting, there's nothing NIMBY in their take; and their asks are pretty solid.....


Taken from: