Toronto Atrium on Bay Expansion | 86.65m | 25s | KingSett Capital | Hariri Pontarini

Turning that corner entrance into the Atrium's main entrance would be amazing. Is that the plan?
 
doing this new corner right could be a windfall to the owners because rents will increase a lot with more visibility and foot traffic. It makes perfect sense, but had never thought of removing the retail on the corner to improve access and visibility of this mall. Effectively, the "mall" may basically double if the Atrium becomes an extension. Smart development idea.
 
If they're going to facadectomize that building on the corner (or has that already happened?) I really wish they'd do the next logical step and push it back from the corner another 3-4 feet. That corner is always so congested, and removing the subway entrance might help, but I'd also assume that there will be increased traffic into the mall after the reno.

And I generally dislike skybridges and what they do to the streetlife, but I think both the Atrium and 10 Dundas would benefit from an aboveground connection. It would help to fix some of the circulation problems at both 10 Dundas and the Atrium, and if it were done well (i.e.; over-the-top commercial kitsch) it could help to frame in Yonge-Dundas. My only concern would be how the bridge would relate to the inevitable redevelopment of HMV and the Empress.
 
The project will be considered on May 30 at the Committee of Adjustment meeting.

AoD

PS - sorry just noticed it was a sign from last year!
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The project will be considered on May 30 at the Committee of Adjustment meeting.

AoD

PS - sorry just noticed it was a sign from last year!
Click to expand...

Which project is being considered on May 30th? I live at the 633 bay st and we received a letter back in December that the project to extend the floors at the Atrium wasn't going to go thru after all. Did something else come up?.
 
mdrame:

Sorry, there wasn't a meeting on the coming May 30 - it was a mistake on my part given it actually meant May 30, 2012 (last year) - the sign was left posted way longer than it should have been.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
mdrame:

Sorry, there wasn't a meeting on the coming May 30 - it was a mistake on my part given it actually meant May 30, 2012 (last year) - the sign was left posted way longer than it should have been.

AoD
Click to expand...

Phheeww!! Thanks for the clarification. I currently have an unobstructed south view of downtown and extending the floors at the Atrium would have completely blocked my view.
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
Any one know why this fell through?
Click to expand...

According to the letter we received from our building management, back in the 80s or 90s when the Atrium was being built, there was a contract between the prior owners and 633 bay Condo Corporation in which one of the clauses stipulated that any "major" variance at the Atrium on Bay would first require the approval from 633 Bay St Condo Corporation. Back in May or June of 2012, the new owners of the Atrium filed an application for a "minor" variance which was approved. However, our condo corp filed an appeal claiming that this was a "major" variance and also brought up the clause mentionned above. The appeals court sided with us that this was indeed a "major" variance, and because of that ruling and the existence of the clause, the new owners of the Atrium withdrew their application knowing they wouldn't have any chance of succeeding.
 
Last edited:
Why did my comment get deleted? Is it really more ridiculous than what I was replying to? Why come to URBAN Toronto to complain about urban development?
 
You might disagree with the individual's position - which you didn't even bother to address - but the fact of the matter is they provided valuable information which would otherwise not be available. Did you find out for us why the proposal didn't happen? If not, I find no reason why the individual members' contribution to this thread isn't more valuable than your information free rant. Quite frankly, I don't really care who you want to or doesn't want to ignore, there is nothing urban, much less civil in your person-directed comment.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I may be selfish, but picturing this atrium being 4 stories taller suits my photographic needs well.


Atrium by Jack Landau, on Flickr

AoD: Regarding the height issue, I feel that there are many factors which should contribute to determining where a little extra height is appropriate - but the views of pre-existing condo owners should not be one of them (in my opinion). I am no judge on whether or not the addition should be built, but it is a little disheartening to know that this plan got vetoed by condo owners so they could preserve their views.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top