Yeah, it's a fine piece of 2009 Big Box Urban that we wouldn't want to loose. Has it been designated yet?
42
42
Toronto Four Eleven King Condominiums | 149.04m | 45s | Great Gulf | KPMB
- Thread starter Jayomatic
- Start date
junctionist
Senior Member
Rather than mocking the legitimate heritage concerns that unfortunately come up for projects, I'd like to point out that it's interesting that there are plans to go beyond facadism with the actual heritage buildings here. However, the plans still seem ambiguous in this regard.
adma
Superstar
And re the "save the LCBO" sarcasm: actually, the LCBO would have been better off were it "designed" to be retained and expanded-upward--from a "green" standpoint...
I'm not even slightly mocking legitimate heritage concerns; sarcasm is the better characterization.
Adma hits the mail on the head here: why-ever was the LCBO outlet not built as a temporary or transportable structure if its life cycle was likely to be so short? Very wasteful, but then that's not so much of a surprise given the LCBO's penchant for single-storey structures all over town. They certainly have no shred of interest in adding to the city, nor the ecological implications of their resolutely suburban mindset. I like the LCBO for a number of reasons, but the privileges accrued to them by their virtual monopoly on lucrative wine and spirit retailing in this province has allowed them to build lazily and without regard to the social consequences of inadequate density or aesthetic vacuity. So there.
42
Adma hits the mail on the head here: why-ever was the LCBO outlet not built as a temporary or transportable structure if its life cycle was likely to be so short? Very wasteful, but then that's not so much of a surprise given the LCBO's penchant for single-storey structures all over town. They certainly have no shred of interest in adding to the city, nor the ecological implications of their resolutely suburban mindset. I like the LCBO for a number of reasons, but the privileges accrued to them by their virtual monopoly on lucrative wine and spirit retailing in this province has allowed them to build lazily and without regard to the social consequences of inadequate density or aesthetic vacuity. So there.
42
CN Tower
Banned
Who knew how long they intended to be there when they signed the lease? I'm sure it's at least 10 years. Back in 2008/9 the world looked as though it was headed for a prolonged Depression. I'm sure the owner believed that any re-development that was going to occur on this site wouldn't take place for many many years into the future, if at all. In the interim they were going to get guaranteed rent from basically the best tenant around. Smart move.
As far as the 'ecological' consequences of their store, are you joking? Have you seen some of the sales centres around town?
grey
Senior Member
I haven't seen any sales centres that come close to the permanence of this LCBO.
CN Tower
Banned
The multi-million dollar sales centres that proliferate around most condo sites today have a projected shelf-life of 1-2 years. This building had a projected shelf-life of 10 years when built with the possibility of a much longer lifespan. Many of the centres could be housed in existing buildings nearby.
It occurs to me that most of you do not appreciate how fortunate this city is to have a healthy condo market in the wake of the credit crisis that occurred in the fall of 2008. Aside from Vancouver, what market anywhere in North America continues to build any new condo projects, let alone 15,000+ per year? You really take it for granted that the market will continue on its unsustainable growth trajectory.
Last edited:
grey
Senior Member
Sales centres tend to be considerably less substantial than a concrete, brick and steel LCBO like this. Assembly and disassembly is relatively simple. I agree that they're wasteful, but I think it's a weak comparison.
I don't know where the sustainability lecture is coming from (the year 2008 called...), but you'd be hard-pressed to find a thread in Projects & Construction where the economic viability of any given development is not thoroughly discussed. Pessimism abounds on this forum, make no mistake.
Last edited:
junctionist
Senior Member
The sales centres are there to make the dense development happen. Most LCBOs, however, decrease density with one storey construction a large surface parking lot, which promotes car use. They're still wasteful, but not nearly to a comparable degree, and that issue is mitigated by the development.
All the more reason not to let one storey retail happen along urban commercial streets. If the market is indeed unsustainable, we may be stuck with that kind of junk for a while.
TCW
New Member
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ndo-tower-at-king-and-spadina/article1907293/
-Mr. Vaughan would like to see the developers shave at least 50 metres off the proposed height – and throw in some community benefits like supportive housing or family-centred units to make it worth the neighbourhood’s while.
-Mr. Layton said the LCBO’s lease goes until at least 2019, which is when developers plan to start on the new building, but the liquor store would be interested in taking part in new retail space that’s supposed to make up the first two storeys.
-Mr. Vaughan would like to see the developers shave at least 50 metres off the proposed height – and throw in some community benefits like supportive housing or family-centred units to make it worth the neighbourhood’s while.
-Mr. Layton said the LCBO’s lease goes until at least 2019, which is when developers plan to start on the new building, but the liquor store would be interested in taking part in new retail space that’s supposed to make up the first two storeys.
gristle
Senior Member
The trouble with arguing height without any sense of context is that every subsequent developer will then expect to get more - or run and whine at the OMB. Frankly, a very interesting approach of using an angular drop off in height as buildings approached Spadina seemed to solve the problem of every developer trying to jam an ever-higher structure into what was supposed to be an area with a 30 metre height limit. A number of proposals have since come forward that fit into that regime. Now this developer wants break it.
The Hudson across the street is a much better example to follow.
The Hudson across the street is a much better example to follow.
CN Tower
Banned
It's better than a parking lot and at least it provides a valuable service to the community, employment, tax revenue, and income to the land owner.
One man's 'junk' is another man's local economy.
pw20
Active Member
I find the hate-on for the LCBO sort of surprising. It wasn't hugely suburban, and met the corner of Spadina and King quite well IMO. It was not as poorly executed as other LCBO's with a large parking lot.
In terms of disposability - you're looking at a fairly prefabricated street-front retail building, with a set life-span, its not perfect, but for a decade we will have had street front retail. What else would people have preferred a parking lot?
urbandreamer
recession proof
Yeah I too like this lcbo--yellow brick architecture reminds me of small town Ontario. Bonus: Excellent pick up joint!
adma
Superstar
It's a "taxpayer". But the point to the criticism IMO is, better a "taxpayer" that can serve as the base for something taller and denser, than a "taxpayer" that'll be demolished for something taller and denser...