The Britt Condos | 142.03m | 41s | Lanterra | IBI Group

[Bentley]

It's a slab building, but not a horrible one. The base is nice and could make for great retail. An implosion is impossible from a feasibility standpoint (but I'm sure you already knew that). There's always wishful thinking though.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Any why, exactly, should said 'wishful thinking' support the destruction of Sutton?

 

[interchange42]

What a waste it would be to take that building down, both for environmental reasons (all that embodied energy? come on!) and the late-60s context it creates with the handsome international style Queens Park complex kitty corner from it. It's certainly a handsome enough brutalist tower itself. Yumpin' yimminy, the 60s get don't get enough respect… mutter mutter.

42

 

[ThomasJ]

Yeah it's gonna be imploded I hope. How about 100s here?

thaaaat's more like it, urbandreamer....(though not with respect to the latter part).

 

[ThomasJ]

It's a slab building, but not a horrible one. The base is nice and could make for great retail. An implosion is impossible from a feasibility standpoint (but I'm sure you already knew that). There's always wishful thinking though.

wish all you want, Bentley....some wishes just aren't meant to come true (not saying I support what's going to happen here btw, just reporting intel). and thus ends my cryptic market knowledge for the day.

 

[egotrippin]

And in this case, thankfully they aren't meant to come true also. Sutton Place shines as one of the better pre-2000s additions to the upper Bay Street canyon, ghastly street level renovations notwithstanding. It's a fine mid-century building that just needs a bit of TLC.

 

[Bentley]

wish all you want, Bentley....some wishes just aren't meant to come true (not saying I support what's going to happen here btw, just reporting intel). and thus ends my cryptic market knowledge for the day.

For the record I am not suggesting it should be imploded. I was stating it never will be.

 

[urbandreamer]

I'm confident it will be. 75sx2 would be about right to replace it.

(I love the SPH, but the 8' ceilings would be a deal killer for any buyer.)

 

[Bentley]

It's selling at the four seasons.

Let me reiterate, there is essentially a zero chance the sutton place will be torn down.

For the potential density, I don't know how it could be financially feasible given the likely purchase cost, and the rental replacement cost.

 

[ThomasJ]

It's selling at the four seasons.

Let me reiterate, there is essentially a zero chance the sutton place will be torn down.

For the potential density, I don't know how it could be financially feasible given the likely purchase cost, and the rental replacement cost.

hey bentley....mind if i quote you on that "there is essentially zero chance the sutton place will be torn down" prognostication?

 

[CapitalSeven]

I'm confident it will be. 75sx2 would be about right to replace it.

(I love the SPH, but the 8' ceilings would be a deal killer for any buyer.)

It's environmentally immoral to start tearing down perfectly viable highrise buildings just to squeeze a few more nickels out of the property. We don't need another 75 storey phallic fetish object. Someone can build one for you on a parking lot with less trouble. And lots of people would be happy to have 8 foot ceilings at Bay and Wellesley. Rooms with 8 foot ceilings are cheaper to heat, cheaper to build, cheaper in every way. The less money you spend on wasted space above your head, the more you have to spend on such forgotten, retro luxuries as real kitchens with walls and bedrooms you can fit a dresser in.

 

[ThomasJ]

It's environmentally immoral to start tearing down perfectly viable highrise buildings just to squeeze a few more nickels out of the property. We don't need another 75 storey phallic fetish object. Someone can build one for you on a parking lot with less trouble. And lots of people would be happy to have 8 foot ceilings at Bay and Wellesley. Rooms with 8 foot ceilings are cheaper to heat, cheaper to build, cheaper in every way. The less money you spend on wasted space above your head, the more you have to spend on such forgotten, retro luxuries as real kitchens with walls and bedrooms you can fit a dresser in.

wow....i don't even know where to begin....so i won't!

 

[WiddleBittyKitty]

But you did Blanche, you did.

Start with the first point, then go to the second, etc.

So first; CapitalSeven is not the only member questioning the ethics of tearing down a perfectly serviceable 32-storey building. Are you saying, ThomasJ, that there's nothing to question there?

 

[Urban Shocker]

Yumpin' yimminy, the 60s get don't get enough respect… mutter mutter.

Not just the '60s - the memory of those CBC TV Fall Season launch parties in the '80s, in the big bar at the top of that place, when Peter Hernndorf was in charge and the wine flowed freely and the hors d'oeuvre trays kept coming and you couldn't move without tripping over Uncle Knowlty or getting one of Barbara Frum's shoulder pads in your eye, will live on wherever the term "freebie" is whispered in hushed tones.

 

[junctionist]

I've always liked the Sutton Place Hotel as a building. The juxtaposition of the bold concrete I-beams and the sleek, uninterrupted band of horizontal windows across the facade is memorable. It's no slab or expendable building. Too bad it suffers from the typical deficiencies of Modernist buildings in terms of how it meets the street like on Wellesley, but in this case, subsequent renovations softened things.