Toronto Theatre Park | 156.96m | 47s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

Logan said:
That is too bad. I wonder if it's a liability issue? Meaning, the developer didn't want shell out big sums of insurance money on the event someone slipped and fell because of the water? As rediculous as that sounds, it's a sad reality of our times.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. They changed the glass too and I bet they'll change the other features they were talking about in the marketing video (ie: the 5 star restaurant). Developers do this all the time. Bait and switch and are never held accountable.
 
Looks like the angled glass panels with the spider connections looks to be the same, they just got rid of the metal screen with the circular cutouts behind it.

I don't mind the new row of steel trees that's lit from behind (the steel ribbons of the trees take cue from the bands on the building), though the water wall and the zero-edge pool would have been a much nicer feature for the plaza, however it would only be in use in the spring to fall seasons.
 
Torontovibe said:
^^ Well then that should have been considered and worked out BEFORE this was approved and went into sales, not after. People should know what they are buying into. Once the design is approved, developers should not be allowed drop whatever they want. It's deceptive and unfair to both buyers and the city. Developers in Toronto have way too much power.
Click to expand...

For someone with 3,881 posts, this is a remarkable misunderstanding of the development and approvals process in Toronto. At no point was the fountain 'approved' since the space just appears as an 'Open Landscaped Courtyard' in the Staff Report. Furthermore, the city has no power to demand that the preliminary ideas (and Lamb does indeed consistently refer to the fountain and divot pond as 'ideas') presented in marketing bumph be executed in the final build out.

I'd like to hear from those erudite members claiming a 'bait and switch' the grounds on which you would mount a legal challenge to a developer such as Lamb for 'changing' plans for a park which were never finalized and were never a fixed element of any municipal submission package.
 
ProjectEnd said:
For someone with 3,881 posts, this is a remarkable misunderstanding of the development and approvals process in Toronto. At no point was the fountain 'approved' since the space just appears as an 'Open Landscaped Courtyard' in the Staff Report. Furthermore, the city has no power to demand that the preliminary ideas (and Lamb does indeed consistently refer to the fountain and divot pond as 'ideas') presented in marketing bumph be executed in the final build out.

I'd like to hear from those erudite members claiming a 'bait and switch' the grounds on which you would mount a legal challenge to a developer such as Lamb for 'changing' plans for a park which were never finalized and were never a fixed element of any municipal submission package.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Especially the last paragraph. Of course the developer is well within his legal right to make whatever changes he wants. That does not make it right. Seems to some as long as it's "legal" it's OK. Which is completely ridiculous.
 
There's no reason to cut Torontovibe down like that. Laymen and even many industry professionals will make mistakes about the development process--it's positive to correct them in a respectful manner. People took an interest in this project for the quality of the public space and the Paley Park vision. Lamb isn't obliged to come through on all the features of that vision; however, to skip the most prominent features bluntly reduces the value of this project to the city at large and hurts Lamb's image as someone who envisions high-value development and makes it happen.
 
Tewder said:
In this instance i like the revision better, a little more subtle and understated... and less likely to upstage the grande dame next door.
Click to expand...

Practically everything in this city is subtle, however. We could use a little imagination once in a while. The base will now look as sterile as any other condo's podium. The metal screen behind the glass is what set this apart from any other building in the city. I don't know why developers in this city can't stray from monotonous, blank glass walls. What a wasted opportunity to do something fresh and exciting.

The waterfall and the dip would have made for a great place for all the urban squatches to wash their fur.
 
Last edited:
Patty, I don't disagree that we could use less blank glass walls in Toronto in general. I'm really just referring to this specific context. Not to beat the theatre imagery to death, but i do feel the Royal Alex should be the star. I am missing the fountain here though, to be sure.
 
Tewder said:
Patty, I don't disagree that we could use less blank glass walls in Toronto in general. I'm really just referring to this specific context. Not to beat the theatre imagery to death, but i do feel the Royal Alex should be the star. I am missing the fountain here though, to be sure.
Click to expand...

They can both be stars. I think the original vision would compliment the Royal Alex very nicely. Speaking of which -- that cheap looking centennial sign on the Royal Alex needs to come down. It's 7 years past that anniversary. It would also be nice to see the main sign replaced with a neon sign -- as it was in the past.
 
Last edited:
Bring on the developments. There's a TON of space for expansion. I imagine Sheppard will be the new Bloor Street in about 10 years (slight exaggeration, I know).
At any rate, tens of thousands of people are coming to the core. Get ready...
 
Last edited:
Yesterday,

IMG_3441.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3441.jpg
    IMG_3441.jpg
    97 KB · Views: 863
I wonder if it's a liability issue? Meaning, the developer didn't want shell out big sums of insurance money on the event someone slipped and fell because of the water? As rediculous as that sounds, it's a sad reality of our times.
Click to expand...

While that's certainly a possibility, I think it's a simple case of water features being a fairly ongoing operational/maintenance expense. Most landlords these days quietly try and get rid of them as much as possible. Look at the soulless Cf...they've managed to get rid of every water feature in the Eaton Centre except for the big shooting one in the centre of the mall....it's too iconic, and I bet if bugs the crap out of them. Same thing with Yorkdale. Same thing with the City and public drinking fountains. I'm old enough to remember how many there used to be...and they all worked. Try and find a working drinking fountain now....I bet there are 10% of what there used to be.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top