Toronto Time and Space Condos | 101.8m | 29s | Pemberton | Wallman Architects

Here's a shot from today, looking NW from The Esplanade.

8071974966_36204bc145_c.jpg
 
^??? The first line of the article is:
The area of Front and Lower Sherbourne Street is currently a skyscraper free zone.
Click to expand...

I think that is like a carefully worded (to remain neutral) version of:
this development is completely out of scale for the area.
Click to expand...
 
DSC said:
... Secondly, the Sobeys is not doing well (they have recently gone from 24-hours to 7-midnight and the place is always pretty empty.) I think they might be quite pleased to be allowed to cancel their 5 (or 7?) year lease and walk away so even if the new building has space for a large retail tenant they may well not be interested.
Click to expand...


Sobey is too high priced for the area and how can it compete when there's a No Frills across the street offering identical items for substantially less !?!
 
cdr108 said:
Sobey is too high priced for the area and how can it compete when there's a No Frills across the street offering identical items for substantially less !?!
Click to expand...
A bit OT, but I think it has less to do with their prices (i.e. Loblaws and Metro seem to do just fine) and more to do with their horrible customer service and lack of open cashiers during busy periods. They are definitely hurting, though - they recently reduced their hours to 7am-midnight (from 24/7) and now it will be further reduced to 7am-11pm.

If No Frills accepted Visa cards I'd gladly switch.
 
The application has now been revised to: "Rezoning application to permit the re-development of the block bounded by Lower Sherbourne Street, Princess Avenue, The Esplanade and Front Street East. The revised proposal is to permit three 34-storey point towers on a 10-storey base building with residential and commercial uses. Proposed total GFA is 118,013 sq.m., with 1,349 residential units, 708 vehicle parking spaces."

(Earlier application was ""Rezoning application to permit the re-development of the lands for the purposes of a new mixed use development consisting of a 34 & 33-storey residential towers connected by a 13 to 17 storey podium in the city block bounded by Front St. East, Princess Street, The Esplanade and Lower Sherbourne Street. Included in the proposal is ground floor related retail/commercial uses - 913 parking spaces located in a below grade parking."
 
DSC said:
The application has now been revised to: "Rezoning application to permit the re-development of the block bounded by Lower Sherbourne Street, Princess Avenue, The Esplanade and Front Street East. The revised proposal is to permit three 34-storey point towers on a 10-storey base building with residential and commercial uses. Proposed total GFA is 118,013 sq.m., with 1,349 residential units, 708 vehicle parking spaces."
Click to expand...

Ugh, three towers now? I hope it looks better than that previously proposed monolith. And Princess Avenue is north of the 401, the original application had the correct name, Princess Street.

Does anyone know why they fenced off the southwest corner lot where they tore down that old warehouse? Are they planning to build the condo sales centre there, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
They are going to have to lower the density on this one. It is still way too high. They over paid for the property sure, but that doesn't mean they can build this super dense crap here. I think they will have to bite the bullet and lose money on this property.. what they want is nowhere near what is appropriate.
 
CityPainter said:
Does anyone know why they fenced off the southwest corner lot where they tore down that old warehouse? Are they planning to build the condo sales centre there, perhaps?
Click to expand...
The City forced them to fence this off because they applied for and were rejected for a surface parking lot but continued to allow paid parking there.
 
innsertnamehere said:
They are going to have to lower the density on this one. It is still way too high. They over paid for the property sure, but that doesn't mean they can build this super dense crap here. I think they will have to bite the bullet and lose money on this property.. what they want is nowhere near what is appropriate.
Click to expand...

On what basis is the density 'too high?' Would your mind change if instead of building "super dense crap," they built "super dense awesome" or some like adjective (insert your own).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top