Search results

In the "Growth to Watch Out For" article it says that the site is expanded and "now includes the properties to the north at 79-85 St. Nicholas Street and 718 Yonge Street." 718 is the Shoppers building. Did they also purchase all of the other little buildings on Yonge leading up to it, or just...

If this is a 24 hour location and stocks a full variety of groceries and other essentials, it could generate a lot more foot traffic than the Hardrock, and at all hours.

No, I was correct. Increased demand for land (which is in fixed supply in the core) increases land prices. This drives up property values, rent, and hotel prices.

Agreed. The market knows best in situations like this. What we're really seeing is that hotel rooms in Toronto are slowly getting more expensive, which is to be expected as the city continues to grow and develop.

I never claimed it would cause harm to get upset. It's just a silly reaction.

It could end up having an artistic pattern to it, or it could become glass... I think it's a bit early to get upset about this.

All this fuss about the proposed material on the south side of the building? This is way too preliminary to know what it will look like, or if the material changes.

Your response to my post made absolutely no sense.

Look at it this way: each of those empty lots is a resource for the future development of the city. We are lucky to have these lots.

Is a Hardrock much more interesting than any other chain? I agree that it would be great to have an entertainment venue of some sort here, but Hardrock is just a cheesy chain. Having said that, they do intend to find a new location, and I'm curious about where they'll go.

Why is that an issue for you? Regardless, I imagine they will close those locations.

I disagree. I think this is the perfect place for it. That's what this part of town is for. But I do wonder where the Hardrock will go. There aren't many good stand-alone locations in this area that would make sense for them. The article says they are having trouble finding a spot near by, and...

If work is commissioned by the owner, that is fine. But when you put graffiti on someone's property without permission you have done a bad thing. Even children understand this. It's called vandalism.

A couple of things pop out at me here. First, why were the people at Global News such jerks that they felt the need to rat on the owner? Second, why would a developer care about a $300 fine? Even I don 't care about a $300 fine, so I can't imagine why a developer would take action on this.

You mean the Nordstrom Rack? I think I can wait a bit longer.

As ugly as this building used to be, this renovation is shaping up to be so much worse. This is the same cladding they used on that University Ave reclad. It looks like cheap siding, not something that belongs on an office tower.

Also, the existing hotel uses tremendous resources already. The developer will no doubt have numbers comparing the hotel to the new proposal in order to make the case. I think this will be key in the approvals process.

Council decides, not Keesmaat. The most Planning gets to do is make recommendations to Council. Keesmaat can make noise, and Council might listen. Either way it should be remembered that the two big proposals north of College are almost certainly just rezoning exercises, so it probably doesn't...

That white panel strip looks strange. Does anyone know of another building that employs this method/look? I'm trying to imagine what it would look like finished.

Strange situation then. I remember that on their old website they were advertising the building at about this square footage. They advertised a range of about 700k to 800k. I forget the exact numbers. I assumed they had the zoning if they were advertising it for so long.