Toronto 122 Peter | 132.79m | 40s | Kingdom | BDP Quadrangle

It's pretty thoroughly destroyed at the back. It was also definitely unofficially lived in. The whole area smells 'burnt'.

IMG_9540[1].JPG


IMG_9542[1].JPG


IMG_9543[1].JPG


IMG_9544[1].JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9540[1].JPG
    IMG_9540[1].JPG
    179.1 KB · Views: 893
  • IMG_9542[1].JPG
    IMG_9542[1].JPG
    407.2 KB · Views: 932
  • IMG_9543[1].JPG
    IMG_9543[1].JPG
    332.3 KB · Views: 892
  • IMG_9544[1].JPG
    IMG_9544[1].JPG
    313.2 KB · Views: 897
one can't help that the development being proposed here is being (or was being) financed by Fortress Real Developments who is going through some serious problems:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/fortress-real-developments-woes.28610/

or on top of that the property was previously owned by Rhed/Del Terrelonge who's every property they owned was a development failure (all were in power of sales) -- it's like they put a curse on everything they touch.
 
I would say that they might either be attempting to stabilize the structure or salvage some elements, as demolition would likely involve hoarding if the building hadn't already been demolished like in the case of the Empress Hotel.
 
It's wood-frame though. It was always going to be torn down and recreated (in concrete, etc.) when the new building goes up.
 

Attachments

  • 4ew3twe4.jpg
    4ew3twe4.jpg
    260.7 KB · Views: 821
  • 44e3wff.jpg
    44e3wff.jpg
    254.1 KB · Views: 807
  • 4w3et4efr.jpg
    4w3et4efr.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 836
  • backgroundfile-118927.jpg
    backgroundfile-118927.jpg
    72.6 KB · Views: 819
Some nice little things to secure:

"No projecting balconies shall be permitted on the east and west sides of the tower."

"The owner agrees that the materials for the east and west elevations of the tower shall include curtain wall or a comparable system, and that the materials for the exposed underside of the tower (soffit) and the exposed columns will be of high quality all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner, as determined through the Site Plan Approval process."

My money says that they'll be selling this site so I hope that whomever picks it up continues the strong architectural expression secured here.
 
Why did the height go down from 46 to 38, then back up to 44, and finally down to 42? The City would usually take a settlement with a reduction as big as 8 storeys.
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
Some nice little things to secure:

"No projecting balconies shall be permitted on the east and west sides of the tower."

"The owner agrees that the materials for the east and west elevations of the tower shall include curtain wall or a comparable system, and that the materials for the exposed underside of the tower (soffit) and the exposed columns will be of high quality all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner, as determined through the Site Plan Approval process."

My money says that they'll be selling this site so I hope that whomever picks it up continues the strong architectural expression secured here.
Click to expand...
Anyone buying the site would look at the protracted approvals process, and be smart to stick wth the approvals gained, realizing major savings in time and cost.

42
 
I love how the tower-podium treatment not only opens up the view of the intersection but also plays off of the nearby Tableau lobby as well as the QRC building lobby (which both work around heritage buildings). If this looks anything like the rendering, Richmond and Peter might become my favourite intersection in terms of design of the abutting buidlings . There's a playfulness but also grandeur to the QRC, Tableau and to a lesser extent nearby Picasso. Hopefully, Gloss condos keeps it up.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top