Toronto Four Eleven King Condominiums | 149.04m | 45s | Great Gulf | KPMB

grey said:
So, I guess Hume's position is multi-storey building or nothing?

It can't be anything more than a parking lot in the interim? How does that benefit the street?
Click to expand...

gregv said:
One-storey LCBO at King-Spadina makes no sense

By Christopher Hume

<snip>

Again, at a time of environmental restraint there's no justification for this sort of disposable structure. It is inexcusably wasteful.
Click to expand...

There's Hume's position: that environmental concerns outweigh temporary measures to fill parking lots with one storey boxes.

42
 
Regarding environmental concerns how many trees does Hume kill every year? A one storey building here that will last 10 years is no big deal. How many cars does it displace in the long run?
 
I don't understand Mr Hume's opinion lately, first he supported a tower at One Bloor then said it should be a park, now he is saying a one story building at King and Spadina doesn't make sense? His opinions are not making sense.
 
Homer said:
I don't understand Mr Hume's opinion lately, first he supported a tower at One Bloor then said it should be a park, now he is saying a one story building at King and Spadina doesn't make sense? His opinions are not making sense.
Click to expand...

Dont you know by now that you have to take Mr Hume's opinions with a grain of salt.:D
 
Of course Hume is not right every time but that doesn't make him wrong every time either. Part of what colours this issue is the government's involvement, even if in an arm's-length way. They're supposed to know better what's good for us right? They're supposed to set an example. Building low rise in the heart of the city where there is a clearly articulated mandate for density is irresponsible at best, a flaunting of their own mandate at worst.

However, as Grey points out the waters are further muddied given the understanding that this building is considered to be only temporary, for ten years. I don't know though, I'm suspicious. What if it doesn't turn out so temporary? What if the LCBO just re-leases the site. Given what a cash cow an LCBO location can be would they ever likely have any motivation to move or tear down and rebuild?
 
Part of what colours this issue is the government's involvement, even if in an arm's-length way. They're supposed to know better what's good for us right? They're supposed to set an example. Building low rise in the heart of the city where there is a clearly articulated mandate for density is irresponsible at best, a flaunting of their own mandate at worst.
Click to expand...

I think we must keep in mind that they are a tenant on the property and to boycott a particular development because it doesn't meet some prescribed urban standards defeats the purpose of the crown corporation. Same applies to the "buy Canadian" or, south of the border, "buy American" campaigns.

I understand the fear of "temporary" becoming semi-permanent or permanent but at least it's not another parking lot we must endure for the next 10 years and/or beyond. We will have plenty of those around.
 
I wouldn't suggest we boycott it but I think it's worthwhile having the discussion.
 
interchange42 said:
There's Hume's position: that environmental concerns outweigh temporary measures to fill parking lots with one storey boxes.

42
Click to expand...
Ah, but this is car-free store. Isn't it possible that the lack of carbon emissions caused by idling vehicles and ignitions could be greater than the footprint of this building's construction and demolition?

I think his argument is weak, but then again it could have been temporarily zoned for a very out-of-place park.
 
Maybe the message here is that in an "environmental" age, the logic that produced "taxpayer strips" in the past is obsolete...
 
You can't blame the developer for wanting to mitigate his risk in this very uncertain market. Leasing to a AAA quality cash flow tenant on under utilized space and waiting for the next development cycle is the most intelligent thing to do here. Ultimately the land belongs to a private company, not the City. I think some often lose sight of the owner's rights here.
 
Last edited:
It's very difficult to know who to "blame", and it is certainly correct that the land owner is making a sensible business decision to place something here that will generate income while waiting for a more oportune time to build a high-rise. No one can be blamed for that.

Having said that, it's too bad that we can't get something better at this prominent downtown intersection.

It's also too bad, quite apart from this one instance, that we have many other instances of the LCBO putting up one-storey buildings where something better is called for. We could think of several examples around the city. I nearly fell off my chair with surprise when I heard that they were building a two-storey structure on Avenue Road north of Lawrence. They should make more of an onging effort to build things that blend in to the urban environment, especially along major streets. I'm a bit tired of seeing their one-storey buildings and thinking: more could have been done at that location.
 
safeashouses said:
You can't blame the developer for wanting to mitigate his risk in this very uncertain market. Leasing to a AAA quality cash flow tenant on under utilized space and waiting for the next development cycle is the most intelligent thing to do here. Ultimately the land belongs to a private company, not the City. I think some often lose sight of the owner's rights here.
Click to expand...

I think the issue here is that a crown corporation that reports to the same Ministry that is responsible for the Growth Plan and provincially mandated intensification targets is under-utilizing prime sites not only here (although this is the best/worst example I can think of), but across the province where opportunities exist for higher densities, mixed use and other provincial goals and objectives related to land-use planning.
 
It's also too bad, quite apart from this one instance, that we have many other instances of the LCBO putting up one-storey buildings where something better is called for. We could think of several examples around the city.
Click to expand...

Another waste of space is the parking lot fronting the Beer Store on Church, just north of Wellesley. In fact, that whole northwest corner is ripe for redevelopment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top