Automation Gallery
Superstar
Concerned how they will meet up with the street, or the height of the actual structures.
Toronto Massey Tower Condos | 206.95m | 60s | MOD Developments | Hariri Pontarini
Concerned how they will meet up with the street, or the height of the actual structures.
Kitsune
Senior Member
is it possible we see a one king w development... with the two towers acting as "anchors" for a large tower over them ?
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Concerned how they will meet up with the street, or the height of the actual structures.
For me it's mostly all about that insane parking podium that stretches an entire block, as discussed in the 501 Yonge thread.
Hmmm, that's an interesting concept so long as better materials are used.
Memph
Active Member
This is a rather small lot if it's going to have a 80s tower. It looks to be similar in size to the lot for Trump, and that includes 199 and 205.
Has anyone been inside 199 and 205? Are the interiors worth preserving or is it just the facade that's really nice?
Has anyone been inside 199 and 205? Are the interiors worth preserving or is it just the facade that's really nice?
metroTO
Active Member
Who is this Nadine Robbins?! I went on her website can't help to laugh at the really crappy You Tube video on Casa 2 she's created.
I hate it when agents put out deceptive information to the public. There should be regulations to prevent agents from creating fake or misleading websites, videos, blogs, speculative info, etc. on new developments just to get new clients as their "VIP" or "VVVVVVVIP" buyers.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Agreed, many agents are incredibly obnoxious.
TonyV
Senior Member
There is no way that 199 and 205 are being demolished (as the agent states) for this project. That agent is basically full of crap. These puppies are staying in place.
The other take on the project, wherein these two buildings would form part of an atrium-style Yonge lobby for the condo tower, is the likely outcome. The only thing that works architecturally with this concept is a truly emaciated* tower, backed as far as possible from Yonge St.
In the .00001 % chance that a developer is stupid enough to try to demolish these, you'll find me chained to one of the buildings, too, just like dt_toronto_geek.
* when I say "emaciated", I mean it. I stumbled across a totally cool residential skyscraper on a trip to Manhattan last April, and I am vainly trying to find a picture of it. If and when I the pic, I will post it here. It is a fascinating take on urban living ... 23rd St, I believe. Emaciated and very tall.
Edit: got the pic. The building is One Madison Park, designed by Rem Koolhaas. We need something simplistic and skinny like this, on this particular site. But go taller.
One Madison Park Source Wiki.
The other take on the project, wherein these two buildings would form part of an atrium-style Yonge lobby for the condo tower, is the likely outcome. The only thing that works architecturally with this concept is a truly emaciated* tower, backed as far as possible from Yonge St.
In the .00001 % chance that a developer is stupid enough to try to demolish these, you'll find me chained to one of the buildings, too, just like dt_toronto_geek.
* when I say "emaciated", I mean it. I stumbled across a totally cool residential skyscraper on a trip to Manhattan last April, and I am vainly trying to find a picture of it. If and when I the pic, I will post it here. It is a fascinating take on urban living ... 23rd St, I believe. Emaciated and very tall.
Edit: got the pic. The building is One Madison Park, designed by Rem Koolhaas. We need something simplistic and skinny like this, on this particular site. But go taller.
One Madison Park Source Wiki.
Last edited:
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Well 205 Yonge is untouchable and recently restored, but i can see 199 just being a facade for this future development.
I can bet the city will go for that, and in this case keeping 1 out of 2 aint bad.
I can bet the city will go for that, and in this case keeping 1 out of 2 aint bad.
FAC33
Active Member
Apologies for the late response to this bit of snark. But I've seen my share of both personal and business cheques, and the idea that you could easily and automatically find an owner by looking at the address on the cheque is simplistic. Between cheques with no address, cheques with outdated addresses, and eletronic and telephone banking, it's no slam dunk.
Remember that communication is a two-way street. You can send bills to any address you want. Those bills might even get paid. But there's no guarantee that anyone will personally respond to any further communication sent to such an address. The owner might choose to simply ignore any correspondence beyond the property tax bills. Even more likely, the address on the bills might be a business office or a property manager's address and not directly connected to an owner.
doug
Active Member
really? you felt the need to respond with that?
Mongo
Senior Member
The only solution that makes sense to me is if the building due east of 205 and 199 Yonge were also included in the project:
Thanos
Active Member
I can see quite a few "powerful" people putting up a fight to prevent the possibility of any of these 2 buildings being demolished.
FAC33
Active Member
Yes. I just found the idea that you thought it would be easy as pie to track down an absentee property owner through an address on a cheque or even on tax records to be rather...idealistic. Sure, you can find where they might last have been (which often turns out to be a post office box or a management company), but actually getting them to respond is a different matter. This has been a long-term issue with heritage properties that succumb to "demolition by neglect", and so germane to the discussion at hand.
On the more current topic--this is one of the reasons I'm skeptical until better evidence is presented outside an agent's website that this sale and development is at all real--it smells of rank speculation to me, given we've seen no developer, no proposal, no renderings, and no news of the sale anywhere but on her website. If it is indeed real, the proposal will need to go through all of the channels for rezoning and review of the heritage status of the two buildings. As others have mentioned, they will likely have a challenge on their hands, particularly for 205 (extensively restored in the 90s), unless the buildings are incorporated into any new build.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
The northern 1/3rd of what you highlighted is the 1980's addition of rehearsal halls, change rooms & backstage areas for the Elgin/Wintergarden Theatres, the remainder is the original Elgin/Wintergarden. It's a hodgepodge of various levels of roof, fire escapes from the Wintergarden and emergency exits from the Elgin auditorium & lobby which makes that space in there difficult to work with. The other issue here is parking. If a sliver tower was put up here it would be an engineering feat to design and build parking for a building here and access could be tricky. The only way in is down Victoria St. and then through a parking lot between the rear of both the Elgin & Massey Hall theatres, I don't know who owns that property but I do know that there are about a half dozen parking spots for Elgin Managment. There are a lot of challenges with building a highrise here, not the least of which is space.
doug
Active Member
Actually, I didn't think it would be 'easy as pie"...you said that. I was wondering how the city collected property tax, without knowing where the owner was.
If the city sends a registered letter to the owners address that they have on file, then the owner should respond. If they don't respond to a tax bill, then they are in arrears and the property should have a lien placed on it.
to which there is a simple solution.