Toronto One Front | 170.86m | 49s | Larco | a—A
- Thread starter rdaner
- Start date
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Looks like one of the towers is now office use with 36,164 m2 replacing a significant number of residential units.
Northern Light
Superstar
From the report:
The revised proposal submitted on April 24, 2020 maintains the two tall buildings of 45 and 49 storeys on top of the Public Dominion Building, with revised masses and siting in order to accommodate sufficient tower separation distances and conservation of the heritage conservation features of the building. Revisions to the overall mixture of land uses are contemplated in this version which proposes: 36,164.3 square metres of office space within the Dominion Public Building and within the proposed shoulder mass on top of the heritage building; 16,283.6 square metres for a hotel containing 253 suites in the West Tower; 5,082 square metres of retail space within the first two storeys of the Dominion Public Building; and 31,855.2 square metres of residential uses containing 408 dwelling units within the East and West Towers.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
That bend would put PJ Condos to shame.
ushahid
Senior Member
^should name it Boomerang tower or Boomerang Residences.
Scooge
New Member
I just found out that this building was being sold and redeveloped. I wanted to check out what the plan was, as I worked there a couple decades ago during what I suspect was its last major renovation. I find it sad to see and I have to agree with some of the people on the forum with their plan of sticking a couple of uninspiring towers on a historic building that was built with purpose and character. Look at what this same company is doing to the historic Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, again in the heart of the city. Does the company has any imagination or care to put up something that people will want to save a generation or 2 from now ?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Chateau Laurier is an utter boondoggle. That Larco + aA have complied and done six redesigns is far beyond what they need to do. Unfortunately, Ottawa (the public) wants Disney and little will mollify them. Fortunately, I think Ottawa (the City) has finally accepted the current plan.
I'm fine with the towers here. aA are an excellent firm, one of the best in the city, and we'll get something perfectly acceptable here. I don't read things as 'uninspiring', I read them as 'background' which is the right approach.
I'm fine with the towers here. aA are an excellent firm, one of the best in the city, and we'll get something perfectly acceptable here. I don't read things as 'uninspiring', I read them as 'background' which is the right approach.
Northern Light
Superstar
You're actually on the wrong side on this one.(and Laurier) It doesn't happen often.......
So on the upside you probably won't be wrong again until mid 2021.
Yegger
Active Member
Very happy with the revisions, notably the focus on 1+ bedroom units, larger tower separations, smaller floorplates and better mix of uses. The retention of the heritage facades on all sides is also great.
mburrrrr
Senior Member
Some work this week inside the property line of 1 Front in preparation of CIBC phase 2.
Removing the canopy and shoring for 1 Front which I assume will be removed some day during the parking lot excavation under 1 Front.
Removing the canopy and shoring for 1 Front which I assume will be removed some day during the parking lot excavation under 1 Front.
Bjays92
Senior Member
No construction updates. Just nabbed a couple pics of this gorgeous building when I was in town the other day
Amare
Senior Member
Just imagine what kind of masterpiece we'd be seeing come out of this if Allied was the developer on this site. Instead we get the disaster that is Larco of course..
C-mac
Senior Member
This is one of the rare times I do not want to see a new building go up in the city. This building shouldn't be touched IMO. It's a landmark and a staple in heart of the city. I hope the proposal doesn't go through.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Why do you think that? It would still have to make money and as office, this wouldn't.
Amare
Senior Member
^Because they have a history of time and again executing extremely well with historical buildings that go beyond typical facendectomy.
If it really came down to it (and I know they usually dont do it), they could've JV'd with a residential developer. Larco's proposal is as stale as one can get (well minus whatever we wouldve got from the likes of firms like Concord, or Canderel to name a few).
If it really came down to it (and I know they usually dont do it), they could've JV'd with a residential developer. Larco's proposal is as stale as one can get (well minus whatever we wouldve got from the likes of firms like Concord, or Canderel to name a few).