Toronto One Front | 170.86m | 49s | Larco | a—A

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think it's also easy to ignore the working realities that come in trying to use older stately heritage buildings like this in a modern context. By all accounts the inside of this building is nothing to write home about (at best) and the proposal will at least serve to open up and integrate the building into the city.

As it stands it is undoubtedly beautiful, but it's almost monolithic in its inaccessibility. The major heritage elements of this building are relatively untouched in the proposal while also adding more mixed uses to the core on a very challenging site. Overall, I'm pretty happy with what they're trying to pull off and am excited to grab a drink in the hotel bar here at some point in the future.

There is the question of scale of the addition to consider as well - one thing to add a few discreet floors; another to basically cram as much density as possible - for economic reasons - within the context of a system unwilling/able to control the scale of the development. The "negatives" you have mentioned isn't solved by density - it is solved by good retrofitting. The issue here is a property that is being sold by the Feds at a price that dictated this level of development in order to generate a reasonable ROI for the current owner.

AoD

 

[ProjectEnd]

Stating clearly that my preference would no building here at all, only a restoration of the existing.........

I don't think it's an absolute 'right' that one should differentiate.

I think it's generally preferable, in that most (nearly all) new builds would end up reading as a poor knock-off of the original and in the process diminish it, rather than respect it.

However, it is possible to build an addition (if so desired) in a virtually identical manner. It's just that it's prohibitively expensive to so do. Therefore it's an improbable option.

If the choice is between mediocre historical pastiche and a modern, elegant, contrasting style, in a deferential and complimentary way, by all means, let's go with 'different'.

If the choice included building not merely sympathetically but near identically, including use of original materials and techniques (not pre-fab imitations), then I'd be open to that.

But I don't see a compelling case for any addition here; other than profit.

I don't think that is sufficient cause for new development here; nor should that motivation have ever come to pass , as this was (and should have remained) a public asset.

That's exactly it. If the feds wanted to preserve the building, they could have kept it. They didn't, so what they vended wasn't so much a building, but a development site encumbered by an existing building.

There is the question of scale of the addition to consider as well - one thing to add a few discreet floors; another to basically cram as much density as possible - for economic reasons - within the context of a system unwilling/able to control the scale of the development.

AoD

CRE (generally) cares not for scale. The aim is *precisely* to "...cram as much density as possible...". We could easily make different choices and elevate the value of other sites above buildings like this one. But we don't and are stuck lamenting things like this while making large swathes of the city undevelopable.

 

[Rascacielo]

One can only dream ...

Fullerton building (General Post Office), Singapore - original building (1928)

Source: National Archives, Singapore

Fullerton Hotel (2000)

Source: Basile Morin, Wikipedia

 

[Koops65]

 

[Bjays92]

While it may be designed in such a way that we cram as much as we can onto a site that's not always the best thing per se.

To Alvin's point on scale, I'd much prefer to see something that is nice and in the 20 to 30 story range than 2 50 story, 170m towers. Again that is just my preference though. Seeing actually renders as opposed to just the massing for this site would also be helpful when coming to conclusions

 

[cd concept]

According to Koop's design it looks like they changed the look of the facade a little. If so I like the original design it looks more regal than this one . To blend in with the Dominion building as seen in the photo box up above .

 

[Redflorist]

While it may be designed in such a way that we cram as much as we can onto a site that's not always the best thing per se.

To Alvin's point on scale, I'd much prefer to see something that is nice and in the 20 to 30 story range than 2 50 story, 170m towers. Again that is just my preference though. Seeing actually renders as opposed to just the massing for this site would also be helpful when coming to conclusions

The area it's in is the perfect place for densification, though. If we were a mid-sized American city with cheap housing I'd agree with you, but given just how expensive housing has gotten I think it's necessary for the project to go forward in its current form. Not to mention having two tall buildings creates more construction jobs, something that'd help the city.

 

[C-mac]

. Not to mention having two tall buildings creates more construction jobs, something that'd help the city.

Give me a break. Not like you're creating new jobs. Don't you worry, anyone is this industry is not going hungry and not going without work.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The area it's in is the perfect place for densification, though. If we were a mid-sized American city with cheap housing I'd agree with you, but given just how expensive housing has gotten I think it's necessary for the project to go forward in its current form. Not to mention having two tall buildings creates more construction jobs, something that'd help the city.

Somehow I don't think any housing here will be "cheap". That's not an argument against intensification of course, but there if there is an argument to be made for restrictive heritage preservation and a respect for the original built form, I think this would qualify (along with the Union Station headhouse),

AoD

 

[ProjectEnd]

While it may be designed in such a way that we cram as much as we can onto a site that's not always the best thing per se.

To Alvin's point on scale, I'd much prefer to see something that is nice and in the 20 to 30 story range than 2 50 story, 170m towers. Again that is just my preference though. Seeing actually renders as opposed to just the massing for this site would also be helpful when coming to conclusions

Do you think that would change if it were your $275.1m on the line?

Give me a break. Not like you're creating new jobs. Don't you worry, anyone is this industry is not going hungry and not going without work.

??

 

[Northern Light]

Do you think that would change if it were your $275.1m on the line?

??

The argument is not that a developer should lose money on their investment.

The argument is that that investment should either never have been allowed or subject to strict conditions in relation to preserving and honouring the architecture in-situ.

*****

But I would go one further and note, that when I grew up virtually no one expected an ROI greater than 15% on anything; and typically less in real estate and utilities (7-10%).

The idea that one must always shoot for the moon so to speak is not reasonable either.

Self-restraint is a virtue.

In the same way that paying more to your staff often leads to better results in the long term, it pays not to be over-focused on ROI on anyone project.

Reputation or 'Good Will' as it is typically accounted for on a balance sheet, is worth something.

It creates opportunity that would otherwise not exist, in the future.

 

[Bjays92]

Do you think that would change if it were your $275.1m on the line?

??

If the only way I could make money off of this site was by building an ugly hunk on top of one of the nicest heritage buildings in the city I simply wouldnt buy it.

And frankly that's not even the point to what I'm saying. I am merely expressing my personal preference as to what happens with this site given the significance of this building. Ultimately I cant change what happens here and it's not my place to comment based solely on the cost of which my opinions would amount.

Everytime someone complains about a developer using cheap material would you jump over to the thread and say, well wouldn't you too if you were the developer. That's simply not the point of the discourse here. I think everyone here just wants the best for this city, what that looks like we may disagree on, but that is the basis of all these comments.

As for not having enough space, and this being a prime lot. This may be a prime lot but no space, gimme a break. Maybe if it was Hong Kong I'd buy that arguement, but I was just in downtown and there is just finally buildings on the waterfront, there are still a ton of 2 story buildings on yonge, and there are literally single detached homes nearby. There is so much room to intensify around the downtown areas without having to touch a gorgeous heritage lot.

 

[C-mac]

Do you think that would change if it were your $275.1m on the line?

??

Why the "??"

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If the only way I could make money off of this site was by building an ugly hunk on top of one of the nicest heritage buildings in the city I simply wouldnt buy it.

At the price the current owner acquired it? Probably - unless you want them to eat their shirt. I can say caveat emptor to that but the city couldn't place restrictions on the development of what was then a federal property I believe.

AoD

 

[.dwg]

Why the "??"

It's part of his usual clucking and posturing. You can read the "??" as a scoff, an impatient click, or him shaking his head. Or at least that's the tone that comes across...