Toronto Park Hyatt Renovation | 62.48m | 18s | Oxford Properties | KPMB

Yeah, why not. You just reiterated the here/hear mixup--unless that's some Trump-supporter-esque "doubling down" tactic. (Though I'd be more willing to let the missing "to" in "the desire not replicate it" pass. But here vs hear is so blatantly *idiotic* a typo on any other than English-second-language grounds, it's hard to let it pass.)

Speaking of that kind of ESL-based cultural clash, it's worth noting how it's come to characterize a lot of Vancouver heritage discussion ever since the Asian-emigre-boom-led "monster home" onslaught of the 80s and 90s. Sort of like, the "hopelessness" you see in me as being the equivalent to the reflexive racism and obstinate cultural insensitivity Vancouver's affluent-class Asian-Canadians see in preservationists (and that "our" preservationist-sensibility fetishizing of fetid ancient hutongs is just so much Western yuppie-elite imported arrogance force-fed into a culture not its own). Though around UT, ksun's the likeliest to wield that hardcore pro-Asian/anti-West baton.

Nevertheless, this is Toronto. And the irony is, the "brief history lesson" you're offering does *not* devalue the original Park Plaza/Hyatt, heritage-wise--unless it's among the pro-development astroturf contingent within UT who'd *love* to have some Mirvish/Gehry-level scheme to emerge and enable their desired will to "let the Park Plaza go". Well, if that's the crowd you choose to hang in, it's a little like men's rights activists throwing darts at the "arrogant, unwavering position" of their "hopeless" feminist critics.

Reiterate is a stretch. I quoted myself. I'm sorry I didn't bother with a [sic]. I'll know better next time. You don't care at all about the message. You just want to rant and rave over whatever suits you. You're a pathetic excuse of a preservationist and, clearly, has never perused UT on a mobile device or heard of a dictate app.
 
While the dust has settled, I'm just going to make it clear that the thread will be moving on and that anyone else going ad hominem here will have their post deleted.

42
 
Last edited by a moderator:
upload_2016-8-10_14-25-33.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-8-10_14-25-33.png
    upload_2016-8-10_14-25-33.png
    503.9 KB · Views: 1,527
It will be interesting to see if that plan is still pretty much the one they are pursuing, or how much it may have changed.

42
 
Speaking of interesting to see the plans…

see the plans!

We have a front page story up here, and of course a dataBase file has been established and is linked at the top of the page.

42
 
The building was usually pretty well leased. Lot of tenants getting the boot.
 
They wouldn't get ride of that fountain space would they... Bad move.. Though a nice refreshing change. Still would hate to see another fountain gone.
 
They wouldn't get ride of that fountain space would they... Bad move.. Though a nice refreshing change. Still would hate to see another fountain gone.

I am also a fountain fan, but this one's pretty well hidden behind the tall fence in the forecourt; I'm nonplussed about losing it here.

With the exception of the occasional autograph seekers waiting for Yankees outfielders, the grade area around every current structure on this site is pretty dead, so I'm hoping these renos add a little bit of vibrancy.
 
Wow that's disappointing. The podium posted by ADRM was so much better. Now we're left with a 'generous vehicle forecourt' instead. Great for Ferraris but not so great for actual human beings.
 
I'll weigh-in for the other side: I think the two-year-old plan was overdone at the base, removing too much of the original building in place of overly opulent arch-bling.

TEAM_3PodSK1280.jpg

TEAM_3HeroNWK1280.jpg


The KPMB plan strikes me as significantly more respectful.

PkHyattCrnrNWK1280.jpg

PkHyattPorteCoch1280.jpg


I think we're stuck with vehicle access.

42
 

Attachments

  • TEAM_3HeroNWK1280.jpg
    TEAM_3HeroNWK1280.jpg
    389.3 KB · Views: 1,305
  • TEAM_3PodSK1280.jpg
    TEAM_3PodSK1280.jpg
    301.1 KB · Views: 1,238
  • PkHyattCrnrNWK1280.jpg
    PkHyattCrnrNWK1280.jpg
    287.4 KB · Views: 1,210
  • PkHyattPorteCoch1280.jpg
    PkHyattPorteCoch1280.jpg
    174.9 KB · Views: 1,253
I'll weigh-in for the other side: I think the two-year-old plan was overdone at the base, removing too much of the original building in place of overly opulent arch-bling.

The KPMB plan strikes me as significantly more respectful.

I think we're stuck with vehicle access.

42

I'm with you on the treatment of the heritage building and the arches are bit gaudy for my tastes too. But the original design commends itself for what it adds back to the pedestrian realm which Ive always thought was underwhelming in this stretch of Avenue. The new design adds nothing new in that regard. Are there entrance and access issues that really can't be resolved without devoting that much space to the vehicle forecourt? If not and Oxford simply opted for either a less ambitious or more car-centric design I think that would be a shame.
 
Will the Hyatt be acquiring another property for its hotel? Possibility take over trump?
 
Who knows what will happen at the Trump, but the Park Hyatt is staying put as far as anyone knows.

42
 

Back
Top