Toronto The Britt Condos | 142.03m | 41s | Lanterra | Arcadis

greenleaf said:
Yes. It should have been declared a heritage building. They could have replaced the windows, done a Mad Men-esque marketing campaign and it would have sold like hot cakes.
Click to expand...
We all know that this is a mixed bag. Declaring something old a heritage building puts an enormous burden on an owner and limits their freedom to profit from what is legitimately their property. Also - for the record - not every old thing is worth saving. My own pet peeve is the Union Station trainshed. That should have been torn down in favour of an entirely modern structure.

In the case of the Sutton Place Hotel, it was a reasonably good piece of late 1960's architecture, unique because Toronto was such a 'town' at the time it was built, but the city has moved on, and it was such a large property that such a designation would never have worked. Who would have paid for that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHK
TransitBart said:
We all know that this is a mixed bag. Declaring something old a heritage building puts an enormous burden on an owner and limits their freedom to profit from what is legitimately their property. Also - for the record - not every old thing is worth saving. My own pet peeve is the Union Station trainshed. That should have been torn down in favour of an entirely modern structure.

In the case of the Sutton Place Hotel, it was a reasonably good piece of late 1960's architecture, unique because Toronto was such a 'town' at the time it was built, but the city has moved on, and it was such a large property that such a designation would never have worked. Who would have paid for that?
Click to expand...

I shed no tears for the wealthy. "Burden" "limits their freedom" LOL, please. They would have made money on a renovation of this building.

This building was an amazing modernist building and its exterior was very much worth saving. That awning as well as the awesome neon signage on top was iconic. http://www.blogto.com/city/2014/03/what_the_sutton_place_hotel_was_like_on_opening_day/
 
I was never a fan of the original building. I understand the sentiment, and the need to preserve buildings from all eras whether I appreciate them or not, but I just can't look at those old photos and see anything I like.
I think the street wall along Wellesley looks great. I am not that hopeful about the tower to be honest. The street wall is an improvement to the public realm in my opinion though.
 
buildup said:
Not sure about this building, but often they are owned by pension funds that are trying to deliver superior returns for distinctly non-wealthy people.
Click to expand...
This is a fairer and more likely true situation than the other comment. I decided to let it pass since many have strongly held opinions, but this is spot on the mark. In fact, the CPP fund has big real estate holdings and it's for us all. So it is a quandary when a government does something to impair the value of anyone's asset.
 
TransitBart said:
.....My own pet peeve is the Union Station trainshed. That should have been torn down in favour of an entirely modern structure.
Click to expand...

The Union Station train shed is my pet peeve as well - of all the structures meriting retention over the past years, this should have, in my personal opinion, ranked absolutely last in priority. My understanding from other presentations, is that the train shed poses real problems for electrification of the train lines through the station, insufficient clearance for the pantograph pick ups and overhead (catenary) wires. So, after all the inconvenience and extra expense to renovate and integrate the existing train shed components with the new parts of the structure, they may be going anyway.
 
TransitBart said:
This is a fairer and more likely true situation than the other comment. I decided to let it pass since many have strongly held opinions, but this is spot on the mark. In fact, the CPP fund has big real estate holdings and it's for us all. So it is a quandary when a government does something to impair the value of anyone's asset.
Click to expand...

You're no fun.
 
Today.
IMG_4126.JPG
IMG_4129.JPG
IMG_4130.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4126.JPG
    IMG_4126.JPG
    1.1 MB · Views: 477
  • IMG_4129.JPG
    IMG_4129.JPG
    996.8 KB · Views: 485
  • IMG_4130.JPG
    IMG_4130.JPG
    1.1 MB · Views: 454
Height corrected as per architectural drawings filed for the Site Plan Application. 142 m is the correct roof height.

42

@DonValleyRainbow
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top