Toronto The One | 308.6m | 85s | Tridel | Foster + Partners

AoD, I love the placed of worship designation; I've thought of that, too. Apple stores I have visited in various cities have all assumed church-like layouts, make no mistake about it - it's dynamite retailing.

The implication is that Apple does not make amazingly cool and useful products that enhance your life?

Apple would be smart to own this corner, (and I mean own- retail and marketing) throw up a store for a million bucks or so and then wait for the most opportune time to do an 80s signature tower with a prominent developer as a partner. Smart move for a company with maybe $100,000,000,000 in the bank no?
 
Would the store manager necessarily have been told yet?

I guess it would depend on how quickly things were moving. It sounds like Stollery's are still buying store stock on the assumption they're not going anywhere, though.

If we wanted to put our tinfoil hats on, we could assume that the manager knows they are moving, but is lying b/c she signed an NDA and is terrified of Apple's hell-spawned legions of cyborg lawyers.
 
Would the store manager necessarily have been told yet?
If you were the owner, would you want your store manager looking for a new job?

I would presume any closing and construction wouldn't happen for a while yet -- plenty of time for the current store to buy and sell new stock. (After all, wouldn't a project like this need major city approvals?)
 
Bet it won't happen for a few more months at least...in the perfect world, they'd shut around May-June and reopen in time for the next iPhone launch - September-October-ish. Don't think that's going to happen.
 
They might shoot for a holidays 2012 opening, although I very much doubt anything could happen that fast. They would have to get approval from the city (and I imagine there may be a heritage kerfluffle over the present building), and then do the actual construction. My guess is it will be at least a year, if not longer.
 
Interesting, if though is does not mention this location

More Apple retail stores planned for historic buildings in 2012; Stores approved in Germany, Canada, and Spain

Apple is not slowing down when it comes to opening more iconic brick-and-mortar retail locations. Three new retail locations all received recent approval: one located in a century theatre in Germany, and a second in London, Ontario, Canada, and the third in a historic 1860-era building in Madrid, Spain. The approvals continue Apple’s aggressive retail push after the opening of their new Grand Central store, and after meeting its goal of 30 new locations opened worldwide in the fourth-quarter of 2011.
More...Dec/30/2011 http://9to5mac.com/2011/12/30/more-...-stores-approved-in-germany-canada-and-spain/
 
If you were the owner, would you want your store manager looking for a new job?

I would presume any closing and construction wouldn't happen for a while yet -- plenty of time for the current store to buy and sell new stock. (After all, wouldn't a project like this need major city approvals?)

Good point but I think there is a bigger issue here. Apple is notorious for their secrecy. No one outside of those those directly involved (owners, their lawyers etc) would know and they probably signed secrecy agreements. Apple want to reveal things like this on their own terms. There is no way anyone from Stollery's would talk before Apple does. And there's no way the hired hands would know anything. Good job GRID TO!
 
Apple is notorious for their secrecy. No one outside of those those directly involved (owners, their lawyers etc) would know and they probably signed secrecy agreements.

Very true -- Apple's own retail employees don't know about major product releases until just before they come out, and it is rumoured that Apple has scotched some deals because the other party couldn't maintain secrecy.
 
Ya, you're right. I'm sure of you owned a property worth $50 million you'd be plenty happy to limit your income to one lousy tenant paying you $500,000 a year in rent..

Many people just don't have the basic financial sense here, always arguing for maintaining some two or three story buildings in Toronto's best locations. Downtown prime locations, especially within 5 minutes walk to subway stations, should be predominantly highrise, for the sheer fact that it provides both density and convenience.

These people should ask themselves, if you own a land like this, do you just want a three story old house selling men's clothes while the land of the same size just across the street is making 100 times of the revenue? Is it about money? Yes. of course it is about money. People don't care as long as it is not their own money, and just keep talking things like "why not keep it so that we can still have this cute little house on the city's most important intersection?" I mean, have they ever gone inside that store at all? I highly doubt that.

Besides, doesn't Toronto have like thousands of two/three story buildings practically everywhere, both in and outside downtown? If a city is not allowed to grow vertically, then it either stops growing or grows horizontally.

Major intersections along Yonge st will all get a lot taller, just like Bay and University, whether we like it or not. One can't honestly expect all subways nodes on Yonge are occupied by 10 meters houses, no matter how charming they are or how much history they have. That's how a city gets denser. Stop lingering on the comfy small town-like Toronto, it is gone.

However, I don't like the idea of another condo. Why not a 70 story office tower with 6 stories of retail space on the bottom? I am surprised that Toronto doesn't have a lot of large retail/office tower combo. It is very popular elsewhere. So far only Eaton Centre is like that as far as I know. I don't mean a few starbucks/pizzaria, or what is underground, but something big. Aura will likely be another one I guess.

The complete separation of the "financial district" and the shopping and entertainment district is stupid. All districts should be mixed use, that's how a city becomes vibrant. Try to go to the financial district on a Saturday morning, it is like a ghost town. Only cars pass by.
 
Last edited:
gristle:

Still stand by what I've said re: the site - though I am fairly certain the Apple store will be a destination (sic place of worship). Leave it there long enough and it'd be a heritage structure even - there goes the plans for ever having a tower on that site.

Depends how long "long enough" is--after all, there've been other instances of high-style "temporary" structures holding fort until something bigger comes along to replace it. And indeed, the high style can be a cue for "replacement in kind".

We'd be talking about an Apple Store, not a Mies TD bank pavilion here.
 
Ya, you're right. I'm sure of you owned a property worth $50 million you'd be plenty happy to limit your income to one lousy tenant paying you $500,000 a year in rent..

Where did you get that $50M price tag for that sliver of land?
 
Many people just don't have the basic financial sense here, always arguing for maintaining some two or three story buildings in Toronto's best locations. Downtown prime locations, especially within 5 minutes walk to subway stations, should be predominantly highrise, for the sheer fact that it provides both density and convenience.

These people should ask themselves, if you own a land like this, do you just want a three story old house selling men's clothes while the land of the same size just across the street is making 100 times of the revenue? Is it about money? Yes. of course it is about money. People don't care as long as it is not their own money, and just keep talking things like "why not keep it so that we can still have this cute little house on the city's most important intersection?" I mean, have they ever gone inside that store at all? I highly doubt that.

Besides, doesn't Toronto have like thousands of two/three story buildings practically everywhere, both in and outside downtown? If a city is not allowed to grow vertically, then it either stops growing or grows horizontally.

Major intersections along Yonge st will all get a lot taller, just like Bay and University, whether we like it or not. One can't honestly expect all subways nodes on Yonge are occupied by 10 meters houses, no matter how charming they are or how much history they have. That's how a city gets denser. Stop lingering on the comfy small town-like Toronto, it is gone.

However, I don't like the idea of another condo. Why not a 70 story office tower with 6 stories of retail space on the bottom? I am surprised that Toronto doesn't have a lot of large retail/office tower combo. It is very popular elsewhere. So far only Eaton Centre is like that as far as I know. I don't mean a few starbucks/pizzaria, or what is underground, but something big. Aura will likely be another one I guess.

The complete separation of the "financial district" and the shopping and entertainment district is stupid. All districts should be mixed use, that's how a city becomes vibrant. Try to go to the financial district on a Saturday morning, it is like a ghost town. Only cars pass by.

With the Yonge Street line running close to capacity I don't see the logic with Yonge Street losing it's heritage and going highrise.
The North Downtown Yonge Street Planning Framework can't come quickly enough.
 
With the Yonge Street line running close to capacity I don't see the logic with Yonge Street losing it's heritage and going highrise.
.

So where do we go from here,:confused: many of these buildings will not be able to withstand another 20-30 years of abuse and neglect....either the municipal government sets up a program fund to help the landlords with fixing and updating these so called historical structures, or the developers will move in like hawks and offer the property owners wads of cash for these deteriorating properties that they dont really have much interest in.
 

Back
Top