Toronto West Block Est. 1928, The LakeShore, and The LakeFront | 130.75m | 41s | Choice Properties | a—A

[PMT]

From yesterday:

Sorry for the blur on this one:

 

[Case]

Progress as of Sep 7, 2016

 

[Case]

the surrounding neighborhood (Star bucks and Tim Hortons across the street) )

 

[junctionist]

Is there a difference between a regular Tim's and a "Coffee House"?

 

[Bogtrotter]

Just the decor as far as I can tell- an attempt to re-brand and compete with Bucky's I think. The coffee is certainly as bland as ever and the donats are getting smaller.

 

[modernizt]

Since you guys love renderings, here are the latest (with the finalized signage as per recent submittals to the city) and an elevation depicting the office component being added above the heritage component.

 

[torplanner]

Any sign of the 2 heritage designated billboards that were to be replaced on the property?

 

[Automation Gallery]

Any sign of the 2 heritage designated billboards that were to be replaced on the property?

Haha designated, i hope they trash the idea of putting up those eyesores

 

[torplanner]

I think its ridiculous that they were designated... however, they WERE designated so I'm curious how the developer and the city are dealing with it. Will it just be a Ryerson "yeah, we just ignored that requirement" solution, or have they been relieved of their obligations formally?

 

[Skeezix]

What do you mean that the billboards were designated? Really? Under the Ontario Heritage Act? I don't see anything in the City's heritage inventory, and the 2001 by-law designating the property doesn't mention the billboards. What am I missing?

 

[torplanner]

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/08/loblaws-thinking-big-lake-shore-and-bathurst
"The existing billboards on the building, which also have heritage protection (not shown above, but visible in the image below) would be replaced in their current locations."

The existing billboards were to be replaced, as shown on this elevation: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/existing_signage-png.64181/

 

[Skeezix]

Yeah, I'm confused as to what that reference in the article means. What heritage protection? The by-law makes no mention of the billboard in the reasons for designation - if the billboards were important, they would have been mentioned, otherwise they are arguably not protected under s. 33 of the Act. According to the staff reports last year, there doesn't appear to have been any heritage easement agreement on title here when that UT article was written. And, unless I missed it, the heritage report to Council last year makes no mention of billboards.

Does anyone know what this is about? It doesn't make a lot of sense, especially for billboards that appear to be (at least from Google Streetview) to be of relatively recent vintage.

 

[torplanner]

I only found one reference to them in a staff report, but only in questions raised (not answered in the subsequent section).

 

[PinkLucy]

I remember hearing about the heritage designation when I went to a presentation many years ago (back when Adam Vaughan was the city councillor) but I can't find a specific link/source about it other than the one already posted

 

[Skeezix]

I only found one reference to them in a staff report, but only in questions raised (not answered in the subsequent section).

Yeah, I saw that in the planning report. A member of the public asked if they were being kept or removed. But nothing in the heritage report.