Posted by VoiceofReality on UT.

501 Yonge Street (N of The Courtyard) just sold to Lanterra. 0.87 acres


Posted by androiduk on UT.

http://andrewfare.com/UTB/mytoronto13/Capture501.JPG

I suppose it will be that whole block. They are horrible little 70's stripmall type shops and I won't miss any of them except for Cucina Lucero, just to the left of the Cash Store.

Good riddance!

My only memories of this strip is dining at Kokyo sushi and walking by that ghetto clothing store with lower body mannequins modelling tight jeans and fake TnA pants. LOL

Otherwise, great to see downtown's most out of place block redevloped. I could see something similar to Murano built here, but with a stronger retail component.

It really was an eyesore strip from the very beginning.

Even though this strip is pretty ugly, I'd still much rather see another parking lot bite the dust.

There aren't many parking lots in this area. Glad to see this trashy 70's mistake corrected.

There's one just north on Maitland. I don't know if there are any proposals for that lot, but it would make a decent mid-rise.

But I assume this strip mall will go along with the lot out back, so that's good.

I've been here for 20 years and I've never liked this strip mall, it's been nice knowing ya:cheers:

Like Travis, I'm also hoping for a significant retail/restaurant component on Yonge as part of this project.

Not to freak people out but we're 2 days away from April 1st. These new proposals coming from UT with no links raises some alarm bells for me.

I hate April Fool's Day! :yes:

That huge lot on Wellesley west of Yonge seems to have inexplicably managed to miss the entire boom. WTF are they waiting for? "Opera Place" (sans an Opera House) is ancient and rather ugly history.

This is on top of the subway, right? If so, does that mean that they can't go very tall unless they spend a huge amount of money?

This is on top of the subway, right? If so, does that mean that they can't go very tall unless they spend a huge amount of money?


Yeah, it should be this block that the subway crosses over to being under Yonge. But thats fine, something 550 Wellington-style would work best here anyway, in my opinion.

OH THERE IS A GOD!!!

Can I help tear it down?

How long have those silver pants at the hooker shoe store been in the window?

:lol: not often you've made me laugh out loud, urban, but today you nearly made me spew some soft boiled egg!

By Urbanation:

Lanterra purchases 501 Yonge St for $38.5M, planning two tower development

Yep, as I had predicted for this site (two tower development similar to Murano). Along with their other proposal on Granville, Lanterra sure is taking over this (north of College) section of downtown. (M/B)urano are decent developments, but I'm hoping for a more unique and bolder architectural statement this time, considering its prominent Yonge Street location. A stronger retail component can help boost this strip of Yonge's inconsistent retail quality.

I've always hated this crappy strip. Reminds me of dingy 70's stuff in Vancouver.
Anything would be an improvement, well, except for a parking lot lol.

I agree, I am so glad to see this strip go. I hope we get some nice retail spaces with high ceilings and some bold architecture. Yonge Street is going to be unrecognisable soon. A bit of entertainment, culture, nightlife and fun, would be a nice addition to the street as well.

there are some stores along that strip.. that I seriously don't understand where they get their income from... I walk into them - some clothing stores.and they are always empty..and barely have an merchandise in it..

that whole area all the way up to Bloor is in serious need of a makeover..
considering this is a " touristy" location with Yorkville and all.. this all seems like it stalled back in the 1970's.. there is a huge amount of potential.. wonder how this area will look like in 20's years time.. it was long overdue.. better late than never I guess.

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

there are some stores along that strip.. that I seriously don't understand where they get their income from... I walk into them - some clothing stores.and they are always empty..and barely have an merchandise in it..

that whole area all the way up to Bloor is in serious need of a makeover..
considering this is a " touristy" location with Yorkville and all.. this all seems like it stalled back in the 1970's.. there is a huge amount of potential.. wonder how this area will look like in 20's years time.. it was long overdue.. better late than never I guess.


Except that back in the 70's Yonge Street had bars, night clubs, cinemas, amusement arcades, record stores and lots of people walking around at 2am. (as well as guys cruising up and down the strip in cars) All that seems to have gone the way of the Dodo bird. Yonge Street used to be quite fun back in the day. I'd like to see Yonge get back some of the nightlife and entertainment/amusements. (as well as the night time crowds)

Imagine seeing a block like this on Michigan Avenue or Oxford Street. This jaw dropper can't come down quick enough. Maybe 'urban 2.0' can begin the tear down now. People probably wouldn't notice.

Was walking along Yonge with a buddy and came to a realization that the next big redevelopment that should/could happen is at the "World's Biggest Bookstore" (Edward Street). It`s the last remnant of the cheezy, cliche 80`s and 90`s Yonge era with stuff like the "World`s Biggest Jeans Store", etc. In all my years, I`ve actually never been in here. It must be a newer generation thing, but I`ve always opted to check out Indigo whenever I`m at the Eaton Centre. With Yonge Street and the Square area evolving, I can see this changing too.

World's Biggest Bookstore has probably the largest stock of books compared with other bookstores in Toronto, but the atmosphere is reminiscent of a ByWay.

WB Bookstore is owned by the same people as Indigo, so sadly most of the smaller independent stores are struggling.


Funny how the same book in Canada has a much higher cover price than the ones in the USA, even though it has been SOME TIME now since the Canadian dollar was low. I suppose it suits the purposes of some not to pressure the American publishers.

Prices for books will never match the prices paid in the US. We only really notice the difference between American and Canadian prices because books have that information printed on them. However, a shirt from Banana Republic in Canada will be most expensive than it is in the US, even with the high Canadian dollar.

It strikes me that the pricing is somewhat artificial. I would guess that one purchases the books in America in American dollars and then sells them in Canada with the new and improved price on the cover. I can remember in the 70's when the price on the cover of magazines was the same in the US and Canada, and I see no reason it should not be today.

Important to also realize is that the price on the books are not set by retailers like Chapters/Indigo, but are recommended prices set by the publishers (which is why the prices are almost always printed on when published, and not stickered on by the retailers).

Tell me how it works. I'm guessing that (mentioning no names) when one retailer sells most of the books in Country X, they quite naturally could/should have a great deal of influence over what the publisher in the USA is printing on the cover of the books. I imagine that the Country X retailer goes to the US and buys books by contract the same way an American retailer would, and pays for them in US dollars, then has them shipped home to Country X (with no tariff if there is free trade) to sell. No?

Don't forget, the Canadian dollar rose toward the American dollar quite a long time ago now. Far longer than should be necessary for the prices to get close.

This should be called the Levis building, would be a really good fit for the 501 address.

Tell me how it works. I'm guessing that (mentioning no names) when one retailer sells most of the books in Country X, they quite naturally could/should have a great deal of influence over what the publisher in the USA is printing on the cover of the books. I imagine that the Country X retailer goes to the US and buys books by contract the same way an American retailer would, and pays for them in US dollars, then has them shipped home to Country X (with no tariff if there is free trade) to sell. No?

Don't forget, the Canadian dollar rose toward the American dollar quite a long time ago now. Far longer than should be necessary for the prices to get close.

Yeah, this also annoys me.

Not that I necessarily shop there but this also occurs at Abercrombie and Fitch. Their price tags have the American and Canadian dollar prices on it. The American prices are usually around $10 cheaper than Canadian. I asked one of the typical Ken (doll) resembling salesmen if I could pay with US currency because of the two different prices on the tag (obviously cheaper option considering current exchange rates). He was clueless (which I guess is another typical trait of people working in such stores) and I left automatically.

I asked one of the typical Ken (doll) resembling salesmen if I could pay with US currency because of the two different prices on the tag (obviously cheaper option considering current exchange rates).

Haha! In most stores you can pay in American currency, but you will be paying the Canadian price converted into American dollars. ;)

I'm in no position to inform another on how it works (nor would I presume to have the information on it all either), all I can share is what limited knowledge on the subject I have :). You've often mentioned how it is easier for large public transit projects to occur in places like the US or Europe because of the higher density levels/greater amount of people. A similar situation occurs with the retail industries.

Chapters/Indigo has roughly 50% of the book retail market, for a country less the size than California. Even with 50% of the book retail market, sales of books have been steadily declining (which is why if you go into most Chapters/Indigo you will see a much larger gift section, as the stores pull away from being a "book" store to being a "book lifestyle" store).

Have you noticed that when buying books online through companies like Amazon, Amazon.ca has higher prices than Amazon.com? And this is the 'same' company operating in the US and in Canada! Differences can be as much as 10 dollars!

An interesting comparison can be made with the prices of eBooks in both Canada and the US. On Amazon for a digital book (which you download onto an eReader) you pay (as far as I am able to tell) the same price for the Canadian and American version (but you will be paying in different currencies). This seems to suggest that the reasoning for the price differences are more structural.

Book stores make a very small per centage on the sale of each book. Having the price of the book move from say 20 dollars to 19 or 18 would not drastically effect the amount of money they pull in (which really isn't very much).

I have no doubt book retailers are attempting to maximize their revenues as many ways as possible (the iRewards is a total rip off, btw), but I really don't believe there is an evil corporate conspiracy here. I'd think that many book retailers would want their prices to be lower, in the hopes of maximizing sales by driving the purchases of multiple books.

I'm sorry if this didn't come out coherently. I needed to rush, I'm off to my grandma's for lunch!

Are retail sales of books declining faster in Canada than the USA? It is the relative price difference I was wondering about. I can understand paying more
in Canada, but balk at the large difference. As has also been pointed out, other types of retailers seem to do the same thing.
In any case, I scour used book stores as much as possible.

I wouldn't mind paying more for books if it meant saving some of the little independents that have gone the way of the dodo. Toronto's oldest
bookseller, Albert Britnell, bit the dust some time back:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202008/Winter%20Part%20Two%202009/Late%20Summer%20Early%20Fall%202009/2010%20Summer%20Part%20Deux/Winter%202011/IMGP0710iApril0811building1928company1893.jpg

I stopped buying altogether. Lowering the price to what it is in the US won't bring me back at this point. I have a long memory.

You can get amazing bargains at second hand shops.

I stopped buying altogether.

You don't buy books? :shocked:

I also enjoy second hand bookshops. Eliot's on Yonge street is quite the treat, and the BMV on Bloor has probably the largest selection of any second hand bookstore in the city.

If prices for books are deterring people from reading, there is always the library. Libraries are incredible cultural and educational resources, and nowhere in the city is that far away from one. Like healthcare, going to the library isn't free, rather it is pre-paid. Each one of us is paying for this service through our taxes, so why not use them?

You don't buy books? :shocked:


Nope, not in about 15 years. Other people's books? Online? Honestly, 95% of all the reading I do is either a newspaper, magazine I found lying around, or online. I stopped buying music about 15 years ago too. Why pay when I can get what I want free or close to free?

I'm actually more surprised that people still spend money on this. If Indigo knew how little money I spend in their store they'd probably ban me.

The Kindle, (Ipad3 if rumours of an E-Ink/LCD display are to be believed) is the way to go for reading printed material, blogs etc. The publishers/resellers need to change their models fast or they will go the way of the music industry. Paper is dead (or soon will be)...and anyone who says "but you can't beat holding a book"...I say the words vinyl and CD...both dead (or Zombies).

Authors will have a lot more control and low set-up costs, the problem comes with marketing and getting your name known, but it's easier than it is with bands which have relatively high set-up costs (recording and instruments) and need to do gigs to raise awareness.

The Kindle, (Ipad3 if rumours of an E-Ink/LCD display are to be believed) is the way to go for reading printed material, blogs etc. The publishers/resellers need to change their models fast or they will go the way of the music industry. Paper is dead (or soon will be)...and anyone who says "but you can't beat holding a book"...I say the words vinyl and CD...both dead (or Zombies).

Authors will have a lot more control and low set-up costs, the problem comes with marketing and getting your name known, but it's easier than it is with bands which have relatively high set-up costs (recording and instruments) and need to do gigs to raise awareness.

But you can't beat holding a book. :cry:

:D

I don't want to stare at one of those weird little screens. I want a pocketbook that I can jam in my pocket to pull out whenever I dine out, or are on the subway.

Good morning, jolly good news for everyone today! More impressive height coming to the Yonge Street corridor.

Posted by urbandreamer on UT:

501 YONGE ST
OPA / Rezoning 11 187996 STE 27 OZ Ward 27
- Tor & E.York May 5, 2011 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Standard rezoning application to construct 2 new mixed use buildings on one common podium. 58 Stories, retail at grade - 960 residential units - 2 levels parking above retail spaces - with 360 parking spaces - 940 bicycle parking space

Wow! Seems that now the seal has been broken, most condos are going for much greater height than they would have a decade ago. The unquenchable demand for new condo towers is absolutely astonishing!

"940 bicycle parking space"

I like the sound of that, and the sound of two 58-story towers. However, I'm not thrilled about what could be a measly 3-story podium.

^ True. Being on top of the subway would translate to above ground parking levels. For a development this size, hopefully the podium will be at least 8-10 storeys. My ideal proposal would be a (shorter) set of twin towers like Time Warner Centre (NYC) with a strong podium presence along Yonge.

World's Biggest Bookstore has probably the largest stock of books compared with other bookstores in Toronto, but the atmosphere is reminiscent of a ByWay.

Is it really the biggest in Toronto? If memory serves me correctly, it's not a big book store.

It is two rather massive floors. I spend a lot of time wandering about, as well as that discount book store next door toward Yonge Street. To be honest I prefer it to Indigo.
I like the challenge of finding seating, even if it means sitting on the steps between sections! hehe...

I should check it out again. I suppose it's no Foyles, but worth a trip nonetheless.

By CanadianNational on UT.

Here's some views of a crude sketchup model I did of the site. It has a ten-storey podium of just over one hundred feet, plus two forty-eight storey towers atop it, for 58 storeys, or, a total of six hundred feet in height.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal3_aerial.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal_aerialne.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal2_aerialw.jpg


Looking north from Yonge and College:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal5_yongecollege.jpg


Looking south down Yonge from Dundonald:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal6_dundonld.jpg


Looking southwest over Church and Wellesley
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal4_overvillage.jpg


From Church and Maitland, looking east
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal7_churchmaitland.jpg


From Jarvis and Maitland, looking east
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal8_jarvismaitland.jpg


From University and College
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal9_universitycoll.jpg


Aerial, looking down Yonge
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongeproposal10aerials.jpg


Looking East - southeast from the lot at Opera Place, at Wellesley.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/xyongestreetproposal11_operapl.jpg

By CanadianNational on UT.

Another massing model of the neighbourhood, with 9 Grenville, Five and Aura roughed in for comparison. My Aura looks a little fat in this one.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/yongepro3.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/yongepro2.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/yongepro1.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/yongepro4.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/yongepro5.jpg

Thanks! Looks like the downtown is finally starting to fill in. I'd prefer 1 larger tower as opposed to 2 twins, but the scale is certainly welcomed.

+1 i hate 2 tower developments, they add too much monotone to the skyline. 1 big tower, or 2 smaller developments please!

I like them. If these get built, it would be great for Yonge Street. Yonge needs more towers, it's the main street in the city. It's also shifting the row of tall buildings east and away from development-rich Bay Street, which means a greater spread of towers.

For this massing I'd prefer the twins. I was gonna say how huge they looked, until i saw Aura. Good size for the area, and it fits well with the recent additions to that area.

By CanadianNational on UT.


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/yongeview1.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/yongeview2.jpg

Wow!! That last one put it into perspective for me.. it will be bizarre seeing that stretch of Yonge so built up!! Looks like my favourite Mexican Restaurant is going to have to relocate.. :cry:

Makes you wonder whether Yonge between Bloor and Front will one day by pedestrian only. If it ends up being 30-80 floor buildings from one end to the other one has to consider where all those people are going to walk. Those sidewalks are already at their limit in stretches further down.

Posted by Automation Gallery on UT:

501 YONGE ST

OPA / Rezoning 11 187996 STE 27 OZ Ward 27
- Tor & E.York May 5, 2011 Application Submitted May 5, 2011 Residential Apartments Henstock, Sarah
416-392-7196

An application to amend City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and Zoning By-law 1156-2010 to permit a mixed use development with two 58-storey towers containing 960 residential condominium units on a shared 7-storey podium. The podium would contain retail uses at grade and five storeys of above grade parking with 302 parking spaces for residents and 58 parking spaces for visitors. Above grade parking is required because the TTC subway tunnel runs the length of the property. The height of the towers would be 192 metres. Driveway access and servicing would be from Maitland Place. The lobbies for the residential condominiums would be on Alexander Street and Maitland Street.

My interpretation of the future Yonge/College area skyline.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/5719368119_9ffa56954f_b.jpg

Wow! I wonder when this boom will ever end, Toronto is madly densifying.

hhhhmmm, in almost every single case where something like this is proposed I would be happy...normally. But now I am starting to get astronomically annoyed:bash:
First, why do we need MORE twins? I think we need to draw the line somewhere lol. Secondly, what is two 192m towers could easily be ONE 300m monster. Granted Toronto is getting some very nice, and huge towers, I am especially excited about aura for example, but every single new twin tower proposal that comes down the pipeline is one more that I have to stare at and think.."that COULD be another monster tower to help redefine Toronto's skyline but alas it is just another boring twin tower concept and in a few weeks or months there will inevitably be ANOTHER twin tower proposal. I really do think the universe hates me right now. :D

Because the city is afraid of supertalls. It's easier for a developer to propose twins rather than one huge monster of a tower because it'll be easier to obtain approval from the city.

Hey, I'm sure and am hoping not for long but soon we will see not one but several supertalls. We are already on the edge where the 45-65 storeys are now the norms in Toronto. Unlike ten years ago...

I would not say the City is afraid of supertalls; despite the shadow on City Hall case. The fact is supertalls are SUPER expensive, and require a super rich sugar-daddy corporation to build. Most of our corporations already have their headquarter buildings as we went through our penis envy phase back in the 60's and 70's.

By CanadianNational on UT.

Here 't goes again:

This is a bit better looking as a render. The base height here as double height retail (18'), and 5 floors of parking atop it (50'). The towers both top out at 600' from ground level, or roughly 58 floors. The towers are a bit slimmer and placed at right angles to each other.


From above:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/Parking%20Garages/youngun3.jpg


From above:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/Parking%20Garages/youngun4.jpg


Base massing, from slightly above:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/Parking%20Garages/youngeun7.jpg


Corner at Alexander and Yonge, looking north:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/Parking%20Garages/render1.jpg

Walking north on Yonge from Alexander under imagined overhang:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/Parking%20Garages/render3.jpg


Looking south from Breadalbane (aura not included in this one):
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/Parking%20Garages/render2.jpg

You know, when each stage of this project has been announced, I've thought it inappropriate. But after working on the renders...well....I'm not sure that if it isn't handled right, it won't be a bad thing.

Tell me this is just his take on the massing possibilities. I'm tired of that sort of design.

LOL I love "Hernia Fitness"

:D

Garbage base.

Why can't the architects re-create Victorian/early 1900's style building facades along the base.

This building like Typical Toronto architecture - doesn't fit with the neighbourhood

No respect for the surroundings.

Created in bubble Architecture.

Looks way too bulky and out of scale for that section of Yonge.

Totally insults the local historic buildings.

Too heavy, too much bulk.

Looks way too bulky and out of scale for that section of Yonge.

Totally insults the local historic buildings.

Too heavy, too much bulk.


I agree, it isn't appropriate for that area. :ohno:

I'm thinking setbacks in the base and dividing the base into sections which make it look more like what's across the street with narrow 3 story buildings. Right now it's just this monolithic base.

Take it easy, guys. This was just a massing studying, so hold back the criticism until a real rendering is released.

Even calling it a "massing study" lends it too much importance. This wasn't released by the developers. This was an amateur sketch rendered by a poster at Urban Toronto.

Garbage base.

Why can't the architects re-create Victorian/early 1900's style building facades along the base.

This building like Typical Toronto architecture - doesn't fit with the neighbourhood

No respect for the surroundings.

Created in bubble Architecture.

Urban.... I'm confused. You do understand that this is not what the building or base is going to look like, right? :eek: This is just a little "study" whipped up by someone on UT. Wait till the real proposal is revealed before you do your automatic crapping on it.

I agree, it isn't appropriate for that area. :ohno:

Disagree 100%. If we're talking scale, 2-20 floor buildings are inappropriate for the area. 50 years ago they were fine where they were, but today that kind of scale just isn't workable going forward. This is downtown and Yonge Street. Like it or not, but this stretch will probably be 40-100 floors from Front to Bloor in a decade or two.

If those low rises were magnificent gems I'd say keep them; they're not though. Most of Yonge Street is an embarrassment. I have no interest in turning Toronto into a museum stuck in a time warp.

That particular block has no redeeming qualities, other than housing my all time favourite Mexican restaurant. I'm not sad to see it go, and I think very tall is appropriate for this location on Yonge Street. I'm not embarrassed by most of Yonge Street. I'd love to see it get some TLC, but in no way am I ashamed of the Victorian buildings that line the street. To be ashamed of that is to be ashamed of our history, and if we want a better and more glamorous history than the one we have, we'd be better off to pack up and move to a city which has a glamorous history rather than trying to re-write the one we have.

.
One tower should be an office tower.

This part of Yonge would be great for offices.

Looks like 600 feet is the new 400 feet. Height standards are gradually rising, and the future looks bright. This new wave of proposals in on fire, and there's still a summer left for more to come. =)

.
One tower should be an office tower.

This part of Yonge would be great for offices.

Totally agreed. This would be a perfect location for an office tower; smack dab between two subway stations.

.
One tower should be an office tower.

This part of Yonge would be great for offices.

I wish it was a brewery, but that is not going to happen either.

Totally agreed. This would be a perfect location for an office tower; smack dab between two subway stations.

But even better for a brewery - with two subway stations for our stumbling treks home.

Well, it is close to the Village, so maybe it could brew Gay Beer! Or would that be
Queer Beer? :dunno:

Posted by monkeyronin in the 40 Scott Street thread.


(This is just an elevation. No need to get excited until we have some true renderings.)

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/952/501yongest.jpg

That particular block has no redeeming qualities, other than housing my all time favourite Mexican restaurant.

I like Pi-Tom's too. The ambience on both of the sides streets on this block are great. Hopefully, any new development of this block won't destroy the great street atmosphere at each end.

By CanadianNational on UT.


Fuel for Fires....

OK. Based on the elevation drawing goes, here's some vistas.

Model from elevation drawing. Top at 600'
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/501_1.jpg

From Wellesley and Bay:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/501i.jpg

Overhead looking west:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/501h.jpg

Overhead looking east:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/501g.jpg

North up Yonge, from College Park
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/501f.jpg

South down Yonge, from Yonge and Wellesley
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/501d.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/501c.jpg

From Church and Maitland:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/501b.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/501a.jpg

Looks much fatter and shorter in the elevation. I prefer your rendition though Elk.

It's true... the elevations look really fat and short...

Yeah I agree, the buildings look stumpy. I can't see that being a mistake though. How big is the lot?

Meh. We got Aura not far bringin' the height. These things are there to bring in some heft!

They look like mini World Trade Towers in the massing model....

I was actually hoping for a gorgeous outdoor Apple Store on that location. A condominium? with that design? omg... please somebody stop them.

If that elevation drawing is the final, I think this is just another greedy attempt by some developers to make money and devastate the city.
I don't think we should blame the greedy fathers of Toronto so much who destroyed beautiful historic buildings of the town and replaced them with smaller and worthless boxy buildings.
However what we might should do is to stop the greedy attempts of nowadays.

I like them, but hey I'm a huge fan of boxes. Except for higher end developments I prefer it when they keep it simple.

I'm biased - the proposed twin 58 storey towers will be 30 feet from our window. But putting that bias aside, this is an inappropriate use of the site. This block of Yonge Street acts as a portal or gateway to the Church-Wellesley community. The proposed Lanterrra development would effectively close that gateway. That would be socially unfortunate. The development would also do unfortunate things to the pedestrian streetscape. A 7 storey glass wall at the property line is just not very people friendly.

For those interested, I have established a website to air the issues: http://501yonge.ca .
Comments welcomed, with open contributions possible on the Forum.

I'm biased - the proposed twin 58 storey towers will be 30 feet from our window. But putting that bias aside, this is an inappropriate use of the site. This block of Yonge Street acts as a portal or gateway to the Church-Wellesley community. The proposed Lanterrra development would effectively close that gateway. That would be socially unfortunate. The development would also do unfortunate things to the pedestrian streetscape. A 7 storey glass wall at the property line is just not very people friendly.

For those interested, I have established a website to air the issues: http://501yonge.ca .
Comments welcomed, with open contributions possible on the Forum.

Whoa... you have my sympathy... it is going to be a noisy few years for you.

I'm not really sure how it blocks the gateway as you call it to Church. It's footprint is the same size of that plaza. No offence but you live in a building that abuts Yonge Street so trying to stop development screams of NIMBYism. Peoples views get blocked daily around this city due to new high rises going up on plots of land that at one time or another had height and density restrictions. It's part of living in the big city.

Welcome to the forum but I think you will find that searcjing for support on here concerning the scale of the development will be like looking for a needle in a haystack. We;re more concerned about the end product. Many of us would like to see these even taller.

I'm biased - the proposed twin 58 storey towers will be 30 feet from our window. But putting that bias aside, this is an inappropriate use of the site. This block of Yonge Street acts as a portal or gateway to the Church-Wellesley community. The proposed Lanterrra development would effectively close that gateway. That would be socially unfortunate. The development would also do unfortunate things to the pedestrian streetscape. A 7 storey glass wall at the property line is just not very people friendly.

For those interested, I have established a website to air the issues: http://501yonge.ca .
Comments welcomed, with open contributions possible on the Forum.

The twin towers will BE the gateway to the community. As for the 7 story glass wall on Yonge, it is only a massing possibility, far from the final design. In any event, anything is better than what it is.

STAFF REPORT - MAY 30, 2011

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-38795.pdf

Proposal
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing retail commercial site and parking lot and construct
two 58-storey residential towers (182 metres excluding mechanical penthouse, 192 metres including
mechanical penthouse) on a common 7-storey podium (23 metres). The applicant is proposing to develop
the site in phases with the podium and the south tower in Phase 1 and the north tower in Phase
2. Each residential tower has a separate lobby for pedestrian access...

...Approximately 1,255 square meters of retail space is proposed within the podium of the development.
The retail space is proposed to front along Yonge Street and wrap around the north and south end of the
podium along Maitland Street and Alexander Street. The Yonge Street façade is proposed to contain
retail display area from the mezzanine to the 7th floor. A public art space is provided at the south west
corner of the site...

...The applicant is proposing five levels of above grade parking within the podium that includes both
vehicular and bicycle parking. One level of below grade bicycle parking is proposed. Above grade
parking is required because the TTC subway tunnel runs diagonally through the length of the property.

(architectsAlliance)


Posted by Mongo on UT.

West Elevation:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mongo62aa/ScreenShot104a.jpg

North Elevation:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mongo62aa/ScreenShot105.jpg

As you can see, the elevations are FAR less stumpy than the photos posted earlier (at a severe angle).

Ah, that looks better. Less stumpy.

agreed. Much better proportions

501 Yonge still look like uninspired pieces of crap. Apart from technicalities, anyone can design these (Plain boxes with wrap-around balconies). You would assume that with such a large prominent site, architectsAlliance would rise to the occasion but instead they hit an all time low. I was excited by the news and height at first, but this is a disaster. Send this automaticaally back to the drawing board or don't build them at all.

I'm not sure I would call this a prominant site. As long as it ends up looking like Spire or Casa I'll be happy. If the glass box with wrap around balconies is the new fall back design for condo construction then that's fine by me. I do expect more flash from high end developments though. This design if nothing else will remain timeless.

yes but this proposal his herendws. Above ground parking lots asre sensless. the podiummm is way to big. A proposed skyscraper for Jarvis and Dundad was rejected because of its 10 floor podium and this proposal should be rejected for mmany resonsa including its 7 floors podioumm. Both Alexander and Maitland streets are short, skinny, streets. Alexander runs oneway west from Mutual to Yonge and Maitland runs oneway east fromm Young to Homewood. Both Hommewood and Mutual are useless oneway Streets, with Mutual changing direction several times. How are these streets going to deal with the traffic circiling one condo entrance on Maitland and another on Alexander

yes but this proposal his herendws. Above ground parking lots asre sensless. the podiummm is way to big. A proposed skyscraper for Jarvis and Dundad was rejected because of its 10 floor podium and this proposal should be rejected for mmany resonsa including its 7 floors podioumm. Both Alexander and Maitland streets are short, skinny, streets. Alexander runs oneway west from Mutual to Yonge and Maitland runs oneway east fromm Young to Homewood. Both Hommewood and Mutual are useless oneway Streets, with Mutual changing direction several times. How are these streets going to deal with the traffic circiling one condo entrance on Maitland and another on Alexander


Hmmm, I'd say welcome to the site but I have a feeling you are just a NIMBY that lives in the same building as rfabian. Alexander and Mutual are not small little streets in Cabbagetown, they are off Canada's largest, longest (cue penis jokes), and busiest main street. Most people on this forum are pro development on Yonge and most of us love to see large podiums.

I'm sorry if this building will block your view but that's one of the prices we all pay living in the big city.

FYI - The Dundas and Jarvis 46 storey condo with a 9 storey podium at that corner has been given the green light by the city. If you'd like to buy a unit you can register here. http://www.pacecondos.com/
http://images04.olx.ca/ui/11/19/69/1303054891_189971069_4-PACE-CONDOS-VIP-SALE-1Den-on-hand-Houses-Apartments-for-Sale.jpg

What are the chances of this getting approved?

I'd say about 99.99999% given it's location.

I'd say about 99.99999% given it's location.

Agree. Can we have another 20 floors on each though? :colgate:

And maybe a 20 storey podium, LOL. It's actually great that this building will have extra parking as most surface lots are disapearing. I'm sure about half of the spaces will be for public parking.

The important thing is that they do a good job concealing that it's parking and making this pedestrian friendly at grade. 200 m on Yonge Street south of Bloor is appropriate height. I honestly wouldn't care if it were 300 m tall.

I'm all for more height in the core with one proviso: more park or public space in the core at the same time. One needs to balance more density with more urban oasis. Manhattan does this well. Take that block just south of here as an example. There's a hotel bordering Yonge, then a series of four 15 floor apartment blocks running east to Church Street. Instead of the four residential blocks and hotel, build one 75 floor mixed use skyscraper at Yonge Street but on the west side of Yonge. Turn the land that these buildings were sitting on into an urban park stretching from Yonge all the way to Church.

You've created a downtown park and maintained the apartments/hotel, but in a new more efficient configuration. People in the Gay Village would be all about having a substantial park to sunbathe in, play sports, play chess, etc. We could repeat this re-development all over our core. Depending on how tall we go, we could increase park/public space and increase the number of people living downtown.

Added bonus: it would look great! :okay:

The important thing is that they do a good job concealing that it's parking and making this pedestrian friendly at grade. 200 m on Yonge Street south of Bloor is appropriate height. I honestly wouldn't care if it were 300 m tall.

I'm all for more height in the core with one proviso: more park or public space in the core at the same time. One needs to balance more density with more urban oasis. Manhattan does this well. Take that block just south of here as an example. There's a hotel bordering Yonge, then a series of four 15 floor apartment blocks running east to Church Street. Instead of the four residential blocks and hotel, build one 75 floor mixed use skyscraper at Yonge Street but on the west side of Yonge. Turn the land that these buildings were sitting on into an urban park stretching from Yonge all the way to Church.

You've created a downtown park and maintained the apartments/hotel, but in a new more efficient configuration. People in the Gay Village would be all about having a substantial park to sunbathe in, play sports, play chess, etc. We could repeat this re-development all over our core. Depending on how tall we go, we could increase park/public space and increase the number of people living downtown.

Added bonus: it would look great! :okay:

Excellent analysis. I'm moving to Toronto from the UK in 6 weeks time (6 weeks today in fact!). I am so looking forward to it, but here in the UK we have lots and lots of parks in our cities, even in London there are small squares right in the city, where you can sit and read a book or munch a sandwich. I can understand developers wanting to stick to 200m as the costs escalate exponentially above this, but these guys make billions, and Torontonians should put their feet down and ensure high quality architecture and good urban space. And yes, 75 stories would make for an even better skyline (already awesome though!).

I think this proposal will be OK if the glass and cladding look good, I just think it would look a lot better if they made one tower 65 stories and the other 50, I'm sure they'd make extra money from charging higher for the units in floors 50-65 in the taller tower which would have unobstructed views. When you compare this to ICE, which I think will be amazing, then you can only view this as a bit of a missed opportunity for such a prime location.

With Aura nearby, an extra 10-20 stories would look really good actually. One day...

isaidso, us straight people like parks to :)

It's tough to create parks along the corridor from the lake to Bloor along Yonge. This is Canada's most urban stretch of road. Yonge could use a makeover though like Bloor has been getting. More trees please!

There are more parks in downtown Toronto than people realize. Aside from the obvious ones that we seem to have forgotten, like Queen's Park, Riverdale Park, Allan Gardens, University of Toronto, etc... there are a myriad of small parks a stone's throw from Yonge Street. Perhaps people have to own a dog to discover the plethora of grass and trees that we have all over the place. The park system we crave from Bloor to the Lakefront already exists; we just seem to not notice them.

There are more parks in downtown Toronto than people realize. Aside from the obvious ones that we seem to have forgotten, like Queen's Park, Riverdale Park, Allan Gardens, University of Toronto, etc... there are a myriad of small parks a stone's throw from Yonge Street. Perhaps people have to own a dog to discover the plethora of grass and trees that we have all over the place. The park system we crave from Bloor to the Lakefront already exists; we just seem to not notice them.

You are so right. Just walk down Park Rd from Church, that is 1 block north of Bloor, you will see a small park and if you walk along Rosedale Valley Road northward, not along the long winding side, you will end up in a nice seclusive park, leading to Rosedale subway station.

There are more parks in downtown Toronto than people realize. Aside from the obvious ones that we seem to have forgotten, like Queen's Park, Riverdale Park, Allan Gardens, University of Toronto, etc... there are a myriad of small parks a stone's throw from Yonge Street. Perhaps people have to own a dog to discover the plethora of grass and trees that we have all over the place. The park system we crave from Bloor to the Lakefront already exists; we just seem to not notice them.

I look forward to discovering them! I love the contrast between parks and skyscrapers, or older type building and skyscrapers.

I like how the first NIMBY poster said this was at the gateway to Church street. I always considered Carleton and Bloor to be the two gateways.

Discuss.

There are more parks in downtown Toronto than people realize.

I think a lot of people know about them, but we will need more of them going forward. This is the wrong time in Toronto's development to become complacent and conclude that we have public space/parks covered. It's decent for the density we have now, but if we realize 20 years from now that we need a couple more it will be too late.

Dundas Square should be considered the first step, not the last. We will need another 6 or 7 spaces at least that large in the area bordered by Bloor, Sherbourne, Spadina, and the water front.

Excellent analysis. I'm moving to Toronto from the UK in 6 weeks time (6 weeks today in fact!). I am so looking forward to it, but here in the UK we have lots and lots of parks in our cities, even in London there are small squares right in the city, where you can sit and read a book or munch a sandwich. I can understand developers wanting to stick to 200m as the costs escalate exponentially above this, but these guys make billions, and Torontonians should put their feet down and ensure high quality architecture and good urban space. And yes, 75 stories would make for an even better skyline (already awesome though!).

I think this proposal will be OK if the glass and cladding look good, I just think it would look a lot better if they made one tower 65 stories and the other 50, I'm sure they'd make extra money from charging higher for the units in floors 50-65 in the taller tower which would have unobstructed views. When you compare this to ICE, which I think will be amazing, then you can only view this as a bit of a missed opportunity for such a prime location.

I was born in London, so a lot of my views about urbanity were formed there. Toronto does have lots of green space, but I fear that planners here aren't taking into account the spike in density that is going to occur over the next 30 years. Toronto needs more public space and park right downtown: Centre Island, the ravines, High Park are great, but they aren't downtown.

We need to put aside parcels of land in the downtown to redevelop into new park/public space, then increase density around them. Queen's Park, Allan Gardens, Moss Park, and the pocket parks downtown aren't going to be enough by 2040. If we wait 30 years to figure it out, it will be too late. Dundas Square was exactly the type of re-development that Toronto's core needs to undertake. It's also been a smashing success.

New parks, squares, meeting spots, greens, even a fountain, etc.

We need better looking parks & squares. A tree and some grass just doesn't cut it. We need some really well designed public squares, with fountains, gardens, stylish lighting and some really nice walls/fences. It would also be nice to have drinking fountains that actually WORK!

I like how the first NIMBY poster said this was at the gateway to Church street. I always considered Carleton and Bloor to be the two gateways.

Discuss.

Clearly Woody's is the gateway to Church Street. :yes:

I was born in London, so a lot of my views about urbanity were formed there. Toronto does have lots of green space, but I fear that planners here aren't taking into account the spike in density that is going to occur over the next 30 years. Toronto needs more public space and park right downtown: Centre Island, the ravines, High Park are great, but they aren't downtown.

We need to put aside parcels of land in the downtown to redevelop into new park/public space, then increase density around them. Queen's Park, Allan Gardens, Moss Park, and the pocket parks downtown aren't going to be enough by 2040. If we wait 30 years to figure it out, it will be too late. Dundas Square was exactly the type of re-development that Toronto's core needs to undertake. It's also been a smashing success.

New parks, squares, meeting spots, greens, even a fountain, etc.

Can tell you're from the UK!

People need to be active to make it happen, and to be honest, it's in the interest of developers to have decent public spaces as the neighbouroods won't command the same evaluations if they're just block after block of dull condo towers with no where to stretch out and see the sky.

We have a massive urban park that stretches the entire length of the city from just north of Bloor to the northern reaches of the city, following the Don Valley. People in general here don't consider it to be a "park" because it has no fountains, statues, or ice cream vendors. I love it all the more for that fact.
We have a hidden gem of a park in our Toronto Islands.
There will always be a need to push for more parks and fountains. We also seem to have need to educate the public as to what we currently have available for city parks and "parkettes", so that they can experience and enjoy what is already there.

^^ Enough with the hidden gems. It's such a Toronto cliché. Hidden gem this, hidden gem that. Everything's a hidden gem. What we need are visible gems! We need many more fountains, statues, great urban parks, boulevards, avenues. We need grandeur. Cities across the globe with much less wealth than Toronto manage to do this. Why not us?

When I read "hidden gem", I think "open your eyes" and "get off your ass." Or something like that. Let's face it, hidden gem means that people who are less familiar with the city don't know about it. It doesn't mean that they are not good enough to be considered visible gems.

Downtown could use more parks? Sure, I follow isaidso's point and am all for it (because we need to think 30 years ahead).

And I am all for more fountains and statues, but am also happy with what we have today, and what is on tap (waterfront in particular). In my travels, with few exceptions, I don't see cities that are dripping in statues and fountains any more than Toronto.

To TB's point about the ravine parkland - these are pure gems that people will one day learn to value (making them no longer hidden).

^^ I guess. Just seemed like T,B's post, with all do respect, was another defence of the status quo, which I always find troublesome.

It would be great if the Port Lands became a grand park! It has great views, easier access than the islands, and a nice layout. It could be a much more cultivated park than the majority of major parks in Canada which focus on either foresty and open grassy type spaces.

The focus could be the main channel and turning basin which could be lines with trees, benches and walking/biking trails. The rest of the spaces could contain various fountains and monuments, interesting landscaping, recreational facilities ranging from a skate park to an amphitheatre, bandstand, swimming/wading pool, tennis court, etc.

The park would essentially be a cross between a space like Hfx's Central Common and Montreal's Old Port a touch of La Fontaine Park thrown in.

I give up. If people can't be bothered to enjoy the gorgeous ravine system running north through our city because there are no fountains, Elvis impressionists and planted petunias then it is their own problem. Ditto for the Toronto Islands; how many people who complain we have no parks actually make the five minute ferry ride there in the summer?
Of COURSE I want more parks, more fountains and more statues, but I also think many people are completely unaware of many of the many parks we have downtown now. I use them daily to walk my dogs. As usual we simply jump to the conclusion that what we have is inherently inferior to every other city on the planet, and that is the point that puzzles and perplexes me. Even people in Vancouver have to get off their ass and walk a bit to enjoy Stanley Park, but the fact is they do! And much of Stanley Park is just wild beauty like our ravine system. Mount Royal in Montreal is only "hidden" to those who can't be bothered to walk up it. "Hidden Gems" only stay "hidden" as long as people are too lazy to walk a few hundred metres, or climb down steps, or catch a ferry. Once we make the effort, they are suddenly "visible".
A week or so back while exploring parks up near Governor's Bridge, I stumbled upon the wonderful Brickyards and the massive parkland, jogging trails, etc.. around it. I am willing to bet it will remain "hidden" to a majority of our city, because we seem to save our exploring for when we go on vacation to other cities. Now that is a status quo that truly depresses me.

I didn't mean to imply that I don't care for less groomed spaces. The presence of natural, semi-wild spaces is one of the great things about Canadian urban areas. I just meant that it would be nice to have examples of both. I find the two types of areas tend to have different functions and often attract different personality types,

I don't think that to enjoy or appreciate something that you have to commit yourself to not wanting anything else. Many people enjoy their favourite food but still don't want to eat it exclusively.

We have a massive urban park that stretches the entire length of the city from just north of Bloor to the northern reaches of the city, following the Don Valley. People in general here don't consider it to be a "park" because it has no fountains, statues, or ice cream vendors. I love it all the more for that fact.
We have a hidden gem of a park in our Toronto Islands.
There will always be a need to push for more parks and fountains. We also seem to have need to educate the public as to what we currently have available for city parks and "parkettes", so that they can experience and enjoy what is already there.

"Hidden Gem" just basically means that the city has spent no money to fix it up or provide any services. It's land that just sits there. (ignored by almost everyone) We have lots of it too. Don't forget about The Leslie Street Spit and Rouge Park. Their land masses are huge! It's nice to have some natural, untouched areas but we also need a few beautiful, well designed parks, that actually provide services and maybe some fun activities.
Why are we afraid of designing beautiful spaces? Paris and London obviously have no problem spending big bucks for landmark parks. We are getting better with Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Common but we need more than those 2 small ones. Canoe Landing Park at Cityplace, is such a wasted opportunity. It's mainly used as a place for Fido to take a crap. Nobody goes there to just enjoy the park. It's pretty dull, for a downtown park. (and not even close to beautiful)

"Nobody goes there to just enjoy the park"


:eek:

ok, good night! :hi:

Can tell you're from the UK!

People need to be active to make it happen, and to be honest, it's in the interest of developers to have decent public spaces as the neighbouroods won't command the same evaluations if they're just block after block of dull condo towers with no where to stretch out and see the sky.

It's bizarre. Even though I left when I was 11, I still see eye to eye with other Brits on the most specific things. You're dead right when you mention property values. Anything within a block or 2 of a well designed urban park/public space is going to see a significant increase in value.

I'm hoping that they'll build one at this big vacant lot on Queen East a few blocks east of Yonge, one just north of the Central YMCA, and fingers crossed for another substantial green space somewhere else in the core. I'm also hoping that Moss Park will eventually be re-designed and upgraded so it can reach its potential. I doubt there's much political or public foresight on this issue though. It's akin to hitting your head against a brick wall. Too bad really.

When you coming?

It's bizarre. Even though I left when I was 11, I still see eye to eye with other Brits on the most specific things. You're dead right when you mention property values. Anything within a block or 2 of a well designed urban park/public space is going to see a significant increase in value.

I'm hoping that they'll build one at this big vacant lot on Queen East a few blocks east of Yonge, one just north of the Central YMCA, and fingers crossed for another substantial green space somewhere else in the core. I'm also hoping that Moss Park will eventually be re-designed and upgraded so it can reach its potential. I doubt there's much political or public foresight on this issue though. It's akin to hitting your head against a brick wall. Too bad really.

When you coming?

End of July...I'll be in Toronto in 6 weeks time. I've got PR so will be staying, it's a big move and quite terrifying now that it's so near. I've asked the company who've hired me to arrange a corporate let in the downtown area for when I first arrive, so I'm hoping I will be in a decent condo tower with nice views...beggars can't be choosers though! Think I'll move out to Barrie or Hamilton after that though.

Think I'll move out to Barrie or Hamilton after that though.

:eek:

why?

Barrie! a bit far don't you think?

Community meeting for the massive 501 Yonge Street proposal is tomorrow night. I'll be attending to check out what's really happening. Looking forward to what's in store.

Could you voice concern that these are far too short for the area, then snap some photos? :colgate:

I live in Radio City so I'll definitely try to drop by this one. Anyone know the meeting specs?

Think I'll move out to Barrie or Hamilton after that though.

Unless you're a retiree or a glutton for punishment, why would you choose to live in these two particular locations? Hamilton has an interesting arts scene, but it's uh.. rough around the edges. And Barrie, aside from being on the water with a nice little core, is basically strip mall and suburb.

Could you voice concern that these are far too short for the area, then snap some photos? :colgate:

Someone will whip out a crystal ball, and evoke the spirit of the late great Saint Jane as a counter-argument.

I saw the preliminary drawings and aside from the fact that the design is completely uninspiring and 'designed' (no pun intended) to maximize the building area, I think the podium height is inappropriately high and the parking is way too low. I can't comment on the weather protective features but it would be nice if they provided something over the frontage to provide a buffer and shielding considering how tall the structure will be.

Someone will whip out a crystal ball, and evoke the spirit of the late great Saint Jane as a counter-argument.

No doubt. It would be worth it just to see their eyes bug out though. :lol:

I live in Radio City so I'll definitely try to drop by this one. Anyone know the meeting specs?

Do you face east or west?

^^ I face east.

^^ I face east.

You can see me then. Here's a clue: disco ball on the balcony. You may not be able to see it if you're on one of the top 4-5 floors of the south tower.

I can actually see a few discoballs from my balcony!

Now we know where the party is!
:dance:

I did just have one, but that was over a week ago now. :colgate:

I can actually see a few discoballs from my balcony!

Oh crap. Silly me thinking that would be enough to stand out in this neighbourhood. Now where did I put that spot light? :nuts:

Are you in the 80's - 90's condo on Carlton or in one of the apartments on Jarvis?

I did just have one, but that was over a week ago now. :colgate:



Oh crap. Silly me thinking that would be enough to stand out in this neighbourhood. Now where did I put that spot light? :nuts:

Can I come clubbing at your place? I'll bring some bitches.

My place is kinda full of bitches, but I'm sure I can cram a couple more in some crevice somewhere.

Are you in the 80's - 90's condo on Carlton or in one of the apartments on Jarvis?

I'm directly across from you, but 1 block east of Jarvis. The 31 storey 70s block on Homewood.

Party Central!! :D

My place is kinda full of bitches, but I'm sure I can cram a couple more in some crevice somewhere.



I'm directly across from you, but 1 block east of Jarvis. The 31 storey 70s block on Homewood.

If your place doesn't have ginas, it's not full of bitches.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4889656983_80f2eaaa85_b.jpg

These girls know where the partay's at, if you can stand their incessant shrieking. Drinking helps, trust me.

I like the parties full of ginos better, personally. There will always be some eye-candy at those parties ;)

You can see me then. Here's a clue: disco ball on the balcony. You may not be able to see it if you're on one of the top 4-5 floors of the south tower.

Wait a minute - that's you?

You should pull the blinds, or wear a house coat.

Hello all,

I was also at the meeting the other night but have been way too busy and tired to report the details of the meeting. Most of the meeting content has already been discussed and mentioned but I did take notes of the events throughout the night. I stayed until 9 pm, but there was ongoing discussions as I left. I was told that Kristin Wong-Tam would address the crowd at the end of the meeting, but I had to leave so not sure if that happened. I also have photos but they're the same as Interchange's so I won't repeat them.

Here are my highlighted points from the meeting (Sorry if some facts have already been known or stated):

Application summary: 2 x 58 storeys on a 7 storey podium. 960 units, retail at grade, 5 levels of parking. The site is designated as mixed use, which the proposal is so it's permitted. 192 m in height is proposed but according to former zoning standards, 18 m is allowed. The final report will be available in Jan/Feb 2012.

According to Clewes, the application has been temporarily placed on hold. There's too much pressure from this section of Yonge Street. Research and studies are ongoing to seek what is most appropriate growth for this stretch of Yonge in the future. Fractured lot ownership is the main reason why this stretch has remained low-rise. Difficult to gather up land. Subway runs diagonally through property, thus above grade parking. With retail at grade.

The renderings were meant to be very conceptual massing studies to show impact on the area. I was personally disappointed to not see any actual renderings but understandable considering the circumstances of how it is still very preliminary. Most of the NIMBY protesters were unable to understand this and took shots at the unpleasant "design". But those forumers who were upset by the elevation drawings can be assured that those are not the official plans.

Various podium ideas were presented with conceptual renderings. A modern podium is important for the evolution of Yonge Street. Vertical slices in the facade was brought up, to create a simple and effective design. Possibility of vertical green, gardens. Also possibility of play of glass, to insert colour, and possibility of public art.

The first commenter, the guy from 501yonge.ca presented a well prepared but biased speech. Interpreting the elevation drawings and massing studies to be bland and banal. Recommended 4 storeys on Yonge Street to preserve the human scale pedestrian corridor. The crowd which was pretty much heavily against the proposal of any scale breaks out in huge applause.

Other concerns included construction impact and the mess it would cause in the area. Typical rants about height and increased density, and impact on shadowing and sunlight. Also concerns on not enough city services to accommodate for these new residents. Also mention that most of the units will be investment properties, which are not family friendly. Clewes responded that initiatives will be taken by counsellors for more family sized units. And also concern for a wider sidewalks, and possible spaces for patios. Clewes responded that there will be setback of retail on Yonge to allow for planting of trees.

I would say around 95% of the auditorium was heavily and stubbornly against the proposal. Many people in the crowd ignored the fact these were massing study images and constant snarky remarks were made towards Clewes and the design. Attacks at planning guideline loopholes were targeted against the hosts but to no avail. The predictable and repetitive issue of falling glass was brought up, with Clewes responding that proper measures will be taken to ensure full safety. A couple people were upset that their views would be blocked. But a city counsellor replied that there is no legislation that protects anyone’s views. During a series of rebuttals with Clewes and the presenters, one gentleman desperately replied that all he wants on the site was a large park. That weak and naïve request was automatically ignored by the hosts. The presenters also addressed the crowd saying that because the city is looking to increase density within certain zones on the city to accommodate future sustainable growth, this part of the Yonge corridor will potentially be part of the focus.

Overall, I was impressed by Clewes’ presentation and the way he carried himself through the tough crowd. I like how initiatives will be taken to make the podium as urban interactive as possible, and confident that Clewes will deliver another quality product.

all i want is for the towers to be different hights, i feel that they will get too repetative with 2 of them at the same height.

EDIT: 900th post!

all i want is for the towers to be different hights, i feel that they will get too repetative with 2 of them at the same height.

This, and the wrapped balconies. Can we have some 18 Yorkville-esque towers instead?

I like the parties full of ginos better, personally. There will always be some eye-candy at those parties ;)

I'm with you, that blond mess isn't invited.

Wait a minute - that's you?


Are you the one with the telescope? :weird:

Post some pics...;)

I'm isaidso's "agent". The money gets sent to me, and I post the photos and then pass on to him any portion of the receipts that I haven't already spent! :yes:

Pimp Daddy.

Hello all,

I was also at the meeting the other night but have been way too busy and tired to report the details of the meeting.
.
.
.

Thanks for the summary Travis. It's interesting how there is so much opposition to height in this area of town. Almost like the Minto tower fiasco at Yonge & Eglinton a few years back.

You would imagine that the people living in this area would generally be in, at the very least, a receptive mood to redevelopment but the truth is that development pressure has been centred elsewhere and generally things have stayed the same in the area. I'm sure the folks in the ugly, 1980's condo (the cosmo?) are in opposition as are the residents of the Greenwin apartments but ............... c'mon! This is the city's main street, it's on the subway and for goodness sakes it's a one storey strip mall with a vacant upper level.

^ exactly. do they honestly expect someone to construct a 4 floor structure on a lot that cost somewhere in the upper 8 digits?

What it boils down to is that they will lose their views. they may not admit to it but they are only fooling themselves. If they don't like living in the core of the city where tall buildings will rise perhaps they should think about moving.