What do you think of the new Panasonic Theatre? Is it's location appropriate for the new structure and its potential?


It is rising in between crummy, shody and broken down buildings that look like they are ready to cave in on one another. The building itself is quite tiny and would have been even better if the developers had bought out the whole block, or at least the two immediately next to it, to build something really impressive.

It's literally squished and begging for room to breathe!

I think the theatre is only required to be a certain size...otherwise they would have located it in another larger location...or indeed have purchased an adjacent building(s). Although there is no guarantee they would sell.





KGB

"The building itself is quite tiny and have been even better if the developer's had bought out the whole block or at least the two immediately next to it and build something really impressive"

I agree - a 100000 seat Caltrava-in-a-park would not only be impressive but also more appropriate to Yonge Street

Anybody here actually seen Blue Man Group?





KGB

From the parkette behind Yonge St. you can see that they are building private viewing boxes that will hover above the seats below... even those look small and tight.

I hope they at least get rid of the townhouse exterior that remains on Yonge and put up a nice, newer facade.

"I hope they at least get rid of the townhouse exterior that remains on Yonge and put up a nice, newer facade."

dude - think about it.

I've never heard of this Panasonic Theatre. Someone care to bring me up to speed?

The old New Yorker Theatre on Yonge was bought, and torn down...to be replaced by a brand new, state-of-the-art, same size facility.

They saved the facade, because it's historic....like most of the buildings on Yonge...you can't rip them down...they are listed historic buildings.






KGB

Oh God... I'm predicting another debate between Old vs. New, but here goes anyway...

Townhouses are not "historic".

Casa Loma is historic; the Flatiron Building is historic; Old City Hall is historic; hell, the first Tim's Horton's store in Hamilton is historic!

Townhouses - old, decrepit, crusty and rotted - ARE NOT HISTORIC! Those buildings are way ghetto. Damn!

Tear them down! Put up something new and impressive! It's embarrassing that visitors to our city have to see it on one of the most famous streets in the world!

All I can say is....you should be shot.






KGB

Tear them down! Put up something new and impressive! It's embarrassing that visitors to our city have to see it on one of the most famous streets in the world!

yikes! dont let this guy in charge.

^I think that there are enough intelligent people in this city to keep someone like that out of any real power.

It may be gritty and grimy in some sections, but in my opinion the best stretch of street in the entire city is Yonge from Alexandra, just north of College up to Bloor. The rows of 2 and 3 story old brick buildings may not be in the best shape, but they create a very strong urban environment - much more so than virtually any 'new' and 'shiny' development in the city the past few years

All I can say is....you should be shot

KGB

Wow... a bit harsh KGB. I can't believe you would think they are worth preserving... I made a valid point, with strong examples (and I think it's interesting how no one argued that) about what is worth preserving in our city.

No need to start hatin' on someone with vision. It's common for old structures to be torn down in order to build something new and modern.

Everybody here should know and appreciate that.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the buildings. Cleaned of their clutter and countless layers of paint, those 1860's and 1870's commercial buildings on Yonge are quite nice...you can't get them back. Some of them have been cleaned up, and look very nice...I was quite surprised by how that one where the Saigon Sister resto opened...who would'a thought that was a great old building?

And I wasn't being harsh...I was kidding....but who would not fluff-off any person who would suggest tearing down these great old buildings....ALL Toronto's great commercial streets are the same 3-storeyish buildings...and they are great. Anybody who suggests otherwise, is a complete fool in my book, and worthy of whatever spite I may throw their way...joking or not.






KGB

It would be nice if the city had some money to clean these jewels up. Completely unrealistic, I know.

The city does have the money...there is a "Commercial Facade Improvement Program", which provides grants to commercial building owners whose properties are in designated areas covered by approved community improvement plans...this part of Yonge is one of them.

But the buildings are privately owned, so the emphasis is on the owners to impliment it.

But remember, the thing about Yonge is what's there beyond the buildings...when you start tarting up the buildings, the rent goes up...and before you know it, the only people who will be able to afford the Yonge Strip will be the big corporate stores. I would rather have Yonge the way it is...warts and all.





KGB

"I can't believe you would think they are worth preserving"

The townhomes behind Kings Court were in far worse condition than anything on Yonge yet a developer was not only able to restore and rebuild (a decent job) but also make a tidy profit. And the city still has two its oldest buildings

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the buildings. Cleaned of their clutter and countless layers of paint, those 1860's and 1870's commercial buildings on Yonge are quite nice...you can't get them back. Some of them have been cleaned up, and look very nice...I was quite surprised by how that one where the Saigon Sister resto opened...who would'a thought that was a great old building?

And I wasn't being harsh...I was kidding....but who would not fluff-off any person who would suggest tearing down these great old buildings....ALL Toronto's great commercial streets are the same 3-storeyish buildings...and they are great. Anybody who suggests otherwise, is a complete fool in my book, and worthy of whatever spite I may throw their way...joking or not.

KGB

Well I do think that the Saigon Sister restaurant looks good, but all they did was paint over a dull, old building. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Toronto is infamous for band-aid solutions. Restoring townhouses (funny how no one refers to them as that, cuz that's exactly what they are) is not preservation of a city's historic roots. Restorying Old City Hall is a good example of just that.

Now look at the ROM and AGO. They are both getting modern facelifts because on their own they're dull and boring. It's also in our city's best interest to do so because we are a modern, world-class city that needs to remain competitive globally and continue to create a lasting impression to our residents and our guests.

Urban development is about moving forward and some buildings have to go because of it. When they build 1 Bloor East, they're gonna have to tear down that old and ugly corner (thank God) to put up something new and post-modern (brilliant!). The old Children's Aid has been torn down to make way for a newer, larger structure. Ditto for the buildings that used to stand at Church & Shuter. But they're all gone now, and yet you're not criticizing any of those moves.

Why argue for some and not for others? It's very much a double-standard.

I guess we agree to disagree.

"Well I do think that the Saigon Sister restaurant looks good, but all they did was paint over a dull, old building."


Maybe I'm wrong, and just mixing up my Yonge buildings (there's been a few restorations lately)...but I think this one had the facade taken back to the origional (obviously not the street facade...long gone, replaced by big plate glass, but looks good). It's the red brick one...and quite nice....definetely not "dull".






"Restoring townhouses (funny how no one refers to them as that, cuz that's exactly what they are) is not preservation of a city's historic roots."


Well, they are commercial buildings, and built for such in the first place. And what do you mean not preserving historical roots???? Yonge is an origional York street dating to the 1790's. These are origional buildings to the street. From both a historical AND an architectural standpoint, they are worth preserving. And like I've already said, most of these old buildings on Yonge are listed historical buildings...they aren't getting torn down.

I think you are just an example of extreme lack of taste. And like someone else already said...thank god people like you aren't calling the shots.






KGB

"Now look at the ROM and AGO. They are both getting modern facelifts because on their own they're dull and boring."


AGO is piecemeal, so another addition doesn't matter. But ROM...you think the two old ROM wings are dull and boring??? I hope you mean the nasty 80's part.






"Urban development is about moving forward and some buildings have to go because of it. When they build 1 Bloor East, they're gonna have to tear down that old and ugly corner (thank God) to put up something new and post-modern (brilliant!). The old Children's Aid has been torn down to make way for a newer, larger structure."


Of course this happens sometimes...but the buildings should be of no historical or architectural...or CONTEXTURAL importance. Those buildings you mentioned do not fall into any of those catagories....the origional Yonge 1860's buildings do.






KGB

I listed examples of what is actually historical and beautiful. Just because those townhouses on Yonge are listed as 'historical' as you say, doesn't mean they should be preserved. They are still townhouses, not castles, or museums, or Roman-looking buildings with giant pillars like the ones near Yonge/Queen -- these are historical!

I dont consider supporting development and cleaning up the city of decaying buildings to be in poor taste. To leave them as is is in poor taste and an embarassment.

Take a look at the shacks that line Yonge between Gerrard and Dundas - do you really feel those buildings are worth preserving?

Dude...I think you are a basket case. I really don't see any point in going back and forth here....I don't think you are going to get it. But hey...you always have Are Be. LOL!!

Does anybody remember the guy a while back who thought Queen West looked like shit, and that ALL the victorian commercial buildings should be torn down and replaced with "modern" buildings?






KGB

Whatever you say "dude"

Yonge south of Bloor = trash.
We can save the facades of these crap buildings, mandate retail at grade, and put some piece of crap, cheap-ass glass towers on top of these run down brick buildings, and - of course- spruce up the original facades!
Improve the look of Toronto by moving past our 'cheap-out' signature look, and instead, embrace the facaded cheap out!

Yonge south of Bloor = trash.

I dunno, I always thought places like Yonge and King to be some of the most architecturally distinguished in the city :) :weirdo: