When looking for a place to live, most people would avoid a boarded-up convenience store brimming with junk, or a makeshift church overrun with mice. Other people—like the owners of these resolutely urbane houses—would consider themselves bestowed with a real estate blessing. These unique living spaces are all former commercial storefronts, with massive showroom windows smack dab at street level. The perks? Lots of space, lots of light and a reasonably priced downtown address. The catch? Waving at passersby from the breakfast table.
Good grief. Yet more TL rich-person’s house porn. Who exactly do you think lives like this, aside from a select few? Way to ‘reflect’ the city. The mag has been getting consistently out of touch with reality. I quit.
March 2, 2011 at 4:43 pm | by Kate C.Hear hear…I couldn’t agree more
March 2, 2011 at 8:39 pm | by Kevin wongIt may not reflect the average Toronto citizen, but I don’t think anyone would pay for a magazine to check out an Ikea-furnished bungalow in Etobicoke. Calm down.
March 3, 2011 at 12:44 am | by dmzdmz – I would pay for a magazine like that!
As an apartment dweller for many years (and think will do the same for many more years) I think it would be great if they profiled apartment units in one of their issues though.
I can take ideas from anywhere but seeing something familiar would make me a happier reader, that’s for sure.
March 3, 2011 at 6:15 am | by zkreverything in Toronto Life Magazine is expensive so that is why I ended my subscription
I would like an article on how to manage all your stuff in a small apartment
March 3, 2011 at 7:22 am | by asOh, how I hate it when a duplex, archecturally designed to look like one structure is ruined because the two owners can’t get together and decide on a colour that will maintain the intended look….this place just looks like hell to me which is why I would never buy a duplex unless it was in the contract that the two half had to remain visually as one….Why preserve this property then ruin it.
March 3, 2011 at 8:29 am | by TIM DEVLINgreat inside but get creative with the exterior and inspire your neighbours to do the same.
March 3, 2011 at 8:30 am | by TIM DEVLINwait, you WANT to see interiors that look like the ones you live in? good god, why? that’s like electing Rob Ford mayor because, well, he’s just like you…oh wait.
(aspire to bigger things, friends.)
March 3, 2011 at 10:35 pm | by whoaThe irony of some the comments above is that this particular project was completed on a shoe-string budget. Just because it looks good, it does not mean that it costs a lot – this is a common misconception. (The photography of the space costs a lot, which of course helps it look good.) The captions list all the elements received from friends, recycled, made by the owners, picked up from the street, left behind by the previous owners – all factors that make the space and the stuff within more interesting and of course affordable. The raw plywood wall should be the biggest clue!
March 3, 2011 at 11:32 pm | by Not rich designerCongrats to the owners but it is just more Californication of the city…
March 4, 2011 at 4:40 pm | by WalterPas long as the price is right …why not …Canadians have imagination …better than renting..this is recycling history..
March 5, 2011 at 5:50 pm | by Brian5427awesome article, very inspiring and innovative. keep up the great work.
March 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm | by aishaI used to live in a storefront. It was my sister’s former art gallery but then she had two babies and I moved in. She bought that building for an amazing price, worked her butt off to turn it from a rather disgusting pit into a stunning, sunny home. It took imagination, inspiration and lots of hard work. The whole family pitched in! That’s exactly what this article is about. Finding inspiration. Don’t just look at it as something too expensive you’ll never acquire it. Look at their use of colour, the different woods they’ve combined and find inspiration to change your space into something beautiful.
March 10, 2011 at 12:57 am | by SharlanneSomehow I don’t think “Kate C.” will deny herself the opportunity to repeat her complaints, which seem to boil down to demanding articles about uninteresting homes. Exactly how does a $175,000 home qualify as “rich-person’s house porn”?
Personally, I think these homes show imaginative solutions to problem sites.
March 15, 2011 at 8:45 am | by Ben LawsonI also own a downtown storefront conversion. It’s very inspiring to see what others have done with them!
April 5, 2011 at 4:27 pm | by Kristen