Lenser
Senior Member
I dunno. That podium still reminds me of a busted accordion. Wish they'd just make it a single tower with a bigger footprint and have it sleekly rise straight from the street, rather than perched on a podium.
- Thread starter ProjectEnd
- Start date
ProjectEnd
Superstar
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not even an attempt to integrate subway access at the P1 Level:
(2 Carlton Architectural Plans)
Tsk tsk - the whole thing is just so underwhelming. And as expected no office component either.
Ground Floor:
3rd to 5th Floor
AoD
(2 Carlton Architectural Plans)
Tsk tsk - the whole thing is just so underwhelming. And as expected no office component either.
Ground Floor:
3rd to 5th Floor
AoD
Attachments
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Well it's doubtful that this is anything more than a value-increase exercise so it doesn't even matter that much. An interesting oversight though since "direct subway access" comes hand in hand with increased value...
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
I'm sure the Planning department will negotiate a TTC entrance. As for commercial office, that's bananas, that's what your podium is for!
Negotiate? Negotiations will start with Planning issuing a refusal report.
42
42
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
And the rationale for two towers isn't convincing - other than to cram the maximum number of units with "a view" into the proposal (nevermind that view is literally 18m away into the next tower).
AoD
ProjectEnd
Superstar
The heritage report, by GBCA (Goldsmith Borgal), states that 2 Carlton is: "neither rare nor unique", has "average artistic merit", "does not showcase any technical/ scientific achievement", and "should therefore not be considered significant."
They conclude with: "The building copies other examples of the same type and period and, if found to be of interest, the most appropriate method of conservation would be by the use of plaques rather than by retention."
Wow Chris, how much did they pay you to write that?
They conclude with: "The building copies other examples of the same type and period and, if found to be of interest, the most appropriate method of conservation would be by the use of plaques rather than by retention."
Wow Chris, how much did they pay you to write that?
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Something else: a 7-storey podium may look awkward next to 14 Carlton. I would like to see more of an effort to match the height and style.
ShonTron
Moderator
There are at least four good reasons why the city should (and will) refuse it:
- Heritage listing (the client's report brushes away legitimate heritage issues)
- No direct subway access, as all major buildings on the subway lines have integrated in their site plans
- No replacement office space
- Poor massing with twin towers too closely spaced together.
This is almost as offensive a proposal as 8 Elm.
- Heritage listing (the client's report brushes away legitimate heritage issues)
- No direct subway access, as all major buildings on the subway lines have integrated in their site plans
- No replacement office space
- Poor massing with twin towers too closely spaced together.
This is almost as offensive a proposal as 8 Elm.
NorthshoreCity
Active Member
This is essentially a cheap version of Harbour Plaza. Same heights except they stuff 72 stories into 233 meters on an undersized site.
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
C'mon now. That beanpole is in a league of its own. At least these towers have significant mass.
smably
Senior Member
This proposal makes a mockery of the planning process. It would clearly never be approved in its current form, and its sole reason for existence is to establish a baseline from which the proponent can "compromise" with the city.
If you're familiar with the concept of the Overton Window, I claim that a similar strategy is at work here: Propose something so obviously ridiculous and outside the bounds of acceptable planning that the eventual result, no matter how flawed, looks moderate and reasonable in comparison.
It's a cynical ploy that wastes staff's time and burns goodwill towards intensification and responsible development.
If you're familiar with the concept of the Overton Window, I claim that a similar strategy is at work here: Propose something so obviously ridiculous and outside the bounds of acceptable planning that the eventual result, no matter how flawed, looks moderate and reasonable in comparison.
It's a cynical ploy that wastes staff's time and burns goodwill towards intensification and responsible development.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Sure, but a mockery of what planning 'process'?
You've got a Planning Department that's so blindly steeped in their own anachronistic sense of what's 'right', it's almost impossible not to propose new things that way. The fact that, in 2016, we still have 'maximum' FSIs of 3-6 ON subway stations is absurd. Even the latest 'as of right' zoning on Eglinton (part of the Eglinton Connects Visioning Study) is so hopelessly below what is sensible both in terms of built form, density and real estate value that most things will still have to apply for rezoning. Another example is the as of right zoning in Etobicoke around Royal York and Bloor: 941-2003 encourages 6 storey buildings but imposes a height limit of 18m and maximum densities of 3 FSI. Hopeless.
You've got a Planning Department that's so blindly steeped in their own anachronistic sense of what's 'right', it's almost impossible not to propose new things that way. The fact that, in 2016, we still have 'maximum' FSIs of 3-6 ON subway stations is absurd. Even the latest 'as of right' zoning on Eglinton (part of the Eglinton Connects Visioning Study) is so hopelessly below what is sensible both in terms of built form, density and real estate value that most things will still have to apply for rezoning. Another example is the as of right zoning in Etobicoke around Royal York and Bloor: 941-2003 encourages 6 storey buildings but imposes a height limit of 18m and maximum densities of 3 FSI. Hopeless.