I think Prince Arthur qualifies as a highrise appropriate periphery street that does not interfere with the context of the SFD housing of the inner grid of Annex streets. We need more projects like this geared towards keeping the moneyed downtown.
 
Adi Developments has appealed this to the OMB owing to the lack of a decision from the City, before ever having a community consultation.

To that end, Adi are holding a community evening at the Intercontinental Hotel on Feb 21, at 6:30 PM.

42
 
https://twitter.com/AnnexResidents/status/966403400798674945

DWlabW5XcAAO_Ir.jpg


And Joe is against it - https://twitter.com/joe_cressy/status/966407375509970944
 
Dear Councillor Cressy:

I was saddened to hear that you will not be supporting this development.

While I appreciate it is taller than its neighbors, I've always had trouble understanding that as a sticking point in itself, though I appreciate that this is the most common refrain of anti-housing groups.

We need to build more housing in the Annex. While I'm a huge proponent of social housing requirements in new builds, the vast majority of housing is delivered through the market, and not through subsidized housing. I appreciate that this project is geared to wealthier end-users, but constraining supply through restrictive zoning affects would-be residents at all entry points.

In the post-OMB world (though I understand that this development remains within the former regime), I view it as more important than ever for our elected local officials to stand up for housing and to stand up against the same, entrenched, propertied NIMBY voices that cry foul over anything that would seem to unsettle a status quo heavily skewed in their favour.

The area is well served by transit, is already surrounded by tall buildings, has good neighborhood amenities and is an ideal place for density. The shadowing impacts, while not non-existent, appear modest.

This project doesn't fit the mould of a developer looking to squeeze margins from a spandrel-covered, value engineered condo, like other recent projects (including other high end developments) in the area and Yorkville.

This building moreover raises the architectural language of the whole community. It has an expressive, sinuous and elegant built form, Much of the sophistication of the design would be lost if the building was rendered squat or if zoning restrictions meant that its architectural flourishes would need to be neutered in order to make the project viable.

In any event, I know that the fate of this proposal is still very much in the air and I look forward to closely watching how this proceeds. I would love for this bar-raising project to find a local champion.
 
bilked said:
Dear Councillor Cressy:

I was saddened to hear that you will not be supporting this development.

While I appreciate it is taller than its neighbors, I've always had trouble understanding that as a sticking point in itself, though I appreciate that this is the most common refrain of anti-housing groups.

We need to build more housing in the Annex. While I'm a huge proponent of social housing requirements in new builds, the vast majority of housing is delivered through the market, and not through subsidized housing. I appreciate that this project is geared to wealthier end-users, but constraining supply through restrictive zoning affects would-be residents at all entry points.

In the post-OMB world (though I understand that this development remains within the former regime), I view it as more important than ever for our elected local officials to stand up for housing and to stand up against the same, entrenched, propertied NIMBY voices that cry foul over anything that would seem to unsettle a status quo heavily skewed in their favour.

The area is well served by transit, is already surrounded by tall buildings, has good neighborhood amenities and is an ideal place for density. The shadowing impacts, while not non-existent, appear modest.

This project doesn't fit the mould of a developer looking to squeeze margins from a spandrel-covered, value engineered condo, like other recent projects (including other high end developments) in the area and Yorkville.

This building moreover raises the architectural language of the whole community. It has an expressive, sinuous and elegant built form, Much of the sophistication of the design would be lost if the building was rendered squat or if zoning restrictions meant that its architectural flourishes would need to be neutered in order to make the project viable.

In any event, I know that the fate of this proposal is still very much in the air and I look forward to closely watching how this proceeds. I would love for this bar-raising project to find a local champion.
Click to expand...

Extremely well said, and good on you for sending that to the councillor (assuming that's what you did or plan to do). As someone who grew up in the Annex, I say thanks.
 
Yes, nicely done. Not sure Cressy will care about your critique of spandrel and value-engineering (although perhaps he ought to) but in the main you make excellent points about why the project should go ahead as is.
 
I really don't get what's so irresistibly marvelous about this architecture. And I doubt that the condo will reliably look like the rendering. How can anyone be so sure that it won't be 'value engineered', since that seems to be one of the main arguments for it?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top