skorji said:
Actually, the mechanical penthouse of the 12 storey building is wrapped within the 12th storey, adjacent to the penthouse units. The elements projecting off of the roof are, or were originally, intended to be lounge / outdoor bar spaces related to the amenity area.
Click to expand...

I think you are right, most of the mechanicals are within the 39.5m main roof line, but the additional 3m are for accessing the amenity area with permanent stairwells or the elevator. The spaces are likely similar to the ones on Victory Condos. Don't forget then that the as-of-rights are 28m total, including any wraps of mechanicals or stairwells. The City doesnt differentiate in their review whether its a stairwell or mechanical penthouse or elevator overrun - its still total height.
 
Automation Gallery said:
From what i understand, height restrictions have been violated over and over through out the years in this King Spadina secondary plan, here you go.....http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/king_spadina_final_pt4_f.pdf
Click to expand...

Absolutely, no one is arguing that point. Its the step up in height to above the "normal" violation of 32-34m and zero setback that everyone is unhappy about. The whole plan is in shambles now and a new course must be decided upon by whomever is in charge now.
 
Due to allowances for Festival Tower and the subsequent OMB challenges for additional height in the area (M5V), the east precinct Of King-Spadina became the subject of new planing study in 2008.

http://www.ward20.ca/AV-upload/KingSpadinaApr20.pdf

Developments in that part of K-S are now generally guided by an angular plane in height that drops off from Festival Tower in all directions (towards Queen, Spadina, Wellington and Sincoe). So far, most proposals have fallen into that guideline. The 28 metre height limit is dead there.

The west precinct is still defined by the earlier planning approach, but as noted by SpadinaBus, there has been a successive degree of heigh creep. Projects like 621 King Street, 560 King Street and 544 King Street have all been granted additional height by way of OMB decisions. There are more developments to come. 620 King Street will no doubt return one day as a development proposal, the lot on the corner of Bathurst and Adelaide is in play, and possibly one other property is to be developed - and that's just on one block.

The constant challenges to city planning guidelines by the OMB leave the process in shambles. It's not so much that city planning is dysfunctional, it's that the OMB has made it dysfunctional. The city needs to take planning far more seriously otherwise the process will be further undermined.
 
Last edited:
A sad day for me? Actually, a sad day for the city. What you obviously don't comprehend is that the city plan is being destroyed by the OMB. The secondary plan for the area is now wrecked because the OMB ruled on opinions regarding architectural merit and not on whether this building made any sense with respect to the context of the neighbourhood. It rejected the the views of the democratically elected city councillor, it rejected the recommendations of the city planning department, rejected the city plan and rejected the concerns of the local residents who expressed concerns about this project. What you don't understand - or could not care less about - is that the city plan was passed by city council through a democratic process. The OMB appointee - who is most definitely not an expert in city planning or in architecture - exceeded that process. He wasn't elected, but his own personal opinion ends up mattering more than anything or anyone else. That's a ludicrous approach to city building.

It appears that too many people get wrapped up in a skyscraper fetish that they lose the bigger picture - that the developers are getting the sole say on how the city evolves. And as a resident of that neighbourhood, I happen to dislike that a lone provincial appointee can have so much power so as to undermine the city planning efforts of the most populace city in Canada. Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America that maintains such a body, and it is a detriment to the city. It's definitely not planning.
Click to expand...

The constant challenges to city planning guidelines by the OMB leave the process in shambles. It's not so much that city planning is dysfunctional, it's that the OMB has made it dysfunctional. The city needs to take planning far more seriously otherwise the process will be further undermined.
Click to expand...

If not operating on the basis of the city plan, what does the OMB work by? Opinions? Pay-offs?
Click to expand...

Why we need the OMB more than ever

But, for all the complaints about it, the board plays at least one critical role. It is the last line of defence against rampant Nimbyism.

More....http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...mb-more-than-ever/article1939597/?from=sec385
 
Its great when those with an opinion HIDE behind the nimbyism claim. Its much easier to throw those stones than understanding what is really going on, especially in this case for Thompson Residences.
 
SpadinaBus said:
Its great when those with an opinion HIDE behind the nimbyism claim. Its much easier to throw those stones than understanding what is really going on, especially in this case for Thompson Residences.
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe so in this situation, but with all due respect, Nimbyism is an actual problem often that means the buildings that should get built in order to grow the city in the right ways get passed over, so lets not say its simply a claim when it is obviously more than just a claim thrown about. Although I do agree it can be easily overused or misused in some situations, and I see your point about this specific project.
 
Gee's article suggests that nimbyism is somehow "rampant," but he offers no evidence. He merely states a personal point of view that it is. It's idiotic to assume the everyone who opposes a specific development is a nimby. In the case of Thompson Residences, the city opposed the project. Are city planners then nimbys? Is the city plan and the secondary plan for the area "nimbyistic?"

Remember, OMB members are NOT planning experts. They are political appointees who get the last say over what gets built - even if it contravenes the city plan, the secondary plan and the opinions of the people who live in the neighbourhood - who are residents and citizens of the city. Points of view have to be considered on their merit, and not through an automatic negative labeling of the people expressing opposition to a specific development.
 
Last edited:
Construction coming soon!!

http://www.smtp14.com/itracEmail/view?uuid=738843b1-00fa-4ccb-b691-b9490954aeb9

img_01.jpg
 
I may be alone on this, but does anyone else find this design a bit ugly? I mean, it's interesting and all, and kudos to Freed for trying to do something out of the ordinary, but I just don't find it appealing.

Mostly, though, I'm disappointed he didn't keep the old motel and ironic it up along the lines of the Standard in LA.
 
One thing is for sure, construction is NOT coming soon. So long as court action is proceeding, and until any possible favourable decision is rendered, this project is dead in the water. Not one permit will be released from the city. If an unfavourable decision rendered, it is back to square one for the developer.
 
marcus_a_j said:
I doubt it, this would be an Adam Vaughan thing.
Click to expand...

And Adam Vaughan is hardly a nimby.

Also note that the motion was adopted by council.

My guess is that the city has noted the fact that the OMB decision reads like the opinions and musings of the adjudicator, and makes no reference whatsoever to the city's secondary plan.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top