ProjectEnd said:
What could / would the City do? You can try and capture things in an SPA but at the end of the day, it's not Planning or Urban Design who comes by to inspect at the end, it's Toronto Buildings. And they may care about aesthetics the least out of any department. The Beer Store on Danforth, for example...
Click to expand...

I know they've used S. 37 as a legal convenience to secure certain architectural guarantees in the past..........

That's certainly a cumbersome way to go about it...........

Is there any limitation on using the latter (before it morphs into CBAs, anyway).....in that respect?

Has it proven effective in the past when they've done that....... ?
 
It's only ever been secured with Westbank at Honest Ed's, IIRC. Happy to be educated about others, if you know of them.

At the end of the day, a given developer would need to agree to that term, and if they don't, there's not much the City can do about it. Even if I wanted my project to be the best it possibly could be, I'd never agree to such a provision.
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's only ever been secured with Westbank at Honest Ed's, IIRC. Happy to be educated about others, if you know of them.

At the end of the day, a given developer would need to agree to that term, and if they don't, there's not much the City can do about it. Even if I wanted my project to be the best it possibly could be, I'd never agree to such a provision.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of Forma (ie. Gehry towers on King); this is in the By-law:

1650394314513.png


Source: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2017/law1480.pdf

I know I've seen similar on a couple of other proposals, its not common; on the others, I don't recall ever seeing the specific architect named.
 
My comments were very much pie in the sky dreaming, guess I'm just tired of fantastic renders being trotted out then ending up with the same old dreck.
 
egotrippin said:
My comments were very much pie in the sky dreaming, guess I'm just tired of fantastic renders being trotted out then ending up with the same old dreck.
Click to expand...
People seem to be forgetting that the developer going forward with this is not the one that started the ball rolling here, so even as a developer is already allowed to change architects and designs after the zoning is in place, it's even more likely that another developer having bought the site is going to bring their own team in to complete the development. Unless on those incredibly rare occasions when a particular architectural firm's drawings are linked to the ZBA, you can't stop the owner of the site from going after a redesign.

42
 
Still haven't seen any docs stating that a portion of this project is rental now that Fitzrovia and AIMco are involved, however, on the Fitzrovia site this project is now listed with three of the six market towers mentioned.

1651779859089.png
 
The bad news: this is, of course, a huge step down from the original HPA design. Looks like we're getting lots of messy window wall with waist height mullions and an oversized spandrel crown on top.

The good news: curved glass?
 
smably said:
The bad news: this is, of course, a huge step down from the original HPA design. Looks like we're getting lots of messy window wall with waist height mullions and an oversized spandrel crown on top.

The good news: curved glass?
Click to expand...
You can bet that curved glass will be the first thing to be value engineered out of the final product lol
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top