iirc, there aren't any east facing units in the first building

What's on the site today is 3 storeys, but its not a 'limit' because its not limited to 3 storeys under the as of right zoning - you could build something up to 18 metres high without any need for an amendment. What I said was in response to you saying it was 'regulated' at 3 floors, which just...

Well first of all, its not currently regulated to 3 floors. The zoning for the site allows a height of 18 metres which would allow a 5-6 storey building. Even so, I'm not sure how you can say the City agrees that either 3 floors or the 5-6 floors it already allows is a proper limit since the...

Not sure if its been mentioned yet, but Council's decision was appealed to the OMB

Not sure if anyones mentioned this yet but Zeidler are the architects

Agreed.. and to answer your question the building is designated heritage under the Heritage Act

It is if the existing apartment building is rental, which it appears to be. There's a policy in the Official Plan that applies when 6 or more rental units are proposed to be removed and requires that the rental units must be replaced within the new development.

gristle, I have to respectfully disagree with most of that. First, I don't think its fair to blame the Board for approving Charlie (if that's what your implying happened) when there was never a contested Board hearing for the application. Secondly, its not really fair to blame the Board for...

Not sure if this has been confirmed somewhere in this thread, but as others have speculated, aA is the architect.

To be fair I've never done this myself, but it's my understanding that once an application has been submitted to the City it is available to the public. I think the deal is you can view material at City Hall but you can't take anything with you or make copies. For this application new City Hall...

If they've submitted a rezoning there should be elevations on file at the City. For all those up and arms about the yet-to-be-seen architecture of the building, it might be worth a trip to City Hall to take a look. As much as I haven't been the biggest fan of P+S in the past, I was actually...

Architect is Page and Steele (IBI Group). The 58 storeys includes the 5 storey base, which incorporates the existing art deco building.

In fairness I'm not exactly sure why the variance is required but a reduction in the calculated GFA wouldn't reduce the outdoor amenity space requirement since the amount required by the by-law is a function of the number of units in the building rather than a ratio to the GFA. So it either...

The parking variance is just a technicality, it doesn't reflect any change to the building.

Now would probably be a good time to point out that City Council actually voted to approve the development prior to the hearing. The City came onside after several concessions by the developer to address their concerns regarding the view corridor - including reducing the height from 58 and 48...

I agree with all of this but I think it should be a matter of finding a balance. There's a public benefit to heritage preservation just as there's also a public benefit to allowing the site to redevelopment. Effectively prohibiting any redevelopment of the site by saying the building can not be...

Those stats reflect the original proposal prior to the revisions made throughout the approvals process and at the Board. I think the 52 storeys shown in the thread title is still accurate.

Just got word that Diamond and Schmidt are the architects

Specifically, the S.37 agreement dedicates a contribution of $2,000,000 to the park and streetscape improvements. Also included in the S. 37 agreement is a requirement to provide future PATH connections (not that that's news I don't think).

It belongs to Water Front Toronto, so far as I know. They did a land swap with Cityzen so they'd be able to put a park/'promenade' along the Yonge Street slip.