thecharioteer
Senior Member
Getting back to basics: who is the applicant?
|
|
|
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
DSC
Superstar
Apparently it is all the property owners, led by the Albany Club. One suspects that if they ever get something approved (and it`s not likely to be 47 floors) they might then sell to a developer.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
neubilder
Banned
No kidding....Welcome to the forum urban, i dont think anywhere does it say these buildings will be demolished, and we definitely here on UT dont want to see them razed.
You know very well im against knocking any of these historical buildings down, but you just want an argument
How many masks do you wear AG?
RC8
Senior Member
What he says sounds reasonably consistent with wanting a 47 story building built in the parking lot behind the historical structures (while leaving the old buildings themselves standing).
Platform 27
Active Member
Except everything we've read suggests that's not what's afoot.
The parking lot behind is five separate parcels: 46, 54, 56, 60 and 70 Colbourne. Four of those five, 54 - 70, along with 101 King around the corner, are already spoken to for Freed's proposed 60 Colboune project (development app, forum thread). That leaves 46 Colbourne. And there hasn't been a whiff of a mention of that address in the development application, just the King parcels.
adma
Superstar
I wouldn't be surprised if the Albany Club has, over time, discouraged "heritage talk" re these addresses. (And *please*, don't take that as a political statement.)
I can't recall if this has been posted in the thread yet. (And I don't want to dredge back through all that brockm drivel to verify.)
I can't recall if this has been posted in the thread yet. (And I don't want to dredge back through all that brockm drivel to verify.)
valkoholic
Active Member
The proposal is just the King parcels. No parking lots were harmed in the making of this film.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
gristle
Senior Member
Yeah, but neubilder and gristle dont like to see much tall development in this city, and will always find ways to make me look like some kind of a anti-heritage, supertall fantasizer! LOL
Since you've defined yourself, let me point out to you - yet again - that I am not opposed to tall buildings. I am opposed to poorly located tall buildings and poorly designed tall buildings.
It's not at all clear on this thread if you support this proposal with respect to the demolition of the existing buildings. It is clear that you support it solely because it's tall.
neubilder
Banned
Yeah, but neubilder and gristle dont like to see much tall development in this city, and will always find ways to make me look like some kind of a anti-heritage, supertall fantasizer! LOL
I've asked you before, do not speak for me regarding my likes or dislikes.
Last edited:
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Right-on, vice versa
neubilder
Banned
I don't speak for you, I point out the contradictory and non-nonsensical nature of your posts.
67Cup
Active Member
I will admit that being associated with Rand is a bit of a sensitive issue for me. It happens almost every day.
Secondly, I admit to being very prone to not behaving well when people openly question my integrity. It is like kryptonite for my calm.
Also, I am intentionally ignoring what appears to be a cleverly executed way of characterizing me as a poorly adjusted person.
Good enough. I certainly don't want to get into unnecessary internet fights.
Peace?
gristle
Senior Member
Neubilder was citing your words. That should have been blatantly obvious.