News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Is there a recent article (or similar) to support this conjecture? Either way, to the people who seem to know something about it, could you clarify the boundaries? Are you referring to the block illustrated here:

Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 9.58.30 AM.png


If so, I'm skeptical that all of that area would be subject to such a masterplan, as it includes some developments that have already been approved as-is, and of course many other properties that aren't candidates for redevelopment.

Still, the optimist in me wants to believe there's a larger-scale plan afoot (my mind is optimistically corroborating this conjecture with the holdup in the approved Holts/50BSW project). I also wonder about: 27 Yorkville/50 Cumberland, Scotia branch at Balmuto & Bloor, CIBC building at Yonge & Bloor, 60BSW, etc. And then outside the area represented above, I wonder about the adjoining buildings at 80BSW and the recently sold 1200 Bay, and then jumping east, the entire HBC Centre complex.

All that's to say, there's certainly a ton of property begging for redevelopment and the neighbourhood could really use a more cohesive plan—it'd be great if that's indeed the case, but I'd love to see some more sources on the subject.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 9.58.30 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 9.58.30 AM.png
    425.3 KB · Views: 1,209
Planning a neighbourhood doesn't make any sense? It's in the best interest of both the developers and the city. I think it was KWT that asked the developers to get together after the majority of the two blocks were slated for redevelopment. The competition is being run by the developers. It's really no different than having a masterplan for the waterfront, except in this case buildings already exist.

What doesn't make sense is that you did not provide a boundary that makes sense. It was confusing. Also, the City doesn't have the authority to master-plan this or to "push" for anything here. It's all privately owned, and by different owners. Your original post just doesn't make sense.

I will admit that your post above makes a lot more sense.
 
Well, the City technically can master plan the entire area - it does have the authority. Its planning jurisdiction extends to privately-owned lands. I'm guessing that what you mean is that a master planning exercise makes a lot more sense for sites that are expected to be redeveloped in the near future, rather than sites that are already built out and/or subject to recent planning approvals.
 
Yeah, that's right—think along the lines of what the city did with the waterfront. A pseudo-political body such as Waterfront TO wouldn't necessarily be the route pursued under this scenario, but there's definitely a world in which the city could establish an overall area masterplan and require developers to build within its constructs. Until we see some sort of corroboration, though, all we have to go on in that regard is conjecture from a contributor to this thread, but it would be great if that person is correct!
 
I can't speak to the architects' involved or detailed proposals; but its not really all that secret that the City has been having 'discussions' over how to achieve certain planning objectives.

Go back and read the various approvals of area developments and you'll see several of the ideas mentioned.

(hints: View Corridor, Lanes/Mews)

No guarantees of this all coming together..........but if it does..........I think people will be very pleased.
 
The area inside the box was what was described to me, though it's from a second hand source. I can't clarify any further until drawings leak. I understand the city pushed the developers to work together - the city isn't running the competition. 5 international architects have been invited to compete - what exactly they are competing for is a bit unclear at this point (public realm, built form, or both). Obviously stuff that is under construction isn't going to be affected. I can only guess this is a push towards a development like the waterfront plans, the distillery, or the globe and mail lands. Though seeing as developers are commitment-phobes, I'm guessing we'll see this when we see OMA's plans for the Unilever lands or Fosters for the Keating channel's.
 
I can't speak to the architects' involved or detailed proposals; but its not really all that secret that the City has been having 'discussions' over how to achieve certain planning objectives.
The City has been pushing the developers to cooperate for a few years, and now that KingSett owns half of it, it'll be a lot easier to get cooperation from fewer owners. What's new is the design competish that Josh has heard about.

42
 
Last edited:
Pending design approval sounds like they want the old University Theatre facade (i.e. Pottery Barn), which is a heritage facade. Or am I reading too much into it?

Who's the Italian retailer taking over Sephora's old spot? Ferragamo?
 
Definitely reading too much into it - 'pending project design approval' could mean just about anything. Could be the Pottery Barn, could be 1 Bloor West, could be the Hudson's Bay space for all we know.
 

Back
Top