[Traynor]

Sounds like a pretty simple-minded and dumb tourist to me.

Sounds, too, like if we travelled together in, say, London, you'd be screaming your fool head off at me. That's your problem. Your idea of "metropolis" is strictly penile; mine incorporates the vaginal as well. And if you don't like it, just call me Lorena Bobbitt...

Actually if you read my post it wasn't the tourist's viewpoint I was concerned about. It was the simple minded and dumb friends they were showing the picture to.

And once again Adma, thank you for living down to your usual schoolyard-bully tactics of insulting the poster and not the opinion. Your definitive and absolute knowledge of what people's problems are must come from your privileged position as Universal Sage, who knows all.

Please stick to the issues and leave the personal vitriol on your blog.

 

[alklay]

I am not sure our urban planning should be based upon what 'simple minded and dumb friends' think.

 

[SP!RE]

I'm not sure, maybe I'm just crazy, but wasn't this proposal changed to a smaller tower and a slab, instead of two point towers? Or did I just make that up?

 

[CN Tower]

Please stick to the issues and leave the personal vitriol on your blog.

Yes, please keep the insults to a minimum. It makes for a more enjoyable forum experience.

I find it a fascinating social phenomenon that so many people with seemingly no vested interested form such powerful attachments to their ideal concept of our city's built landscape. Ultimately the land and building belongs to the developer and then the ultimate buyers (many of whom will also be non-residents interestingly) yet those here express an almost possessory right to what a building should look like in form, materials, size, etc.

'I want super tall buildings! I want a wall affect! I want huge density! I want Toronto to look more like a metropolis!'

Why exactly? What craving inside of you (us) does that attempt to satisfy?

None of this should detract from the debate about whether a private developer has any right to obscure the view of a public landmark. That of course is another debate entirely and one that I personally would side with the preservationist camp. After all, lowering the building just a few more floors would probably still leave the project financially viable and generate a respectable return to the developer and his partners. The added density on this site that increases the height almost 50% from its current state is nothing short of a gift in any case. You would think that would be worth preserving the view of a historic landmark that belongs to the people.

 

[Tewder]

... well if you're just going to compromise and use common sense... hmph!

 

[interchange42]

I'm not sure, maybe I'm just crazy, but wasn't this proposal changed to a smaller tower and a slab, instead of two point towers? Or did I just make that up?

There's nothing wrong with being a bit crazy, Spire.

Like I said on the last page, what has been approved are two towers, rising to 133 (south) and 127 (north) metres above street level. For the record, the current building is 33 metres tall.

42

 

[maestro]

^^ouch, my back!!

 

[Architecturefan]

I'm not sure, maybe I'm just crazy, but wasn't this proposal changed to a smaller tower and a slab, instead of two point towers? Or did I just make that up?

That had been suggested as a solution at one point during the process. I guess the logic was to increase the GFA per floor so the height could be shortened. It was ultimately decided that it wasn't a great fit for the site.

 

[Automation Gallery]

There's nothing wrong with being a bit crazy, Spire.

Like I said on the last page, what has been approved are two towers, rising to 133 (south) and 127 (north) metres above street level. For the record, the current building is 33 metres tall.

42

Isnt the current building on this site to be demolished..31 storeys/91 meters

 

[interchange42]

Sorry - I meant to say 93 metres, but I see it's only 92. Oops. Mea culpa!

42

 

[yyzer]

from today's Daily Commercial News, so posted with the usual warning, looks like they got OMB approval, but the city is now appealing....also, there are revised floorcounts for this one....

MIXED USE BUILDINGS Proj: 9119446-3
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON PREPARING PLANS
21 Avenue Rd, Cumberland Ave, M5R 2G1
$70,000,000 est

Note: City Council official Plan and rezoning approvals are in place. Concept planning is underway. Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approvals regarding height variances were secured Fall, 2010 but have been appealed. Owner expects schedules for Working drawings, will be finalized early 2011. Tender and construction schedules are undetermined. Further update Spring, 2011.

Project: proposed construction of a mixed-use building. The project will consist of two condominium towers above a three-storey podium with retail uses at grade. The northern building will be 28 storeys and the southern tower will be 40 storeys. The project will include demolition of the existing Four Seasons Hotel and Resort on the site.
Scope: 62,165 m²; 40 storeys; 3 storeys below grade; 2 structures; 383 units; parking for 500 cars; 1 acres

Development: New
Category: Apartment bldgs; Retail, wholesale services

 

[Automation Gallery]

Dont get it, looks like they have chopped it down..

 

[Mongo]

Yes, it looks like a very considerable height reduction, from 48 and 58 storeys to 28 and 40 storeys. And the City still plans to challenge it?

 

[Architecturefan]

The Daily Commercial News report appears to be using out of date information. The heights in the report reflect a previous proposal that would have consisted of two slab style towers as a means of reducing the height. Ultimately the City and Menkes agreed on a height of 127 metres and 133 metres (including mechanical) that was subsequently approved by the Board. The appeal is not from the City but is an appeal of the Board decision by the legislative assembly appeal.

 

[Peepers]

I don't understand how it makes economic sense to tear down a 31 storey building to erect a 28 storey condo. Think of how much the demolition of the Four Seasons will cost. Of course the new building will have higher ceiling heights but at a huge premium when you factor in the cost of demolition. I think it would be better to convert the existing Tower into Condos. The units will not have high ceilings but there will be the added prestige of living in a building which has been home to most of the famous people who have visited Toronto over the last 30 years. From an architectural standpoint the Four Seasons is one of the finest buildings of its time.