- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
drum118
Superstar
Nov 05
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
What does the second part of that minor var concern? Does that mean they are looking to shorten or decrease office space? (build space requirements?) Does this mean the office portion is next? hmmm..
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
If they wanted to make it smaller would they need to file to change the building envelope? (I honestly don't know and hoping someone can inform me)
Does this mean we may get something other than a box?
Does this mean we may get something other than a box?
Mongo
Senior Member
I got several things from that notice. One, Lanterra is moving ahead with planning for the office tower, so it might actually get built sometime this decade.
Two, they want to change the building envelope. They would not need to do this if they made changes to the design that remain "inside" the existing envelope (see 501 Yonge for an example of this), so I have to assume that at least part of the redesigned building extends beyond the approved envelope. My best guess is that the new design is taller and more slender than the approved design.
I do not know what altering the "build-to requirements" is about. It could be that they want to reduce (or increase) the total area, but it could also mean that they want to change some other feature, such as the location or number of loading docks.
Two, they want to change the building envelope. They would not need to do this if they made changes to the design that remain "inside" the existing envelope (see 501 Yonge for an example of this), so I have to assume that at least part of the redesigned building extends beyond the approved envelope. My best guess is that the new design is taller and more slender than the approved design.
I do not know what altering the "build-to requirements" is about. It could be that they want to reduce (or increase) the total area, but it could also mean that they want to change some other feature, such as the location or number of loading docks.
Last edited:
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Here is a bit of info that might help clarify
16 YORK ST
File Number: A0571/11TEY Zoning CR BLOCK 9 Site Specific
By-law 494-2009 (Waiver) Owner: BLOCK 9A DEVELOPMENTS LTD Ward: Trinity-Spadina (20) Agent: KIM KOVAR
AIRD & BERLIS Property Address: 16 YORK ST Community: Toronto Legal Description: PLAN 536E PT BLKS C D E PLAN 657E PT BLK 1 PT LAKE ST RP 66R19003
PART 1
PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION:
To alter the re-development plan for a 32-storey office building, with retail at grade, approved under Site Specific By-law 494-2009, to decrease the required number of parking spaces in the office building and to alter the building envelope and build-to requirements relating to the building face and retail/service uses.
REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
1. Section 16.8.(e)(vii), By-law 494-2009
The minimum of 332 parking spaces shall be provided in a non-residential building on parcel 3. In this case, a minimum of 238 parking spaces will be provided.
2. Section 16.8.(e)(vi), By-law 494-2009
The minimum of 332 parking spaces shall be provided in a non-residential building on parcel 3, the 60
parking spaces required by subparagraph (vi) may be provided for use by residents or visitors to parcels
1, 2 and 3.
In this case, a minimum of 238 parking spaces will be provided.
3. Section 10.2.(b)(ii), By-law 494-2009
The portion of the building above elevation 93.5 m to be located within an envelope defined by the distance shown on Alternate Maps 4 and 20 requires a west side yard setback of 13.0 m on parcel 3. In this case, the portion of the building above elevation 93.5 m will have a setback of 2.8 m.
4. Section 8, By-law 494-2009
The maximum non-residential gross floor area of 74,513 m² provided street related retail and service uses shall occupy at least 40% of the length of the building face as shown by the heavy line on Alternate Map 10 (128 m). In this case, the non-residential gross floor area of 74,503 m² is proposed and street related retail and service uses will occupy 38% (50 m) of the length of the building face on parcel 3.
5. Section 16.8.(c), By-law 494-2009
Commercial space on the main floor of the building on parcel 3 shall have a combined width of not less
than 40% (29 m) of the building frontage on Bremner Boulevard.
In this case, the minimum width will be 26% (19 m) of the building frontage on Bremner Boulevard.
6. Section 12(iv), By-law 494-2009
An area of the exterior face of the main floor of the building located within the Build To Zone on Alternate Map 5 is equal to at least 90% (409 m²) of the area determined by multiplying the length of the Build To Zone and the height of the main floor of the building. In this case, the exterior face of the main floor of the building within the Build To Zone will have an area equal to 82% (374 m²).
Big Daddy
Senior Member
^ Ahhh, I see. Well, that clears that up.
Platform 27
Active Member
^ Am I correct in translating from Variancese to English if I conclude they
a) want to make the building about 10m wider; and
b) want to not have as much retail frontage as was originally required?
a) want to make the building about 10m wider; and
b) want to not have as much retail frontage as was originally required?
Mongo
Senior Member
Indeed, although it appears that the total retail area would remain almost the same (74,503 square metres versus 74,513 square metres), but I assume in narrower, deeper units.
Atlantis
Active Member
well, it's certainly going to be connected to Infinity 3 (and possibly 4)... considering that it was advertised by Infinity... and if you check out the draft plan - http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/path_draftmasterplan.pdf page 51 - you'll see that it does goto Infinity amongst other immediate & future options. Where it will is another story...
I think I may have figured out how they're going to connect Infinity 3/4 to ICE via a PATH connection. When I attended the PATH Master Plan study, and reported on what I heard, http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/11/path-master-plan-study-look-future-vision-pedestrian-system they were talking about some kind of above ground connection between both complexes, and the Master Plan working diagram shows some form of connection along the south edge of the properties.
I took a walk around the site today to take some photos. Looking south between both buildings from Grand Trunk Crescent, you can see what might turn out to be the PATH connection they were talking about. Looks like two at-grade covered walkways meeting halfway between both buildings, probably right on the property line.
A few pics from the south:
And a few more pics to update ICE:
4grand
Active Member
Are they still planning on those Swiss cheese roof panels? I hope not; they look ridiculous as is, but with a spot front and centre in the skyline, I fear that it will add a new dimension of tackiness that Toronto, while working steadily towards it with the repugnant buildings from the past decade, hasn't yet experienced (suffered through). These cheap, tawdry, glass clones will have as much worth and aesthetic value in thirty years as the Brutalist buildings do today...
Automation Gallery
Superstar
steveve
Senior Member
i too find the roofs a bit gimmicy... these roof features are like gibson square on steroids... maybe a lot of it is because i haven't seen too many renders of the roof feature...
can anyone post some pictures of the model at the sales centre?
can anyone post some pictures of the model at the sales centre?
junctionist
Senior Member
Brutalist buildings often have a lot of aesthetic value. I sincerely hope that the tops of the Ice towers seen in the renderings will be built without compromises because they're a playful touch of architectural creativity that will help give these towers identity. The tops will be a memorable architectural gesture in a neighbourhood that has too many forgettable towers without any character. It's in a very visible location where every tower should have some interesting architectural features for identity.
+1 junctionist.
42
42