ushahid
Senior Member
^cant read the article. it's asking for subscription.
Is that another way of saying this development might block your neighbours and your view?The position of your proposed 59 story tower could jeopardize the development of surroundings sites. We don't want this tower in our neighborhood. Get Out !
The heritage building at 100 Simcoe has been identified as a "contributing property" in the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District (HCD) and will have to stay! The position of your proposed 59 story tower could jeopardize the development of surroundings sites. We don't want this tower in our neighborhood. Get Out !
Cool.The heritage building at 100 Simcoe has been identified as a "contributing property" in the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District (HCD) and will have to stay!
Why are you addressing this complaint to "you" as if anyone on the forum has any say over this development? Who is "we" and how did you get appointed to speak for them? Who are you telling to "get out"? I have so many questions.The position of your proposed 59 story tower could jeopardize the development of surroundings sites. We don't want this tower in our neighborhood. Get Out !
I'm sure there were people who didn't want your building in their neighborhood when it was built. What would you say to them?The heritage building at 100 Simcoe has been identified as a "contributing property" in the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District (HCD) and will have to stay! The position of your proposed 59 story tower could jeopardize the development of surroundings sites. We don't want this tower in our neighborhood. Get Out !
The Appellant informed that whereas the original plan for the Subject Site included a provision to demolish the existing building at 100 Simcoe Street, based on the discussions and negotiations with the City, the proposal is being revised to treat this site as having potential heritage attributes. The approach is to save as much of the building at 100 Simcoe Street as feasible architecturally and economically. This has become the central outstanding issue for the parties both in terms of heritage preservation, and possible costs to be incurred by the Appellant to achieve such objectives.
The City informed that it had actively participated in constructive negotiations with the Appellant. The draft of possible agreement between the parties in this matter will be presented first to the Toronto Preservation Board and then to the Toronto and East York Community Council. The City Council is subsequently scheduled to decide on a settlement proposal at a meeting to be held on July 22- 23, 2020.
The Counsel for 217 Adelaide Holdings Ltd. confirmed the Appellant’s assertion that they have entered into a mutual non-objection agreement. The development at 217 Adelaide Street West is adjacent to the proposal in this appeal. As a result, the Issues List in the draft PO would be further scoped when the PO is finalized.
There's a new owner and architect here too. Can't say much more than that at this point though.