Northern Light said:
It does not appear to have reached a preliminary report in its latest incarnation.

I don't see it listed with the OLT either.

Nor has any Site Plan been filed.

So the shorter answer would have been 'No' I don't have an update.
Click to expand...
City Planning is not doing preliminary reports any longer, as part of the Bill 109-promoted acceleration of the approvals process.
 
abbasto said:
So, any updates on this project ?
Click to expand...

It's generally considered bad form to bump a thread in this fashion; as typically, where there's something new to share, someone here at UT shares it.

That said............as it so happens...........

There is news.

And a lot of it. said news, incoming, momentarily.

@Paclo is flagged

Renders:

1713893722663.png


1713893790013.png

1713893816876.png


1713893854949.png

1713893889580.png


From the Cover Letter and Planning Report:
1713893436929.png

1713893464558.png

1713893494482.png


1713893558194.png

1713893574420.png


My observations:

I like it; ALOT.

Colour; boldness and really nice public realm!
 
Last edited:
Koops65 said:
How tall are those shorter towers?
Click to expand...

There are two sets of two towers each, at 110 and 150 respectively.

There are no 'shorter' towers. There are just elevations at which those main towers are larger.

For this site, the Site Plan looks like this:

1713897106384.png


In the elevation drawings below, you can see the greyed out zone over the terraces where the towers narrow:

1713897229215.png
 
Ehhh, not loving these. These will be massive wind tunnels, having 4 twin towers isn't super desirable, no significant retail spaces and only token retail spaces, massive, open-air parking ramps, poor interfaces with adjacent buildings...

At a minimum, we would need wind tunnel concerns addressed at grade, some height differentiation on the towers (maybe 62 and 54 storeys instead?), and something to address the length of the parking ramps. Ideally they interface with their neighbours a bit better too.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Ehhh, not loving these. These will be massive wind tunnels, having 4 twin towers isn't super desirable, no significant retail spaces and only token retail spaces, massive, open-air parking ramps, poor interfaces with adjacent buildings...
Click to expand...

I'll have a closer look at this bit and opionate after.

innsertnamehere said:
At a minimum, we would need wind tunnel concerns addressed at grade, some height differentiation on the towers (maybe 62 and 54 storeys instead?), and something to address the length of the parking ramps. Ideally they interface with their neighbours a bit better too.
Click to expand...

The Wind Study shows no serious problems at grade or on the amenity levels.

1713897911229.png


'Blue' is the ideal, comfortable for sitting; green is one level down at comfortable for standing. No yellows (comfortable for walking) or reds (never comfortable and/or unsafe) **

There are models done for each time of year, and some do have a smattering of yellows, but overall, pretty good.
 
hmm. I'm not sure I believe that as these are 58-storey vertical slabs and have a massive "donut" in the middle to boot - but I'm not a wind expert..
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top