Gee you can"t say no wrong of Toronto City Planning to UT moderators and staff?... i understand

How long should a major land use change take? An hour? A day? A week? A month?

The problem is you keep repeating yourself without provide any real input on how to improve the process and ignore every post that tries to explain the process isn't some conspiracy involving a special council.
we all agree that city is short staffed which is causing all the delays and they need to hire more people, end of the story.
Haha, of course you would have something to say,...yeah, it's sure not 5 years? or even up to 10 years?

Once again you aren't providing context. 40 high rises have been completed per year for the last ten years. Obviously the process isn't impeding development. The property holding companies applying for these dizzying zoning bylaw changes aren't going in blind. So why are you so hung up spouting conspiracies? Afterall, people have to live in the collection of towers creating skylines. Best to the take the time and plan it right. Clearly, I don't think Toronto is doing all that well on the latter point.

It's the same everywhere when major land use changes are applied. The difference is those places have more as of right zoning than Toronto does. The 300m YSL would be mired in "red tape" if proposed on West 57th next to the as of right 450 metre needles going up next door. I'll let you figure out why I brought that up.
Last edited:
Approved at the LPAT.

Some interesting things to note:

After a productive mediation amongst multiple parties, the proposal for the Property is for a 42-storey tower, with a height of 128.95 m

The genius and virtue of the proposal is in the design of the podium. The podium was likened by Mr. Hunter to the trunk of a tree. It steps back to allow retention of the house form structures (120, 122 and 124 Peter Street, and 357-359 Richmond Street West). Those structures are to be restored in accordance with a heritage preservation plan.

In fact, the structures at 122 and 124 Peter Street suffered considerable damage in a recent fire but there is to be salvage of brick and other material to effectively recreate them. The restored structures are intended to be occupied for commercial purposes.

The building at the corner will be removed and replaced with a contemporary element, which will serve as the lobby for the apartment building.

Other points in there note that the floor plates are 648 sq m and the top of the tower is angled to preserve sunlight onto Queen St.
Last edited:
Request for directions Report on this proposal to next Council Mtg.

Now contains a hotel.




I like the big rectangular cut out in the side of the house. The juxtaposition of styles between Toronto's current condo style and Toronto's Victorian buildings is in particular a kind of awkward one IMO and creative interactions like this I think help them feel more comfortable and new together.
Strangely enough, I think that this bricolage-city creates an interesting and humanly-scaled urban form stemming from the retention of the smaller Victorian buildings.

The inherent inefficiencies and requirements for architectural separation and contrast (where modernism thrives) create more architectural moments and pronounced breaks in the form and texture than most urbanistic clean-slate developments seen elsewhere.

Of course, this can be badly done (like at Tableau across the street) and not everything needs to be kept, but with a competent architect, old and new can be curated and integrated into a greater whole. And there's more than enough room in Toronto for clean-slate developments as well (like down at the waterfront!).

Interesting note- the house that burnt down is being rebuilt- thought the city would write it off as a loss.
Last edited:
I enjoy these facadectomies mainly for the retention of human scale.

I don't know if they necessarily do respect for the heritage Victorians, but it is certainly a unique Toronto solution. I suppose it makes our city more interesting.
I don't know if they necessarily do respect for the heritage Victorians, but it is certainly a unique Toronto solution. I suppose it makes our city more interesting.

Definitely willing to be wrong on this opinion, but I don't think there's any way around it due to the size-differences and demands on the lot sizes- even avoiding skin-deep facadism, the tower will always dominate in scale, and any contemporary design cues pulled from the Victorians will either be abstracted beyond the understanding of the average pedestrian, or overly slavish.

Probably the most respectful site is at Mirvish Village, but most sites do not have the luxury of space like that project.

I'd just see it as a uniquely Toronto sort of thing to be fascinated about and might be the product of an urban consciousness/anxiety. Maybe aside from Montreal, most sizable cities in North America (even New York) are willing to go the clean-slate route, and most suffer for it.
Last edited:
The heritage building on Peter st. was burnt and demolished last year. Why is it still in rendering?