DSC
Superstar
This PERMIT seems to have slipped in under the radar!
- Thread starter .dwg
- Start date
innsertnamehere
Superstar
A technical resubmission was made here in January for those interested. Looks like they are very intent on moving to construction here shortly.
christiesplits
Senior Member
I find the proposal very cold and institutional. It looks like it belongs in a Vaughan office park, not on Toronto's waterfront.
AlbertC
Superstar
Meanwhile, Markham is getting better architecture!
Gallery Towers | 102.51m | 30s | Remington Group | BDP Quadrangle
Picture Taken on 13/02/2024
Amare
Senior Member
Well I mean, that's pretty much what we've been striving for on Toronto's waterfront. Sterile and mediocre is the name of game for the majority of our waterfront unfortunately, and had it not been for Waterfront Toronto our entire waterfront would be the biggest embarrassment of any megacity in the world.
Right now i'd say we're probably in the Top 5 worst.
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
I am beginning to think architects-Alliance (aA) is trying to kill street life in Toronto. They can do high quality (but relatively boring) towers, but their street-level work is atrocious, and somehow getting worse.
St. Lawrence Condos at 158 Front (also aA) is probably the worst new-build retail environment I've seen in Toronto. Glass to the sidewalk, no differentiation between units, exposed mechanical that is visible from the street. There isn't even a way for the retailers to put signage on the exterior of the building--they have to hang it behind the glass. It's a sterile nightmare.
This proposal suffers from all the same deficiencies, but doesn't even have the high ceiling heights at 158 Front.
I am not terribly familiar with planning requirements in this area, but maybe its time the City made some aspects of its retail design manual mandatory.
mburrrrr
Senior Member
Pictures from
Samantha Nippalow Facebook post
Trees cut down. Possible site demo of the old Impark building next? Maybe another larger temporary surface parking lot?
Edit - or maybe they need the new road and any underground parking connections built now?
Samantha Nippalow Facebook post
Trees cut down. Possible site demo of the old Impark building next? Maybe another larger temporary surface parking lot?
Edit - or maybe they need the new road and any underground parking connections built now?
Last edited:
DSC
Superstar
Very interesting, one of the conditions for these developments is widening Lower Sherbourne at the QQE end so it lines up better across QQE and can be returned to two-way for the whole block. . I assume this will now be moving ahead, probably immediately after the City repaves Lower Sherbourne at that point (evidenced by the marks on road!) :->
Northern Light
Superstar
I don't see a demolition permit application on file.
None of the building permits are yet issued, or pending.
DSC
Superstar
I suspect that, based on their size, some of the trees they cut should have needed a permit ....