Riseth said:
I'm not even taking this proposal seriously atm. Lots of time and potential for change.
Click to expand...
I maintain it's a ploy to get Mizrahi to buy them out. They're p*ssed about the concrete trucks on Balmuto, and everything else his project is doing to affect their buildings.
 
UpwithOlives said:
I maintain it's a ploy to get Mizrahi to buy them out. They're p*ssed about the concrete trucks on Balmuto, and everything else his project is doing to affect their buildings.
Click to expand...

100% not the case.

What they paid for this assembly leave them seriously underwater if they couldn't get a tower on it.
 
Skyhighzz said:
And I’m fine w ibi building in GTA but NOT downtown. Maybe because I, like most everyone here, follow a lot of architecture sites around the world & I see some of the buildings being proposed in places like London, Chicago, Sydney, Tokyo. Supertalls in big city’s prime downtown areas in 2023 are supposed to be “attractive” w a standout design. And beside The One - which I like- makes it look that much more inferior. A no all around. Looks like Lego. Tall Lego but cheap Lego.
Click to expand...
I mean, I know that you know that you don't actually get to choose which firms design which buildings, but I think it's worth mentioning that IBI won our favourite new building poll a couple years back with the Delta Hotel, smack dab in the heart of Downtown. Their designs for CentreCourt in particular have been well received too... and I'm always one to point out that you can find good buildings from just about any architect in this city, and that it has a lot to do with who their client is in each case.

42
 
Today:

PXL_20230414_165317064.jpg


PXL_20230414_165409126.jpg
 
In rather quick fashion, this one is the subject of a Refusal Report going to the next meeting of TEYCC:


From the above:

1683898531515.png



1683898654188.png

1683898687548.png


Well, that was an expensive thud. LOL

I expect you will see a re-worked idea here, but if they truly paid (as in transaction closed) the sums noted for the properties above, they may be hard-pressed to break even here.

Will be interested to see @ProjectEnd 's take.
 
ProjectEnd said:
This was always going to be the way. I doubt Reserve have any desire to work with the City on this. They'll get their app in to the OLT on day 121 and move ahead there.
Click to expand...

Do you actually think this one stands any change at OLT in anything like its current form? I mean that's a pretty resounding refusal report with a pretty solid case.
 
It'll all depend on which member they draw. Especially with PMTSAs and Bill 23 basically throwing most current municipal planning legislation out the window, it really could go either way on this one. I'm not opposed to huge density here, but this proposal is just lazy, profiteering, garbage so I wish Reserve the worst.
 
They do have a few options to make the proposal at least a bit better. Reducing the floorplate or at least taper it to be 750m2 near the upper portion, adding covered pedestrian walkways i.e. inset the ground floor to gain space. Tough to plant new trees on such a small site, but the parkland dedication in some form could help them there. Shadows (always an issue now) can be fixed with shaping or lose a floor or two since it seems only one time that is the issue tbh is actually a surprise. Adding community space in the podium would also boost their case.
Definitely a long way to go though, but hopeful.
 
The City doesn't usually care about larger plates on taller towers so if everything else were even approaching acceptability here, they'd likely not have even mentioned it. But as is, it's just a component of a much longer laundry list of issues so why not raise it?
 
ProjectEnd said:
The City doesn't usually care about larger plates on taller towers so if everything else were even approaching acceptability here, they'd likely not have even mentioned it. But as is, it's just a component of a much longer laundry list of issues so why not raise it?
Click to expand...
I only mention the plate size as my office has run into this a few times from the City. They were taking issue with the plates being over 750sm, even when the towers (48s-50s), needed a bit extra to accommodate the extra elevators needed to keep that nice ratio of 1/100 or less. It was also in an area that isn't as dense so street sunlight access is less of a problem.

But I agree, it is a long list.
 
I would only observe on the above, that if there were some attempt at what the City is likely to accept by way of separation distances that would necessarily eat into the floor plate size here.

The City's demand for sidewalk/ROW widening on both Bloor and Balmuto would do the same.

I think the City might well accept 20M distance here, but I don't see them going for less.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top