hello
at what part in the process are we at regarding this corner [2CARLTON ]
has it gotten the seal of approval from city hall ?/ , has the shadow marketing started?? ,
it was given a mention today on blogto , [ in conversation with 418b church]
 
hello
at what part in the process are we at regarding this corner [2CARLTON ]
has it gotten the seal of approval from city hall ?/ , has the shadow marketing started?? ,
it was given a mention today on blogto , [ in conversation with 418b church]

Since the office tower is nearly fully occupied; and being actively leased, it would seem doubtful that anything is close at hand.


BlogTO is a source to be treated with a certain skepticism.
 
Approved in principle at LPAT:

Carlton Tower Ltd. v Toronto (City), 2021 CanLII 29000 (ON LPAT)

Settlement proposal:
[5] The Settlement Proposal will facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Lands with a mixed use, tall building proposing a total height of 251.1 metres ("m") including the mechanical penthouse. The proposed building will include: 1,642 square metres ("m²") of retail space on the ground and mezzanine levels, a 792 m² business centre on the 2nd floor as an amenity to the building residents, a minimum of 8,282 m² of office space located on the second through sixth floors, and residential units and amenity space starting at the seventh floor. The residential units will be comprised of a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units with a total of 990 units proposed. The proposed building will have a total of 80,434 m2 which represents a Floor Space Index of 33.3.

[6] The Settlement Proposal includes the dedication of a park across the Carlton Street frontage of the Subject Lands having an area of 238 m².

[7] The proposed retail space will be located along Carlton, Yonge and Wood Streets with a retail lobby located centrally along Yonge Street. The office lobby will be situated on the Carlton Street frontage of the proposed building adjacent to the proposed park and the existing Toronto Transit Commission ("TTC") College subway station entrance and the TTC streetcar stop. The residential entrance lobby is proposed from Wood Street. Access to the underground parking area will be from Wood Street and the service and loading access is proposed from the public lane located along the easterly side of the Subject Lands.

[8] The Applicant has negotiated a Section 37 Agreement with the City, which includes provisions for contributions to: capital improvements for new or existing affordable housing, cultural or recreational facility in the community, local area streetscape capital improvements; and local area park capital improvements.

[23] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in part and the amendments to the Zoning By-law of the City of Toronto are approved in principle.
 
Ok.....this strikes me as odd.........

I noticed this one back in the lobbyist registry.........but it's still IBI/Northam..........so I went to have a look in the AIC to make note if anything was overtly afoot.

Indeed, in February, an application for Sub-division was made.

From the cover letter:

1648738839949.png

Ok, planners.......here.......what's this about?
 
Ok.....this strikes me as odd.........

I noticed this one back in the lobbyist registry.........but it's still IBI/Northam..........so I went to have a look in the AIC to make note if anything was overtly afoot.

Indeed, in February, an application for Sub-division was made.

From the cover letter:

View attachment 389097
Ok, planners.......here.......what's this about?
Tons of bogus plan of subdivision applications were submitted in late-2020 to safeguard against Inclusionary Zoning.
 
I suspect this is to facilitate the necessary road/parkland conveyances to the city. The vertically stratified blocks for resident, commercial, and parking, indicate that they are legal conveniences which provide for any future desires to sell these components as appropriate. Eg. Selling the commercial portion to another holder, while maintaining a use agreement with the "parking structure" corporation to fulfill the requirements of the zoning bylaw.

I might be completely wrong, but nothing particularly strange about the arrangement.
 
Approved in principle at LPAT:

Carlton Tower Ltd. v Toronto (City), 2021 CanLII 29000 (ON LPAT)

Settlement proposal:
"[6] The Settlement Proposal includes the dedication of a park across the Carlton Street frontage of the Subject Lands having an area of 238 m²."

What? How can they fit a "park" (however small) along the Carlton St frontage? This is a major and extremely busy downtown intersection with heavy foot traffic and a subway entrance! Why would they want to put a park in a major commercial intersection? The neighbourhood is extremely short on greenspace, but this is not the spot for it. Though well-intentioned, is the park proposal here even advisable? Isn't it more likely to become an encampment for homeless people (already a major issue here)?

The existing tower is full of commercial tenants, mostly professional services, including my dentist, and is very busy. Though there's a lot of development coming online in the neighbourhood, it includes very little commercial space. One wonders where all these professional and other tenants can move to if they hope to retain clients and continue to provide services to the neighbourhood, which is becoming ever more densely populated. The proposed development provides for only two floors of office space while removing 18 floors (the existing building) of professional offices. If the area is to continue to thrive, it must be able to accommodate a vibrant commercial and professional services community. Or will we have to take the subway up to Sheppard for those services?

Anyway, the proposal has already been approved in principle . . .
 
"[6] The Settlement Proposal includes the dedication of a park across the Carlton Street frontage of the Subject Lands having an area of 238 m²."

What? How can they fit a "park" (however small) along the Carlton St frontage? This is a major and extremely busy downtown intersection with heavy foot traffic and a subway entrance! Why would they want to put a park in a major commercial intersection? The neighbourhood is extremely short on greenspace, but this is not the spot for it. Though well-intentioned, is the park proposal here even advisable? Isn't it more likely to become an encampment for homeless people (already a major issue here)?

The park idea is absurd. It is entirely regrettable that it was pursued as part of this process, there were far better choices nearby either for small additions to existing parks, or small sites (but larger than this) that make sense. Sigh.

At any rate, this is how they proposed to fit the 'park' in:

1648824712449.png


Room for 2 benches, and 2 trees, or thereabouts.........
 
Love this building! The One negative thing I have of this building is that the top part of the building's 45 degree angle part of the facade. Should be turned around facing south so that the last few elite floors would have some sunlight on their balcony Terrace if they exist!
 
The park idea is absurd. It is entirely regrettable that it was pursued as part of this process, there were far better choices nearby either for small additions to existing parks, or small sites (but larger than this) that make sense. Sigh.

At any rate, this is how they proposed to fit the 'park' in:

Room for 2 benches, and 2 trees, or thereabouts.........
Parkland is a bit harder than that, as I know you're well aware...
 

Back
Top