allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,316
Reaction score
3,111
As per the above, I would rather a project go simpler in design and merely injected some colour instead (blasphemy in Toronto, I know).

The ground level is how I interact with most projects when completed, and it is a make or break for whether or not the project contributes positively to the urban realm.
100% agree. I would be much a happier if architects/developers understood the cost constraints and came up with as simple a design that maximized the ground-level urban realm.

Maybe that’s impossible for the cost enevelopes given.
 

ferusian

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
437
Reaction score
2,695
City:
Toronto
Site Plan Approval application submitted:

Development Applications

Updated project description:
Site Plan approval for an 80-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gorss floor area of 75,002.35 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 41,861.86 square metres. A total of 588 purpose built rental units are proposed.
  • The SPA description notes a fairly substantial increase in non-residential (+11,754 sq. metres) & residential (+2,276 sq. meters) GFA compared to the initial submission, while the building's height remains unchanged. Larger floorplate?
 

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
18,037
Reaction score
42,102
City:
Toronto
New supporting docs were posted on June 8, 2021. From a visual scan of the renderings found within the docs, I couldn't see any substantial exterior changes to what is already available in the UT database profile.



There's a virtual community consultation meeting coming up for October 4, 2021:




Event Information: 212-220 King Street West - Community Consultation Meeting

Date and time:Monday, October 4, 2021 7:00 pm
Eastern Daylight Time (Toronto, GMT-04:00)
Change time zone
Duration:2 hours
Description:
The City Planning Division has received an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the lands located at 212-220 King Street West.

The proposal seeks to redevelop the site with an 80-storey mixed-use development that partially conserves the three heritage buildings on site, adds 588 purpose built rental units, 74,130 square metres of office space and 872 square metres of retail space.

You can view the Preliminary Report at: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-165315.pdf
 

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
18,037
Reaction score
42,102
City:
Toronto
Meat & Pie Co. are closing their 212 King West location here as they've chosen not to renew their lease, considering some uncertainties of the location with this development coming up in the pipeline:



Screenshot_20211203-081749_Instagram.jpg
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,109
Reaction score
1,144
Mannn !! If these developers build this project the way it's going to look on the rendering in the thumbnail photo box on the top of this page . This building is going to be very rich looking on King St ! Starting with those ivory detailed columns paneling etc!
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,737
Reaction score
29,425
City:
Toronto
Overly thin supertalls often end up looking like smokestacks , especially compared to the larger floorplate buildings in the MINT core.

Thinner isnt always better.
Agreed in principle, but this one doesn't look too thin to me. In the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Site Plan Approval application submitted:

Development Applications

Updated project description:

  • The SPA description notes a fairly substantial increase in non-residential (+11,754 sq. metres) & residential (+2,276 sq. meters) GFA compared to the initial submission, while the building's height remains unchanged. Larger floorplate?
The looks question comes down to this though… what about the building changed?

I've just gone through the SPA documents from June, and there's no material change to the building plans.The difference comes from totals for how the building is counted under by-law 569-2013 and by-law 438-86, which see the same building differently.

Question for any professional planners out there… although submissions have to come with both sets of numbers filled in, is there generally one set that's used commonly and the other just considered a complicating annoyance? How does it play out in the real world?

42
 
Last edited:

Southcore

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
620
Reaction score
85
Meat & Pie Co. are closing their 212 King West location here as they've chosen not to renew their lease, considering some uncertainties of the location with this development coming up in the pipeline:



View attachment 366699
There’s a really good crepe place running a ghost kitchen out of this space, called O’Frenchy. Hopefully they stick around as long as they can.
 

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
2,935
Agreed in principle, but this one doesn't look too thin to me. In the eye of the beholder I suppose.

42
Also agree. I really don't like New Yorks super slenders but this looks fine to me. Not only is it not too thin, it's only thin from 2 sides not all 4 and it is wide at the base before narrowing halfway up.

Personally for tall buildings, certainly ones that reach supertall status, I much prefer that they taper the higher they get. Obviously everyone has different opinions but I think a 300m building that has the same proportions all the way up. I know it's obviously structurally safe but I just feel like tall buildings are supposed to get narrower the higher they go. It's why bank of china tower is one of my favorite buildings off all time, and also what I love about the sears tower for example.

In the case of this building, I'd imagine the easiest/most likely way they get the extra floor space is simply by extending the wide base floorplate up a few more floors, rather than altering the overall proportions of the building.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,737
Reaction score
29,425
City:
Toronto
In the case of this building, I'd imagine the easiest/most likely way they get the extra floor space is simply by extending the wide base floorplate up a few more floors, rather than altering the overall proportions of the building.
As I said in the second part of that post of mine you quoted, they are not adding extra floor space. @ferusian was comparing numbers from the 438 bylaw to numbers from the 569 bylaw. The two bylaws count the same amount of space differently. They are not adding more space.

42
 

Art Tsai

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
478
Reaction score
1,602
No new renderings are updated in the database! The overall building storey count and building height remain the same. The minor change is the total unit count was reduced from 588 units to 569 units. The total parking count increased slightly from 92 parking spaces to 93 parking spaces.
 

Top