adHominem
Senior Member
...but you're going to criticize it anyway.
Silly planners, always harping on about basic human needs like privacy or sunlight. Buncha broken records.
- Thread starter waterloowarrior
- Start date
...but you're going to criticize it anyway.
Silly planners, always harping on about basic human needs like privacy or sunlight. Buncha broken records.
Stupidandshallow
Active Member
Your username is quite suitable... I actually said that while I didn't even read the report I could predict what it would cite as issues and I was correct. You're criticism here doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Also, it's really questionable that privacy and sunlight are "basic human needs"... that's a bit of a stretch.
modernizt
Senior Member
1) Your commentary means very little given that you didn't even take time to read the report, as you admit, or familiarize yourself with why the planners are concerned.
2) It's questionable to you that privacy and sunlight are basic human needs? That's... concerning to me.
adHominem
Senior Member
What we have here is a pot/kettle situation.
Nastapoka
Active Member
Windows on (or virtually on) the property line are a perfect example of why planning departments exist. Toronto has a somewhat unfortunate history with this issue but that doesn't mean we should me moving backward. The idea that a project which ignores the welfare of its inhabitants could be a positive urban gesture is just wrong.
Stupidandshallow
Active Member
Ok, I'm glad that my commentary means very little to you.
I commented on the setback and questioned why they are necessary and commented on them seeming arbitrary. @greenleaf was able to point me into the right direction with information relevant to my comment. My having read the document is really irrelevant to what I was criticizing as it doesn't really provide a rationale the way the document @greenleaf linked me to does.
Perhaps it's semantics, but it is definitely pseudoscience to believe that humans need privacy and sunlight. It's nice to have, but not a need, particularly in this context with tall buildings and a busy city block.
hehe good one.
Nastapoka
Active Member
Neither is it necessary to have buildings that ignore principles of good urban design.
The OMB pre-hearing for this site is coming up on Monday, July 25. The proposal they will be discussing, however, is not the one that the City said no to. Humbold has engaged Kirkor to completely redesign. We are trying to get more info on it, but the City hasn't burped up a reply to our inquiry yet.
Here's what we know so far, quoting from the notice of the OMB pre-hearing from Stikeman Elliott, representing Humbold (the Applicant):
Here's the site plan which was included with the notice:
Meanwhile, there's just been the submission to the City for the combined two properties to the east (100 Simcoe & 211 Adelaide St W), and to the west on the Adelaide Street half of the block there's Westbank and Allied's 19 Duncan plan which is also headed to the OMB.
42
Here's what we know so far, quoting from the notice of the OMB pre-hearing from Stikeman Elliott, representing Humbold (the Applicant):
To resolve the issues raised by City staff in their Final Report on the Zoning By-law Amendment application, dated October 22, 2015, the Applicant is proceeding with a revised development scheme (the "Revised Proposal"). To facilitate the Revised Proposal, the Applicant will seek amendments to the By-laws with the purpose and effect of developing a purpose-built office building and boutique hotel with a reduced height of 47 storeys, along with commercial and day nursery uses at the ground and mezzanine levels, all parking provided below ground level, and the opportunity to provide public art and a Privately Owned Public Space along Adelaide Street. These amendments would introduce site-specific exceptions for the Property, which include increasing the permitted maximum building height to 164.8 metres (including mechanical penthouse), reductions to minimum required building setbacks and separation distances, reduced parking requirements, as well as amendments to loading space requirements. The FSI of the Revised Proposal is 23.71 times the area of the lot.
Here's the site plan which was included with the notice:
Meanwhile, there's just been the submission to the City for the combined two properties to the east (100 Simcoe & 211 Adelaide St W), and to the west on the Adelaide Street half of the block there's Westbank and Allied's 19 Duncan plan which is also headed to the OMB.
42
Attachments
Last edited:
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Good find @interchange42. Office and hotel - no residential.
The roof plan also makes it look the kind of garbage they're producing for Daniels out in Mississauga.
The roof plan also makes it look the kind of garbage they're producing for Daniels out in Mississauga.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
DarkSideDenizen
Senior Member
Good design or not, a project of this size and height has very little chance of going forward on this site.
maestro
Senior Member
Roof plan vaguely suggest 23 floors of office and 22 floors of hotel (on top of the daycare facility) Seems odd. I'd be concerned of the applicant wanting to push through height and massing only to come back in five to ten years to swap it back to residential.
LMAO @ "parkette"
LMAO @ "parkette"
ADRM
Senior Member
Extreme emphasis on the "ette."
Ramako
Moderator
What a shame. I really liked the original design.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
25 floors.
To your second point, that's exactly what Humbold want to do here. It's a bait and switch and the city are well aware of it. They are actively opposing at the OMB. I would assume Westbank and the proponent behind 100 Simcoe will appear in support of refusal as well.