Great writing in that piece, distilled the important takeaways from the DRP very well.

I kinda wished that the DRP went a bit further in criticism of the cul-de-sac and some of the other elements of the plan, but perhaps this is still a bit early in the design stage. (However, Oxford has made it clear that they want to get moving on this site soon after the Crosstown opens, so it can't be that far behind in planning...)
 
interchange42 said:
Another quote: "…the south residential portion of the site was too confined and not porous enough."

That's not particularly detailed, but to me it screams "What's up with the cul-de-sac?!?!?!" …so good, I'm glad the Panel sees that as an issue. I'm also glad someone on the Panel raised the question of the embodied carbon of the existing buildings (this year's Prtizker winners Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal would be appalled).

Overall, the review sounds like a "hmm, well, meh, maybe?" Not sure it's strong enough to provoke much change.

42
Click to expand...
I don't mind a cul-de-sac for cars as long as it is permeable for pedestrians and cyclists.
 
Member Motion to the next City Council Meeting on May 5th seeking to have the terms of the City's land lease with Oxford made public.


From the above:

1619793423859.png


I don't see why this shouldn't happen.
 
An additional motion on this development also passed at Council:

1620340730720.png


That is curious and rather eyebrow-raising.

The Council was divided on this one...........and not along right/left

Carroll, Wong-Tam, Perruzza voting with Holday, Minnan-Wong and Lai (among others) for the referral.

While Fillion, Perks, Layton voted, along with Tory, Crawford and Ford to oppose referral.

Hmmmmm
 
Northern Light said:
An additional motion on this development also passed at Council:

View attachment 317803

That is curious and rather eyebrow-raising.

The Council was divided on this one...........and not along right/left

Carroll, Wong-Tam, Perruzza voting with Holday, Minnan-Wong and Lai (among others) for the referral.

While Fillion, Perks, Layton voted, along with Tory, Crawford and Ford to oppose referral.

Hmmmmm
Click to expand...
I don’t recall ever seeing a vote on any matter as mixed-bag as this.
 
Northern Light said:
An additional motion on this development also passed at Council:

View attachment 317803

That is curious and rather eyebrow-raising.

The Council was divided on this one...........and not along right/left

Carroll, Wong-Tam, Perruzza voting with Holday, Minnan-Wong and Lai (among others) for the referral.

While Fillion, Perks, Layton voted, along with Tory, Crawford and Ford to oppose referral.

Hmmmmm
Click to expand...
If Canada Square was at TEYCC, then Matlow would be able to vote and move motions at Committee... but Colle and Robinson would not because they are on the NYCC.

None of them are on P&H Committee, so by being moved away from TEYCC - the other Councillors have removed any possible procedural-advantage that Matlow would have on the items about this specific site.
 
A couple of items on this one are headed to the Planning and Housing Committee on June 28th in the form of a supplementary report, to the Preliminary Report seen some months back.

Looks as though the City is looking to ratchet back height in the south-west quadrant, and possibly force a new public road through the site, amongst other things.

I'm indifferent on the height, for the time being; but the additional public street is something that sounds promising in breaking up this super-block.

Report here:

 
Last edited:
I wonder what weight this could hold. The current app has residential uses at ~78% so this would have a huge impact. Oxford likely wouldn't be doing any office here if they didn't have to, so 80% is a big ask.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I wonder what weight this could hold. The current app has residential uses at ~78% so this would have a huge impact. Oxford likely wouldn't be doing any office here if they didn't have to, so 80% is a big ask.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Planning would be beholden to that number.

I do believe that a school is considered a necessity and will be the top priority.

I think the parks clearly need a total re-think, different siting, shape, a greater percentage non-stratified, and less POPs in favour of more Park.

I don't expect to see the total combine Parks/POPs increase substantially.

*****

On office space......as I've outlined repeatedly across multiple threads, and I know you (PE) know this, office space overall remains in high demand in the City.

I think the number could be bumped up here in a way that makes good financial sense for Oxford but the 80% figure likely does not make sense.

I do, however, expect some affordable housing to be in play.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I wonder what weight this could hold. The current app has residential uses at ~78% so this would have a huge impact. Oxford likely wouldn't be doing any office here if they didn't have to, so 80% is a big ask.
Click to expand...

Likely Oxford will simply put the project on hold until they feel they can get a better deal.

They have plenty of lucrative deals on the go or on the precipice (Union Park and others) to focus its time and resources on instead of a development that just had its ROI gutted.
 
Mercenary said:
Can someone summarize what does this mean? Is this getting built ?
Click to expand...

In its exact current form, not likely.

The City is the landowner here, so there is no OLT at play, unless the a neighbour appeals the City's approval.

****

But in a form that is somewhat different, it is highly probable.

But it will be awhile.

Patience.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top