maxt797
Active Member
This is ***** **** ****** incredible. Love every bit of it.
- Thread starter smably
- Start date
And in case you haven't seen our front page story, it be here. Database file has larger versions of some renderings.
42
42
maestro
Senior Member
This is just bad. It's just the wrong location to build an island resort. Let's see some finer grained urbanism like Honest Eds. I'm not surprised by it. This is a real estate trust created by a company usually occupying suburban big box format. It's a little scary. This is only the first big reveal in this new real estate direction and after the buyout of CREIT. They have more properties in our urban core to turn into Humber Bay Shores.
jaco_says
New Member
The same people that designed Honest Eds is designing this. Looks like the same quality to me. They had a ton more renders at the presentation and have clearly given it a lot of thought. The community at the meeting was overall very much in favour of the design, a first for me.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
How did they react to the densities? The site plan looks great, but the densities are very aggressive.
jaco_says
New Member
There were some that objected, and some that were pro. Kind of a 50/50 split.
The developer showed what they called the tent height which is a 45deg angle projected out from the surrounding homes and in general all the buildings fell within that. Apparently this is a city policy that is used to determine height appropriateness. There a little bit here and there that poked out, but they said they were still working on it.
I assume that some height will get trimmed because that is the city's MO at all times. Didn't particularly feel excessive to me. They are certainly providing lot of community benefits in exchange for the height, and I would hope Perks would ask for more affordable units rather than a height reduction.
The developer showed what they called the tent height which is a 45deg angle projected out from the surrounding homes and in general all the buildings fell within that. Apparently this is a city policy that is used to determine height appropriateness. There a little bit here and there that poked out, but they said they were still working on it.
I assume that some height will get trimmed because that is the city's MO at all times. Didn't particularly feel excessive to me. They are certainly providing lot of community benefits in exchange for the height, and I would hope Perks would ask for more affordable units rather than a height reduction.
smably
Senior Member
From the front-page story:
Not sure if it's exactly the same thing, but Mirvish Village has a cycle-in bike valet system (including a bike elevator).
Not sure if it's exactly the same thing, but Mirvish Village has a cycle-in bike valet system (including a bike elevator).
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Mirvish is only considering the bike elevator - they have enough bike parking in traditional configurations to meet zoning. They are reserving the right to kill it if it comes out being extremely expensive. A proper cycle in ramp is certainly going to be built though.
maestro
Senior Member
The approach to the masterplans aren't alike at all. One does everything to integrate with the established community while the other is building an island. It doesn't matter if both were planned by the same people or if the stand in towers have the usually H+P level of competence.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Just discussing this with an Architect Prof. I live a block away from there, and the only real concern I have at this point is the disappearance of the access through Castlepoint's development on the east side of the tracks to the new GO Lansdowne stop, and how the City should impose that agreed access on Castlepoint (ostensibly through the OMB, or whatever the new name is) and the *height* of the proposed buildings, not the density per-se.
The renderings, as always, are way over the top in what which actually happen, and the school involved is hardly known for conscientiously behaved students, it would be impossible to keep the greens portrayed in that matter, but compared to the shit-hole parking lot and fourth world conditions there now, this is like day and night. I support it, and there's not many projects I do. Westons have gone the extra mile and more to consult and work with the community. Compare that to the obnoxious piece of poo-poo (and others) proposed at and around Howard Park and Roncy. Westons get top marks for this, and it's not only a good "neighbourhood" project, ultimately, that's excellent business sense. Who would want to be part of some disgusting, thoughtless imposition on such a prime neighbourhood?
Height has to come down, as it almost always does, but Crossways have already set the bar at 30 stories almost fifty years ago. Any concern about 'looming towers' has already been violated half a century ago.
THIS is the place to put density. But it does have to be done right. And it looks like it will be if the present tack is sustained by Westons.
steveintoronto
Superstar
I took the reference the opposite way, albeit I might be mistaken. 2280 is making every attempt to integrate for *pedestrians and cyclists* with the adjacent neighbourhood. My one concern there is the now apparently disappeared walking/cycling access across Castlepoint's development, albeit I know Castlepoint's come-back (with some justification) is that the City dropped the ball on it.
Hopefully @maestro can clarify.
vic
Senior Member
Back to this topic: It doesn't look like there's a full-size sports field / track on top of the school. I don't think you could have a soccer/football game up there. The way it's terraced would prevent that. Appears to just be garden / green space.
steveintoronto
Superstar
I have read reference to it being the case, a substitute for what now exists, which is sinfully under-utilized and not available to the public. I see it used every time the fire alarm goes off at Bishop 'Rocko for stacking students outside.
Is it a shame to lose that green space? Well, yes, but it's a crime for it not being used. God knows a lot of the kids I see at Rockos could certainly use the exercise. That building, btw, is owned by the TSB, and leased to the Catholic board.
Addendum: I do keep looking at the overhead rendering, and how the software always makes them look like theme parks...and I'm intrigued as to 'how so much stuff can be packed into that space'....
The trick is simple: Subtract the cars as much as possible. And perhaps, with Weston and the City (and I'm assured they do have latitude under the Planning Act. I thought otherwise until discussing this with architects/planners) wanting to show how progressive and world leading this could be....maybe, just maybe with continued local neighbourhood consultation and outreach, it could be *almost entirely car free!*
Can it be done? Absolutely. But will it? And who (hrrummph...Ford...cough) could stop QP from getting behind this? Westons, of all people, could kosher favour from the Feds, QP and City to make this a prototype (for Canada) project.
Getting that many people (proposed density) onto Roncy in cars is going to be an impossible task. God knows just as a parking lot what an absolute shit-show that area is to Roncy.
If you aren't assertive, bordering on aggressive, walking across that merge, some of the drivers will run right into you. For a vehicular friendly project, 2280 is impossible.
Last edited: