Another bit... this tower proposal got a 'Future Project Award' nod from our Chi-Town friends at the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH).

Bear in mind there was no mention that this is one of 12 Future Project Awards ... and 1 of about 7,000* awards/category winners ;) announced by the CTBUH.



*actually a 128 awards
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3Dementia said:
Another bit... this tower proposal got a 'Future Project Award' nod from our Chi-Town friends at the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH).

Bear in mind there was no mention that this is one of 12 Future Project Awards ... and 1 of about 7,000* awards/category winners ;) announced by the CTBUH.

https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-toronto/2023/06/307-lake-shore-boulevard-toronto/

*actually a 128 awards
Click to expand...
If giving the Future Project design an award forces/shames the developer into actually building what's on the drawings and not value engineering/Torontoing it to death then I'll incorporate a new org to start giving out awards to any half-ambitious proposal drawings in this city
 
DSC said:
Coming to TEYCC in 2 weeks

Agenda Item History 2023.TE7.11

Agenda Item History 2023.TE7.11
secure.toronto.ca
Click to expand...

As an Appeals Report, with staff recommended to oppose this application at OLT.

From said report:

1694097039269.png


***

1694097146365.png


1694097174556.png


Comments: Very rare to see the Wind Conditions labelled as 'Unsafe' not merely unpleasant, that is obviously a mandatory fix here.

@HousingNowTO tends to think Planning is too much of a 'Dr. No' but I imagine would support Planning in opposing watering down requirements for affordable housing here.

On separation distances, you clearly must have some time of limiting distance agreement or other coordination if you're going to propose something might otherwise result in sub-20M separation.

I think the applicant has serious challenges here on that last one.
 
25 metre separation from what? As it appears the only tower proposed for that corner.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
25 metre separation from what? As it appears the only tower proposed for that corner.
Click to expand...

You have to look back in the thread to understand this, I'll bring the image forward:

1694102042193.png


The request here is essentially for the site you see labelled as #8; but WT already has permission for the buildings noted as #6, on both sides of this site.

There's your separation issue.
 
Northern Light said:
You have to look back in the thread to understand this, I'll bring the image forward:

View attachment 504871

The request here is essentially for the site you see labelled as #8; but WT already has permission for the buildings noted as #6, on both sides of this site.

There's your separation issue.
Click to expand...
I am still not sure I am getting this, as the proposal for this thread seems to be the most easterly #6...which appears currently unaffected by this conundrum (nor does it look like anything that's being proposed here). And I'm not sure how the spacing between the other #6 and #8 just west of this can't be resolved by simply repositioning #8 at a different angle...

...sorry, perhaps my issue is that I am trying to compare this to the general map used for the UT database I am using as a reference here. >.<
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I am still not sure I am getting this, as the proposal for this thread seems to be the most easterly #6...which appears currently unaffected by this conundrum (nor does it look like anything that's being proposed here). And I'm not sure how the spacing between the other #6 and #8 just west of this can't be resolved by simply repositioning #8 at a different angle...

...sorry, perhaps my issue is that I am trying to compare this to the general map used for the UT database I am using as a reference. >.<
Click to expand...

This is the 8, not the 6.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I am still not sure I am getting this, as the proposal for this thread seems to be the most easterly #6...which appears currently unaffected by this conundrum (nor does it look like anything that's being proposed here). And I'm not sure how the spacing between the other #6 and #8 just west of this can't be resolved by simply repositioning #8 at a different angle...

...sorry, perhaps my issue is that I am trying to compare this to the general map used for the UT database I am using as a reference here. >.<
Click to expand...

Parliament is being moved as part of the Quayside proposal. The rendering shows the building with the current Parliament alignment.
 
Well, okay...the planned re-arrangement of the furniture would explain why that map sampled is not representative of how things are. Thank you for least that clarification. /bows
 
Northern Light said:
As an Appeals Report, with staff recommended to oppose this application at OLT.

From said report:

View attachment 504828

@HousingNowTO tends to think Planning is too much of a 'Dr. No' but I imagine would support Planning in opposing watering down requirements for affordable housing here.
Click to expand...
My assumption is that this building never actually gets built --- it's mostly "a paper project" to increase the land-value before it get absorbed into the larger Quayside project next-door.

I can't see anyone reducing the Affordable Housing requirements on this land... that said, if they make it 100% "purpose built rental" then even under Inclusionary Zoning, there would be 0% affordable renal units --- and I would be OK with whatever it takes to create more "purpose built rental" in that area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top