Impressive stuff! King West, from Spadina to John Street (and environs), is going to look so different in the next 5-10 years. All these developments are going to have a huge impact on the streetscape and this section of the skyline.
 
The rendering of 369 King Street West is significantly shorter than the printed rendering I'm currently looking at....
 
interchange42 said:
I'm not certain if 357 and 367 will meet at the property line, or if there is some separation, but...

The portion of 367-369 King which is above the M5V podium will not have a smooth ride, and there's a good chance it will be rejected altogether. M5V residents will scream bloody murder about having apartments only 10 metres away from them, and as it violates the city's 25 metre separation between buildings by over half.

Meanwhile, 357 King could possibly be designed without windows facing 367 (above the podium levels), but I doubt the owners of 357 would be for it either: they probably want as much flexibility as they can get at this point.

42
Click to expand...

Yes, the 367-369 King proposal does go right up to the property line. It will definitely affect the lower western floors of 357-363 King.

As with so many things, the 25 metre separation between towers is a guideline and not an absolute rule. Buyers in M5V who may be affected by this development may want to contact Councillor Vaughan's office in order to be notified of the next community meeting related to this proposal.
 
A 600 square metre floorplate is planned for the proposed tower with a height of 132 metres. Rear laneway parking access.
 
357KingWRender.jpg



369KingWRender.jpg

369 King West
 
So they threw the dart at the dart board, and it landed on an even number, so they recommend rejection.
 
Mongo said:
So they threw the dart at the dart board, and it landed on an even number, so they recommend rejection.
Click to expand...

Or it was because:

The proposal represents an inappropriate development for reasons including:

- The proposal does not have adequate regard to certain matters of Provincial interest as outlined in the Planning Act for reasons discussed in this report;

- The proposal is not consistent with the PPS and does not conform with the Growth Plan for reasons discussed in this report;

- The proposal does not conform with nor maintain the intent of the Official Plan policies, including policies related to built form, or tall buildings, with respect to an appropriate relationship with its context;

- The proposal does not conform with nor maintain the intent of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, including the objectives of ensuring new development is compatible with the built form context of the adjacent buildings, and ensuring that massing provides appropriate proportional relationships;

- The proposal could set a negative precedent that could encourage demolition or significant changes to properties within King-Spadina to achieve significant height increases and/or high densities that bear no resemblance to the in-force planning regime;

- The tower portion of the proposal does not provide appropriate separation from adjacent sites, as required by the City's Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals. The approval of this proposal could compromise the application of the Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals to other sites;

- The proposal provides insufficient or no setback from the side lot lines, which can compromise quality of life for future residents, and the development rights of adjacent landowners; and

- The lack of appropriate yard setbacks or stepbacks compromises Council-approved OPA 2 by exporting facing distance constraints onto adjacent sites;

There is no question that appropriate intensification and development are planning goals in King-Spadina. City Planning staff are prepared to consider development on the site but only in a manner that is respectful of the existing planning policy framework. The proposed massing overwhelm the streetscape and are detrimental to the character of this portion of King Street West. The proposal is inappropriate and unsupportable and does not represent good planning.

- - -

That's the conclusion to the report, and it seems more substantive than your assessment, but you are welcome to try to convince me otherwise.

42
 
That's the conclusion to the report, and it seems more substantive than your assessment, but you are welcome to try to convince me otherwise.

42[/QUOTE]

Boom!
 
Do you know how dictatorships operate? They basically make everything illegal, and then selectively enforce the laws. If you are a "good citizen" and don't make waves, the government will leave you alone (usually). But if you start to make trouble, they will come down on you like a ton of bricks and charge you with a wide range of "crimes" that are on the books, but which are usually not enforced.

I see much the same dynamic in the City's planning reports. There are a huge number of regulations that are on the books, that every development is supposed to follow. Many of them are arbitrary and subjective, it's up to the City planner to determine if the plan is being followed or not. Of course the developer can usually get away with most infringement by handing over a big pile-o-cash for "civic improvements" in the neighbourhood, in exchange for leniency on whatever regulations the City claims that they are breaking. In this case, I suspect that the developer's cash payment was not big enough for the planning department, so they are recommending rejection (which just means that it will be taken to the OMB, who will almost certainly find in favour of the developer).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top