saynotofaux
Active Member
It will be interesting to see if the explanation/rationale holds water.
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
It will be interesting to see if the explanation/rationale holds water.
Yegger
Active Member
"In our opinion, the policy doesn't matter." Did i paraphrase correctly?
A little closer up…
Nice and simple. Elegant.
42
Nice and simple. Elegant.
42
SkylineHorizon
Active Member
Not bad and look at that density, starting to look like a downtown core.
cd concept
Senior Member
This elegant building is nice enough to belong on the waterfront. But I think it's too close to the building next door. They should shave a third of it off on the side close the neighboring tower. And add it two the top creating a thin supertall lol.
Towered
Senior Member
Huh??
cd concept
Senior Member
I don't understand what you're getting at respectively!
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The tower looks great - not so convinced by the podium; it looks rather fuzzy. Also the rendering kind of hand-waved the treatment of the glazing level with the floorslabs - I can't imagine they'd use transparent glazing as depicted in the renders.
AoD
AoD
cd concept
Senior Member
I think the podium's design blends in quite seamlessly with the tower! Both podium and tower using the same jagged box cladding idea.
Strange Advance
Active Member
Huh??
Northern Light
Superstar
Not a surprise to some of us.............
But a rarity in this town.......
Refusal Report is headed to the January 6th meeting of NYCC
Everyone listen..........that's the sound of Lifetime's head banging into a wall.
Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-174064.pdf
The short version:
The longer one (or at least a bit of it)
But a rarity in this town.......
Refusal Report is headed to the January 6th meeting of NYCC
Everyone listen..........that's the sound of Lifetime's head banging into a wall.
Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-174064.pdf
The short version:
The longer one (or at least a bit of it)
Msleylar
Active Member
Interesting argument to make, but given the existing site-specific on the site for the removal (and no replacement) of the existing office building I'm not sure it is a successful one. The Growth Plan language is weak in this respect as well, saying only that major office uses will be directed to urban growth centres. By that logic the existing permissions to remove and not replace the use are inconsistent with the Growth Plan.
realpolytics
New Member
How come this proposal has two refusal reports for seemingly the same building? Am I missing something?
Msleylar
Active Member
One was for the ZBA, and one for the OPA which the applicant filed afterwards.
Yegger
Active Member
They should refuse it for a third and fourth time, to be safe.